• TranscendedRealms
    126
    I would like to share to you my own personal religion that my depressive struggles has led me to. You don't have to agree with my religion if you don't want to. I just wish to share and express it:

    I am undecided when it comes to the existence of god, the paranormal, the soul, and the afterlife. But I keep an open mind to these things and I really hope the eternal blissful afterlife of my dreams exists since this would literally be the greatest and most profound life to me since it would offer me the greatest and most profound degree of my inner light. I am here in this life to be happy and to enjoy my life. Thus, it would be quite unfortunate if I just died and that is it. Especially after all the horrible misery I have struggled through in my life. It would be quite unfortunate for all of us. But like I was saying, if we do live in a spiritual universe where the soul, god, and the afterlife exists, then god's holy light energy would literally be a quality of pure goodness, love, joy, happiness, and beauty within our conscious being.

    After all, that is what the light energy of god is. It is literal goodness, love, joy, happiness, and beauty itself. Many people deny the existence of an actual quality of good and bad since most people think that good and bad are instead concepts or ideas. That is, nothing but words. But I think good and bad are something much more profound and powerful than that. I think they go beyond words. I think that having good and bad value in our lives is something that goes beyond words. That is, I think it is an actual quality rather than just a mere idea going through our minds. Good would have to be an actual quality like water. So, in order to have good value in your life, then that would be no different than needing actual water rather than just believing you have water in your life when you don't. But continuing on here. God's light energy of pure goodness within us would actually be our positive emotions rather than that of a saved sinner repenting to Jesus lest he be cast eternally into a lake of fire.

    In other words, us being happy, having fun, and enjoying our lives is the light energy of god we need in our lives to truly make our lives good, beautiful, and worth living for. Without his holy light, then our lives are empty. It would be like being deprived of the sacred water of pure goodness in our lives. That, or we would be filled with spiritual darkness of pure badness, hate, misery, and despair. Now, if we are living in a purely naturalistic/secular universe where the soul, god, and the afterlife do not exist, then everything I have said would still apply. In other words, our positive emotions would still be the quality of goodness we need in our lives. But, this time, there would be no god, afterlife, or soul attached. This would even mean that atheists and skeptics, if this is truly the one and only life we have to live, cannot live good lives through the helping of others, self sacrifice, and making the world a better place as long as they were not happy, having fun, and enjoying doing so.

    Lastly, I would call my worldview New Age Hedonism since it combines new age spiritual concepts with hedonism. New age spirituality is the idea of a god who would never condemn us to an eternal hell. This would be a truly all loving god who just wants us to be happy. Although, there are dark spiritual forces in this universe such as bad karma that takes away the inner light we need in our lives. So, it is up to us to avoid these dark forces and be as happy as possible. One of these dark forces would obviously be having a depressive mental illness. As long as you are someone who struggles with depression, then your life and conscious being is devoid of god's inner holy light and you would either have a very small degree of his light or none of his light at all. Thus, your life would have little to no good value. My own personal struggles with depression and misery in my life has led me to this worldview. It would be my own personal created religion.
  • MysticMonist
    227

    I was with you until you called yourself “new age”. You’re better than that! New Age don’t believe in anything they just grab at whatever flashy idea they see first from astral projection to reincarnation to God to dualism to non-dualism. (That makes me want to hunt for a non-dualist dualist out there, I’m sure there is).
    My real objection, joking aside, to new age beliefs is that are not internally consistent.

    I really would agree with you. God is the source of all goodness, meaning, and true joy. If God doesn’t exist there is no unified source of meaning and the only thing we have is philosophy which is our collective and individual search to find or create meaning. If nihilism is right and this philosophy is pointless, giving up is also pointless and I say it’s better to dream and hope than to dispair.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    I really would agree with you. God is the source of all goodness, meaning, and true joy. If God doesn’t exist there is no unified source of meaning and the only thing we have is philosophy which is our collective and individual search to find or create meaning. If nihilism is right and this philosophy is pointless, giving up is also pointless and I say it’s better to dream and hope than to dispair.MysticMonist
    But this is nonsense.
    The absence of god does not entail nihilism.
  • MysticMonist
    227
    The absence of god does not entail nihilism.charleton

