Religion as Self Fulfilling Prophecy

[Aupmanyav]

Jaspers points out that as people question reality, they confront borders that an empirical (or scientific) method simply cannot transcend. At this point, the individual faces a choice: sink into despair and resignation,

I see no reason why an individual should sink into despair and resignation. Where do you want to transcend? Will this transcending allow you to live for ever? This desire to transcend is the root of the problem. We are social animals. Live the life as it is thrown to you in the best possible social way.

 

[otherbrother]

I see no reason why an individual should sink into despair and resignation. Where do you want to transcend? Will this transcending allow you to live for ever? This desire to transcend is the root of the problem. We are social animals. Live the life as it is thrown to you in the best possible social way.

Endorphins aid the strain of running. Hot spices also invite either endorphins or some similar natural “joy juice.” Strain and suffering is a natural part of living as a physical and sentient being. So too is transcendence in order to offset the suffering (as sometimes symbolized by death. The sting of failure and loss is similar to the sting of death, which also represents a removal from the social relationships you rightly value. But a spiritual aspect of self transcends that separation, possibly by a non local means similar to the Communion of Saints or collective unconscious or “Everlasting Group Mind.” I still maintain however that non local does not mean non self, but rather means Greater Self or True Self—the deeper aspect of being that does allow us to be our own guru and prophet.
I dovetail the line of thought about a God Function of a transcendent nature in a new thread, God as Comforter. Check it out.
If I am correct, your branch of Hinduism does allow for a use of a softly held (or temporary?) belief in a deity if it helps a person connect with an Ultimate Reality of the nature of Brahman. Again, if correct (and that admittedly is a big IF), your branch allows for use of God, just not dependency on it or taking it too literally. This qualification is more in line with a-theism, as in “asocial,” “asexual,” etc. And it conforms to our social nature that you rightly address.

 

[Thomas]

How can I give God a use here in my life in this physical dimension?

Oooh, careful! I would rather have thought 'how can I be of use to God?' rather than 'how can God be of use by me?' (That does rather, at face value, smack of pride?) And surely the idea of 'using' God is way off the mark – God is not a utility.

Until I use God, I can only do my work for God, not necessarily God’s work through me.

Ah – I see – the two are the same. Your 'work for God' is 'God's work' and, where God's work is, there God is, in that God is actually everywhere.

Matthew 25:40:
"And in reply the King will say to them, 'Amen, I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me'."

And 1 John 4 – it's a short chapter, but most apposite.

I also think it brings us round to the idea of 'the experience of God' – if there is no experience of God working through us, then where does that leave you?

Having said that, I continue to believe that it is counterproductive to insist that God is outside of self ... That means also no longer thinking of God as a separate being. Separation is but part of the illusion to see beyond, to transcend.

I think, from an Abrahamic perspective, while God is not separate to the individual self, God is not the individual self.

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation,"
Hart notes that the Greek phrasing πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (prototokos pasés ktiseds) can be translated as "of every creature the firstborn" or "born prior to all creation [every creature]." This last reading may accord best with the following verse’s assertion that all things were
created in Christ – "because in him were created all things in the heavens and on earth ... all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him" (16-18).

In the language of the Fathers, Christ is the Logos of God, and in Him are the logoi of all things – the 'idea' of every thing that has been, is, or is yet to be.

So prior to and underpinning the self is its logoi, as a kind of blueprint, the 'image and likeness' in the Eternal Divine of a created and contingent creature – thus the creature is not its logoi, the two are not the same thing, in that sense the self's logoi is its Alpha and Omega, it is that out of which the self arose 'ex nihilo', and that in which it finds its true end and rest.

+++

There is a continuity of being, but the source of my being will always be a mystery to me, I arose out of darkness, and unto darkness I will return, that kind of thing.

+++

 

[Aupmanyav]

God as Comforter. Check it out.
If I am correct, your branch of Hinduism does allow for a use of a softly held (or temporary?) belief in a deity if it helps a person connect with an Ultimate Reality of the nature of Brahman. Again, if correct (and that admittedly is a big IF), your branch allows for use of God, just not dependency on it or taking it too literally. This qualification is more in line with a-theism, as in “asocial,” “asexual,” etc. And it conforms to our social nature that you rightly address.

