What if any belief system am I in or closest to?

[Baz]

Anybody else uncertain what they are? I am.
Not that I am that much bothered about giving a name to my beliefs, but it would give me some idea if I’m eligible for certain debates or user groups. (not that I wouldn’t try to put in my penny’s worth if I fancied).
There was a time when I called myself an Agnostic; I still believe that the truth about many things, especially god is unknowable but have moved more to calling myself a Theist.
Having followed this site for a little while I am wondering if Deist would not be a better description of my beliefs!

Can anybody help?

A very simple run down of what I believe regarding god is;
God is creation and came about as part of the first anything.
God is and always will be present while anything exists.
God is everywhere and is the supreme intelligence.
We can communicate with god in some way, but god is not necessarily conscious of us doing so.
God has no influence on the physical word other than being the reason it works the way it does.
On a very personal level, If I have pain for instance, I think that god can help me understand why I have the pain and possibly guide my response to it but can no way change it’s being (same with anything else).
I suppose you could say that I think of god as the brain and I am a thought process but the physicality is the other way round.
I prey to my god often, usually for understanding and clarity of some sort; I find this helps me see things differently in some way.

So apart from confused; what am I?
By the way if the definition of a Christian could be just following the moral teachings of Christ I suppose I could be one of them, as well as many other religions.

Just a friendly note to some camps; I am not looking for any replies relating to deluded or insane.

To reiterate I have two questions;
1/ What if any belief system am I in or closest to?
2/ Is there anybody else that doesn’t really know what to call there self.

[McCulloch]

Baz, you're in luck. Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Theism says that you believe that there may be a god, agnosticism says that you are not certain.

By saying that God is creation you might be a Pantheist or a Panentheist.

By asserting that God in intelligent, you move away from Deism. However your belief that God has no influence on the physical word other than being the reason it works the way it does, is very classically Deist.

I am puzzled by the idea that you believe that we can communicate with god in some way, but god is not necessarily conscious of us doing so. Communication is a process whereby meaning is defined and shared between living organisms. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender.

In your example about pain, is it that you think that God can help you understand why you have pain or is it that your belief in and concept of God provides you with that understanding?

[Baz]

Baz, you're in luck. Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Theism says that you believe that there may be a god, agnosticism says that you are not certain.

By saying that God is creation you might be a Pantheist or a Panentheist.

By asserting that God in intelligent, you move away from Deism. However your belief that God has no influence on the physical word other than being the reason it works the way it does, is very classically Deist.

I am puzzled by the idea that you believe that we can communicate with god in some way, but god is not necessarily conscious of us doing so. Communication is a process whereby meaning is defined and shared between living organisms. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender.

In your example about pain, is it that you think that God can help you understand why you have pain or is it that your belief in and concept of God provides you with that understanding?

You have a point with the pantheiest observation, I have often said that I lean toward pantheism but it was always a bit short of godliness in my mind, having followed your link a leaning toward panentheist... I think it is probably more accurate.


The communication and help thing is difficult to explain...

Sat in front of my laptop trying to find an analogy...


Ok. So I am thinking of going on holiday and don’t know where or how, so I surf the net, look at transport and destination possibilities prices etc. pretty much anything I want, I can find, if I look long enough and in the right place.
Where I decide to go is not necessarily due to anything I have looked up, could just be somewhere I’ve had in the back of my mind for a while.

For me talking to god is a bit like that in an abreact way (structured sentences or direct questions are not required but used on occasion)
The analogy;
I am asking questions.
The internet is not conscious of my asking.
I get something back that helps me decide.
Obviously I view god as a far greater source of inspiration and the communication subtler.


Second stab. I take it you have heard the super string theory of unlimited points in space connected to others not restricted by distance both being affected by each other.
I imagine (and am happy with the term Imagine) that some part of my thinking is connected to that of god in some very subtly way that allows unconscious communication.

[bernee51]

Baz, you're in luck. Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Theism says that you believe that there may be a god, agnosticism says that you are not certain.

By saying that God is creation you might be a Pantheist or a Panentheist.

By asserting that God in intelligent, you move away from Deism. However your belief that God has no influence on the physical word other than being the reason it works the way it does, is very classically Deist.

I am puzzled by the idea that you believe that we can communicate with god in some way, but god is not necessarily conscious of us doing so. Communication is a process whereby meaning is defined and shared between living organisms. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender.

In your example about pain, is it that you think that God can help you understand why you have pain or is it that your belief in and concept of God provides you with that understanding?

You have a point with the pantheiest observation, I have often said that I lean toward pantheism but it was always a bit short of godliness in my mind, having followed your link a leaning toward panentheist... I think it is probably more accurate.


The communication and help thing is difficult to explain...

Sat in front of my laptop trying to find an analogy...


Ok. So I am thinking of going on holiday and don’t know where or how, so I surf the net, look at transport and destination possibilities prices etc. pretty much anything I want, I can find, if I look long enough and in the right place.
Where I decide to go is not necessarily due to anything I have looked up, could just be somewhere I’ve had in the back of my mind for a while.