    No, thankfully it doesn’t.
    So either:
    1) There is a god and therefore God is the source of meaning.
    2) there is no god but some other source of meaning or even a sourceless meaning. Then philosophy is the science of finding or creating this meaning. Mystics participate in philosophy
    3) no god, no meaning. They even a quixotic quest for meaning is better than dispair.
  • T Clark
    14k
    Lastly, I would call my worldview New Age Hedonism since it combines new age spiritual concepts with hedonism.TranscendedRealms

    I'm with MysticMonist, both in terms of his opinion of new age philosophies/religions and that what you have described is not that. I really enjoy when someone describes their deep personal experience in their own words. I think many here feel the longing you do, but it isn't often expressed so clearly. You write well.

    As for some insight into the questions you ask, MM is a better source for that than I am. He knows everything. I guess I'm a pragmatist - just give me a big enough hammer and I'll beat the universe into shape.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    No, thankfully it doesn’t.
    So either:
    1) There is a god and therefore God is the source of meaning.
    2) there is no god but some other source of meaning or even a sourceless meaning. Then philosophy is the science of finding or creating this meaning. Mystics participate in philosophy
    3) no god, no meaning. They even a quixotic quest for meaning is better than dispair.
    MysticMonist

    1) No. Not necessarily the only source of meaning.
    2) There is no sourceless meaning. Meaning can only relate to a conceiver. Meaning is in the subject, not in the object.
    3) We know this one is not the case, since it would entail you failing to grasp my intent in this post, and you would be struck dumb to respond.
  • MysticMonist
    227

    Are you familiar with Pascal’s wager?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

    The above my modified version of it. Explaining 3 possible outcomes.

    So you would say there is a source of meaning, right? Then your worldview would fall into the 2 category.

    As a mystical theist and not a traditional theists, I have much looser and flexible understanding of “God” and I also seek truth for its own sake while acknowledging this search never ends. There is no certainty. So the object of the mystics quest is truth whatever it may be, even if that’s not God (if He doesn’t exist). That’s why I advocate freedom so much, we need to be free to find it.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Yes, Pascal's wager is bullshit.
    He suggests giving up the only thing you have; your own autonomy on the absurd idea that what some crackpot priest says might be true.
  • MysticMonist
    227

    Can you elaborate on this?
    I agree with the “crockpot priest says might be true”
    I got banned from a Christian forum for saying a simmilar thing
    Do you have a problem with submitting to religious authority? That is foolish I agree. As Jesus says the blind leading the blind into a pit.
    Or is belief in God itself or in the core tenets of the faith (like belief in Jesus for example) giving up our autonomy? If so how?
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.7k
    Yes, Pascal's wager is bullshit.charleton

    How so?

    He suggests giving up the only thing you have; your own autonomy on the absurd idea that what some crackpot priest says might be true.charleton

    Where does Pascal say that the wagering person must come to his belief as a result of blind trust in a priest, rather than coming to his belief because of an experience with Christ?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    what are you on about?
    Let me ask you this. If someone is invited to play Pascal's wager in medieval China, do you think "jesus" whatever the hell that is, is part of the equation?
    Of if a person from a Muslim family who has doubts about god, is presented with Pascal's wager what do you think "jesus" is going to have to do with it.
    Now ask yourself where the bloody hell do you learn about Jesus, if not from a priest?

    Pascal is asking you to throw away your personal autonomy for the rest of your life in the hopeless belief that whatever is the local religion might be true.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Are you asking a rhetorical question?
    I do not really understand what you are saying.
    Tell me this, for clarity: What would you have to do to get into heaven, according to Pascal? How would you know he was right, as against, say, what an Imam would tell you you had to do?
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    The absence of god does not entail nihilism.charleton
    I definitely agree with this. Some religious people have bought into the idea that somehow right and wrong, moral and immoral cannot take root unless there is a lawgiver. Nothing could be further from the truth. You might despair at the thought of your life having an absolute end, but that doesn't mean we should retreat into nihilistic thinking.
  • MysticMonist
    227
    What would you have to do to get into heaven, according to Pascal? How would you know he was right, as against, say, what an Imam would tell you you had to do?charleton

    You said that Pascal suggests giving up your autonomy which you said is the only thing we had. I was trying to find what you meant by that exactly.