I do not need any comforter.
But yes, you are correct that Hinduism does allow the use of softly (or hardly) held belief in a deity (or in a multitude of deities, not limited just to male or female).
As for my own belief, it is strictly non-dual. I give no space to God, soul, heaven, hell, end of days, judgment, deliverance, etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think, from an Abrahamic perspective, while God is not separate to the individual self, God is not the individual self.

Agreed upon..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agreed upon..

You should not, dear friend. Islam does not give you authority to make 'unholy' conjectures. Only what was revealed to Muhammad (ṣallā -llāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam).

"Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Come! Let me recite to you what your Lord has forbidden to you: do not associate others with Him ˹in worship˺. ˹Do not fail to˺ honour your parents. Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for you and for them. Do not come near indecencies, openly or secretly. Do not take a ˹human˺ life - made sacred by Allah - except with ˹legal˺ right. This is what He has commanded you, so perhaps you will understand."
Surah Al-Anam/151

 

[muhammad_isa]

You should not, dear friend. Islam does not give you authority to make 'unholy' conjectures. Only what was revealed to Muhammad (ṣallā -llāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam)..

We have been given an intelligence to use..
"G-d is closer to you than your jugular vein."

 

[otherbrother]

Oooh, careful! I would rather have thought 'how can I be of use to God?' rather than 'how can God be of use by me?' (That does rather, at face value, smack of pride?) And surely the idea of 'using' God is way off the mark – God is not a utility.

This is wonder-full. Again, two sincere minds disagreeing, but (at least in my case, and probably in yours also ) finding some merit in what each other is saying. I agree that there is risk of ego contamination in my preferred belief/approach about God. Now I can offer something that could be useful both here and in the Do We Choose Our Beliefs thread:
Humans develop socially and interpersonally (which to me is a subset of “social”) through 3 stages:
Dependence
Independence
Interdependence (one could speculate a fourth, interINdependece, stage, but that can wait for later).

The clinical experience of the guilt ridden client who was relieved to hear my opinion that we are free to conceptualize God I. whatever way rings true to us, and/or works for us) showed me how psychologically damaging lower/rigid forms of religion can be. From this point on, my preference was to liberate people from the dependency stage of religious conceptualization and life-shaping practice (herminutics? Sp?). I CHOOSE the belief that God is a useful tool or a destructive device (weapon, poison), according to how it either frees us to grow/develop or stunts our growth. Modern culture may be stuck in the independence stage, but that stage is the stepping stone for the stage that I (and probably you also) long for: interdependence. All my life, church painted a picture of a world based on love. Even though I soon discovered that some conditional love tribalism was contaminating the concept of a kingdom of love. it was the future world I decided to try to help bring about. Later in life, as I noticed people being culturally shaped by a world singing in the key of competition, competition, competition, I began to doubt the Church’s sincerity about facilitating a loving world. No intentional culture shaping or system shaping was being offered by the Church, other than advocating something that seemed stuck in the tribal/traditional/authoritarian dependency stage.
As a person who is concerned with the welfare of fellow human beings (all of them. not just some of them), I chose to promote spiritual EMPOWERMENT. It is something an independent individual needs in order to fully enter into interdependence and a culture and society based on caring and love. Only via spiritual empowerment can a person give of themselves with a glad heart towards shaping the heaven on earth that Christians (and all truly spiritual people) are called to do.
So, using a cost/benefit analysis of sorts, I choose to embrace metaphysical speculations/theories that promote spiritual empowerment rather than those that lean towards conforming to moral standards (dependence stage orientation). To me, true morality (with a glad heart and full appreciation and understanding) can only come about after a person, as an individual, chooses Love.
So the potentially heavy “cost” of an egoist praying for God to give her (Janice Joplin!) a Mercedes Benz, is for me outweighed by the potential benefits of wholeheartedly and eyes-wide-openly choosing Love.
I don’t know what my client ended up doing with my advice. She may have later chosen to put the mental shackles back on. Being an individual with free will might have been a bridge too far for her, since she had been indoctrinated (and her friends and family) in the dependency stage. But I would like to think my intervention became a developmental stepping stone for her to fully embrace God’s love (or just “Love,”
if it moved her to become an atheist or agnostic).