I think the phrase 'back of my mind' is a clue.

This search for 'what is my belief system' is a search for some kind of truth.

Is truth ever to be found by seeking? Is it recognizable when one has found it? If something is found and the claim made - `This the truth' - `This is the real', in the idea of seeking, of finding, is there not also the idea of recognition - the idea that if something is found and decided upon as 'truth;' does that also not require the idea of recognition and does not recognition imply that it is already known?

In that sense, has the idea of a search for truth any meaning at all?

For me talking to god is a bit like that in an abreact way (structured sentences or direct questions are not required but used on occasion)
The analogy;
I am asking questions.
The internet is not conscious of my asking.
I get something back that helps me decide.
Obviously I view god as a far greater source of inspiration and the communication subtler.

In deciding, or coming to a conclusion, as to the answer to your questions, from where does this recognition of the answer arise.

Vasana is a Sanskrit term having a meaning something along the lines of: past impressions, impressions formed; the impression of anything in the mind, the present consciousness formed from past perceptions, knowledge derived from memory; thinking of, longing for, expectation, desire, inclination.

This 'communication with god' moves to fulfil the needs of the self where the self itself is a construct of these vasana.

I imagine (and am happy with the term Imagine) that some part of my thinking is connected to that of god in some very subtly way that allows unconscious communication.

If god is the 'intelligence that is the universe' and our own 'intelligence that constructs our self' are one and the same - Brahman and Atman are one - then there must be 'communication'.

Again to draw from Vedanta....in order to taste the ocean, all that is needed is a drop.

[Baz]

bernee51
Thank you for your comments, I read them several times and looked up some stuff to assist in my understanding.
(I have one disagreement) I don’t think my post was to do with searching for truth, more just finding a liable (not that I like labels.) In any case I wouldn’t expect any belief system to have all the answers, any more than I would expect any one person, political party, country etc.

I take it you find a lot of truth in Buddhist teachings.
I don’t consider myself as unintelligent but I often profess to be simple minded, having considerable problems with taking in stuff that’s over worded or contains a lot of un-translated words, names etc.


So although from conversations held I have come to believe that many Hindu religions have a good general philosophy (as do most religions) I struggle to understand them (not that I have spent much time in this endeavour).
Perhaps you know of a site that could provide simple basic guidance for the very untrained, so I could investigate further.

[bernee51]

bernee51
Thank you for your comments, I read them several times and looked up some stuff to assist in my understanding.
(I have one disagreement) I don’t think my post was to do with searching for truth, more just finding a liable (not that I like labels.) In any case I wouldn’t expect any belief system to have all the answers, any more than I would expect any one person, political party, country etc.

I take it you find a lot of truth in Buddhist teachings.
I don’t consider myself as unintelligent but I often profess to be simple minded, having considerable problems with taking in stuff that’s over worded or contains a lot of un-translated words, names etc.


So although from conversations held I have come to believe that many Hindu religions have a good general philosophy (as do most religions) I struggle to understand them (not that I have spent much time in this endeavour).
Perhaps you know of a site that could provide simple basic guidance for the very untrained, so I could investigate further.

Thanks for your reply....

Re: labels...I am quite comfortable without one...though when pressed, I do admit to being an atheist.

In terms of 'systems', is a label necessary? Do you feel you need a label? By identifying with a 'label' does that not inply having found some sort of truth.

Buddhism has had an influence...but more so I think that advaita vedanta...which has definite affinities with buddhism.

There is much information available on the web, or in the bookshop or library.

I would suggest the words of Ramana Maharshi as recorded by David Godman, or Nisargadatta Maharaj.

For a contemporary view of transpersonal philosphy I strongly recommend Ken Wilber.

If you wish at any time to discuss anything you come across please feel free to PM me.

Such knowledge is one of the four yogas, jnana yoga. But like everything in life, balance is requried. while knowledge is important, it is only part of the equation. A practice - a method to bring such knowledge into daily life - is, perhaps, more important.

Edit:
In looking for something to recommend I came across thsi site: Stillness Speaks. I haven't got deeply into it , but it looks like it could be a good source of information.

[Baz]

Not doing too well with my search for suitable label so far I’m just getting more confused.
According to another thread I should be a Theological noncognitivist agnostic skeptic. From the definitions I’ve looked up I would have to agree that I think that way but don’t think it describes what I believe.

[bernee51]

Not doing too well with my search for suitable label so far I’m just getting more confused.

Why do you want a label?

According to another thread I should be a Theological noncognitivist agnostic skeptic. From the definitions I’ve looked up I would have to agree that I think that way but don’t think it describes what I believe.

I did those too, and immediately forgot how I was classified.

[McCulloch]

Baz, have you considered the possibility that your beliefs are not consistent?

[Baz]

I’m giving up on this religious group thing.
There seem to be well over 100 prominent religions worldwide and thousands of denominations and sub groups, sects, etc. I’m not suggesting that I have even scratched the surface but so far as I can ascertain a lot of them have beliefs I can agree with so could honestly say that I share some of their beliefs. On the other hand I can almost defiantly disagree with something in all of them.