    Pascal’s wager doesn’t work when you have completing and mutually condemning revelations of God. Christains say Muslims are gong to hell for not believing in Jesus as God. Muslims say Christians are going to hell for their idolatry. This is a serious problem and tells us something has gone terribly, terribly wrong about religion. It’s clearly more about doing what your priest/pastor/rabbi/Imam/guru says that about God. That’s the real idolatry.

    Personally I’m a universalist and I think everyone’s going to heaven. I think you spend really time with people of other faiths you’ll realize that God isn’t a monopoly of only one tradition.
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.7k
    Now ask yourself where the bloody hell do you learn about Jesus, if not from a priest?charleton

    Having knowledge of Christ is different from being convinced of him. If the wagerer merely needs to know about religion x to believe in it, then he'd have to believe in every religion that he knows as they all, by and large, posit the same end - salvation of some kind. I think it's obvious that this isn't the case, as a Muslim wagerer and a Christian wagerer are convinced of their belief in different ways - that their definition of God is what one ought to wager on, that their ceremonies are truer forms of worship, and so on.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    You are not making any sense.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Personally I’m a universalist and I think everyone’s going to heaven. I think you spend really time with people of other faiths you’ll realize that God isn’t a monopoly of only one tradition.MysticMonist

    What you think in this regard bears little regard for the truth. You can believe what you want to believe. And your own personal delusion is a case in my point.
    If there is a God, heaven and the rest of it, its anyone's guess how to play the wager. But if you need do nothing to get to heaven then there is no wager to play.
    If Hitler, and Gandhi are both equal candidates for the after life, then Pascal's idea is meaningless.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    What would you have to do to get into heaven, according to Pascal?charleton

    The first step would be not to axiomatically reject the possibility that God exists or that a particular religion houses the truth. He addresses his Pensees to those open to conversion and who want to believe.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Personally I’m a universalist and I think everyone’s going to heaven.MysticMonist

    So why haven't you undertaken a murder spree yet?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    So you are saying you get into heaven by reducing your skepticism about god to a weak willed acceptance?
    Is that it?
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    He suggests giving up the only thing you have; your own autonomycharleton

    No, he doesn't. He wants you to join the Catholic Church. Unlike certain other religions, you are free to leave the Catholic Church if you want to.

    So you are saying you get into heaven by reducing your skepticism about god to a weak willed acceptance?charleton

    What I said was clear: the first step is being open to conversion. If you aren't, then what he says doesn't apply to you.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Your last post contains two contradictions and one diversion.
    Either have a discussion or don't. But make up your mind.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Lol. Put up or shut up. Point them out to me or it is you who refuses to have a discussion.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Please refer to the most I made some moments ago.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    One last time: show me these "two contradictions and one diversion."
  • MysticMonist
    227

    Because they would go to heaven rather than suffering here? That’s a good argument. Maybe that’s God’s job. It would explain childhood cancer, starvation and genoicide.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    WTF?

    What are you talking about. Nothing you say seems to follow.
  • MysticMonist
    227

    Okay... I’ll spell my thinking out. Thorongil said if I’m a universalist I should practice mass murder. I assume he’s implying that everyone I might murder goes to heaven and thus is better off and suffers less than remaining on earth.
    Objection: God clearly states to not murder, especially in the Torah and claims that the blood is His. Life is sacred even if it’s temporary and poor quality compared to eternal life. God alone should be the one to cause death and restore life (after death, life saving is fine)
    Related Concept: what Thorongil does illustrate however is the solution to the problem of evil and suffering. Our human suffering in this life is extremely brief when compared to eternity. God is eternal and takes an eternal perspective. This life only exists in order to bring us closer to God. It’s not for our material comfort or enjoyment. Even to the point we are never guaranteed to not endure a slow and agonizing traumatic death. I work in a nursing home, sometimes it is not pretty! But to God that suffering is minor and passing. So God is justified in mass murder and definitely allows it (since it is within his power to stop it).
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Your theory is just another cracked pot, leaking and dripping with wishful thinking and hopelessness.
    What has this to say about Pascal's Wager? Nothing at all. Either address the thread or don't. But please do not try to proselytise.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    God clearly states to not murder, especially in the TorahMysticMonist

    You don't believe in revelation so far as I can tell, so this doesn't apply.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.