 

[otherbrother]

I do not need any comforter.
But yes, you are correct that Hinduism does allow the use of softly (or hardly) held belief in a deity (or in a multitude of deities, not limited just to male or female).
As for my own belief, it is strictly non-dual. I give no space to God, soul, heaven, hell, end of days, judgment, deliverance, etc.

I have no problem with that, as long as it works for you. I don’t like gaps either, but do continue to relate to Ultimate Reality as though a person, or, rather as a Mind similar to my mind that I have as a person. mind to Mind comes closest to what I use to reach out and connect with Everything so that I have a sense of extra resources with which to approximate a mastering of life. But as I am saying over and over again (quite willing to beat a dead horse), it is the “God” Function that I am most focused on. How can I make the Unknown or Ultimate Reality or Deepest Base of Being WORK for me? I was accidentally unfair to Thomas when I reacted to his comment about the risk of selfishly using God (you would probably agree that that is one of the negative side effects of duality, and I don’t totally disagree with that either), since he soon acknowledged that if my use of God was to go towards being a better worker for God, then yes, of course use God. Or it could be use the unknown from which new ideas and strategies emerge. If my desire is to help make a better, more loving, world, then my use of deity (imagined or not) or unknown is more worthwhile than if I use it to get rich or powerful of famous or even comfortable for comfort’s sake (depending on comfort).

 

[Aupmanyav]

If my desire is to help make a better, more loving, world, ..

I have no such platonic ambitions. I would let the world be like it is.

 

[Tr43]

Romans chapter 9. God is sovereign. Whom He has mercy on and those he doesn't. Vessels of wrath are not spiritual individuals. God won't interfere with those who have free will.

2 Corinthians chapter 4:4. Describe Satan as having blinded minds of unbelievers. Preventing them from seeing truth of the gospel. Its the gouging out of the eyes. Is metaphor of Satan influence on those who don't believe in Jesus.

Proverbs 5::21. For your ways are in full view of the Lord, and he examines all your paths.
5:22. The evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them, the cords of there sins hold them fast.

There own sins destroy them. They won't repent. They hate God and body of Christ.

 

[Longfellow]

I have no problem with that, as long as it works for you. I don’t like gaps either, but do continue to relate to Ultimate Reality as though a person, or, rather as a Mind similar to my mind that I have as a person. mind to Mind comes closest to what I use to reach out and connect with Everything so that I have a sense of extra resources with which to approximate a mastering of life. But as I am saying over and over again (quite willing to beat a dead horse), it is the “God” Function that I am most focused on. How can I make the Unknown or Ultimate Reality or Deepest Base of Being WORK for me? I was accidentally unfair to Thomas when I reacted to his comment about the risk of selfishly using God (you would probably agree that that is one of the negative side effects of duality, and I don’t totally disagree with that either), since he soon acknowledged that if my use of God was to go towards being a better worker for God, then yes, of course use God. Or it could be use the unknown from which new ideas and strategies emerge. If my desire is to help make a better, more loving, world, then my use of deity (imagined or not) or unknown is more worthwhile than if I use it to get rich or powerful of famous or even comfortable for comfort’s sake (depending on comfort).

I've gone through a variety of ways of thinking about God. Where I am now is learning to use not God, but the word "God" in the ways that it is used in my scriptures, to better learn from them and for them to do all they can for me to serve better.

 

[Longfellow]

Oooh, careful! I would rather have thought 'how can I be of use to God?' rather than 'how can God be of use by me?' (That does rather, at face value, smack of pride?) And surely the idea of 'using' God is way off the mark – God is not a utility.


Ah – I see – the two are the same. Your 'work for God' is 'God's work' and, where God's work is, there God is, in that God is actually everywhere.

Matthew 25:40:
"And in reply the King will say to them, 'Amen, I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me'."

And 1 John 4 – it's a short chapter, but most apposite.

I also think it brings us round to the idea of 'the experience of God' – if there is no experience of God working through us, then where does that leave you?


I think, from an Abrahamic perspective, while God is not separate to the individual self, God is not the individual self.

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation,"
Hart notes that the Greek phrasing πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (prototokos pasés ktiseds) can be translated as "of every creature the firstborn" or "born prior to all creation [every creature]." This last reading may accord best with the following verse’s assertion that all things were
created in Christ – "because in him were created all things in the heavens and on earth ... all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him" (16-18).

In the language of the Fathers, Christ is the Logos of God, and in Him are the logoi of all things – the 'idea' of every thing that has been, is, or is yet to be.

So prior to and underpinning the self is its logoi, as a kind of blueprint, the 'image and likeness' in the Eternal Divine of a created and contingent creature – thus the creature is not its logoi, the two are not the same thing, in that sense the self's logoi is its Alpha and Omega, it is that out of which the self arose 'ex nihilo', and that in which it finds its true end and rest.

+++

There is a continuity of being, but the source of my being will always be a mystery to me, I arose out of darkness, and unto darkness I will return, that kind of thing.

+++

I ... do continue to relate to Ultimate Reality as though a person, or, rather as a Mind similar to my mind that I have as a person. mind to Mind comes closest to what I use to reach out and connect with Everything so that I have a sense of extra resources with which to approximate a mastering of life. But as I am saying over and over again (quite willing to beat a dead horse), it is the “God” Function that I am most focused on. How can I make the Unknown or Ultimate Reality or Deepest Base of Being WORK for me? I was accidentally unfair to Thomas when I reacted to his comment about the risk of selfishly using God (you would probably agree that that is one of the negative side effects of duality, and I don’t totally disagree with that either), since he soon acknowledged that if my use of God was to go towards being a better worker for God, then yes, of course use God. Or it could be use the unknown from which new ideas and strategies emerge. If my desire is to help make a better, more loving, world, then my use of deity (imagined or not) or unknown is more worthwhile than if I use it to get rich or powerful of famous or even comfortable for comfort’s sake (depending on comfort).

I'm not at all sure of understanding this conversation between the two of you, so I'm not sure how relevant this will be. One way I think of what I'm doing with the word "God," is trying to learn to use it the way it's used in my scriptures, to help me learn more and better from them and for them to do all they can with me, in service to the kingdom. I'm not sure how well or consistently I'm doing that, but I came around to that as the best way of using that word.

Random thoughts:
- If there's a question of what God I'm talking about, it's whatever or whomever the Bible calls "God of Abraham."
- One way I think of the word "God" is as a collection of metaphors used in my scriptures, imagining us and the world around us as being continually created by someone. That is not to say that there is no such being, only that everything He tells us about Himself is purely metaphorical.
- I think that some confusion is created by people using the same name for various conceptions of a supreme being, ultimate reality or cosmic consciousness that is used for the creator in Bible stories, when they aren't even trying to understand what the Bible is saying about Him. That isn't about you two, I haven't seen any reason to think that you're doing that. Also, it isn't to say that people shouldn't do that, the word "God" isn't copyrighted and I wouldn't want it to be. Just that it results in confusion and misunderstandings.
- Jesus calls His gospel "gospel of the kingdom," and my current understanding of that is people seeing God in Him and moved by that to learn together to live the way He says to live. That revolves around service, and in the Bible they are called "servants," so it means a lot to me to see you talking about service.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Romans chapter 9. .. They hate God and body of Christ.

An atheist Hindu here. I have a different views.

 

[Longfellow]

I have no such platonic ambitions. I would let the world be like it is.

In my story, there is a part of you that wants to help make the world better for everyone. It's a part of human nature.

 

[otherbrother]

An atheist Hindu here. I have a different views.

I tend to think of praying to God as a “good” thing that bears good fruit, but also realize how judging things good or bad can foster duality and gaps and contradictory emotions and thoughts that move us away from peace. So I also value practicing neutral mind states (“isness”?) in which no judgment of good or bad is taking place. The way I reconcile the two settings is that good and bad is for surface reality, whereas isness is a deeper state.