Hello everyone,

I have been going to this site for a while but have just recently signed up.

I was a Fundamentalist Christian before having what I guess could be descirbed as a belief system crash. Back then I was reading the Bible every day for hours, yet I was miserable. I was so interested in Jesus and the Bible and now I have no interest at all. I don't consider myself a Christian anymore, just a seeker of Truth. I suffered from depression and chronic anxiety/panic attacks when I was a "Christian" because I forced myself to believe in the Calvinist theology that if you are not one of the elect you are destined for hell. So I basically was living in constant doubt and terror that I was not one of the chosen ones. But, now after realizing that all of this can't be true I feel so worthless. I feel that I am abandoning Jesus because I am not interested in Him anymore. But I can't help what I am feeling! I just have no interest in Jesus or Christianity anymore. I can't explain why.

I sometimes wonder if God really does love unconditionally.
Has anyone experienced this?

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

:)

May I offer the following?:

God is only playing a game with you - like hide and seek.
So have some joy from it, and not exhaustion or consternation.

Religion does not want to see or admit to this, but, God is much bigger, infinitely bigger than what or how religion defines what God is.

If Jesus is your Master, then rest assured, He is supporting and fulfilling this in your life, and is directing your experience now as a seeker, even in the apparent transcendence of your past definitions, beliefs and roles, etc - and religion.  And please don't forget that there are many who call themselves 'Christians', who may not necessarily be followers of the Master Jesus.

If you are a true seeker, you may indeed have the experience of leaving behind what no longer works and moving towards what is more fulfilling both for you as a human being and as an inherently divine being.

If you are climbing a ladder, you have to let go of one rung to grab the next one.
So, why not move towards more light, more inclusiveness, more peace, etc. etc.
It is a natural progression.

The world holds many people who have, and are going through the same process you describe.
It is something that cannot be forced, and happens when the right time comes for each person.

On some level, and in some way, you, or a component of your being must have been asking for this or it would not be happening.
The game would be to now focus on the newer, higher principles of organizing your life, instead of the more familiar, less satisfying components that are being left behind or more accurately, transformed. It is the apparent disparity between the old way and the new way that is confusing (and seemingly exhausting), but that will pass.

Please do not make the mistake of being confused by this, as it is very much part of the process of growth and acquiring your true nature.

God is not static only as an 'end', but also very much exists in your search for truth, as a means, and His Unconditional Love is very much a part of it.
Embrace that, move forward, and don't look back.

All the Best,

-U
:)

Hi Patrick. I can't really advise but a view from personal experience is that the heavy intense vibe that surrounds the more fundamentalist takes on spirituality can only lead to this sort of thing - or at least to unhappiness.

Put simply mental intensity blocks our ability to receive Grace, to access our higher or true mind. Buddhism and other traditions strongly emphasise openness, spaciousness, letting go and a lightness of touch for this reason.

I suffered for many years with a highly intense mind. (which was actually focused on getting ahead, but the result is the same) Meditation and some reading leading to lightening of my outlook (try Pema Chodron on Amazon - she's a Buddhist nun with lots of books out on these issues; or Chogym Trungpa Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior) transformed my situation. This through years of illness too.

When we get uptight our life experience gets difficult and we become unable to feel the joy that is our natural state. It gets hard to put down the shovel and stop digging - our instinct is to turn the screw down even tighter in a mistaken attempt to control what bugs us when we actually need to start letting go.

The meditation helps a lot, it creates and widens the space needed to get us started. It's a good idea to join a group if you are thinking of going down this road as the company makes it a lot easier to get some stability into a practice, and reduces the risk of getting the method wrong. A few weeks shows very noticeable changes in how we feel, or at least did in my case.

Here's hoping it starts to improve soon for you. Don't worry - a bad day can feel pretty awful, but the sun is always there behind the clouds.....

It might help to try and reassess your view of/relationship towards Jesus (and God) and that's likely to take a while - if you've come from a position of being part of a rather rigid tradition that said you must believe in certain doctrines and stories etc, then you realise you don;t any more, I guess you feel lost and don;t know what to hold on to. Most people here have a less dogmatic view of God than the fundamentalist Christian one - of a loving power that does not ultimately condemn or destroy anyone totally, is endlessly forgiving (and not just up to the point of death) and interested in on-going opportunities for us to learn and grow. Most would also have a view of God that suggests he's more interested in what's in our hearts and minds and actions in general terms than just whether or not we hold certain specific beliefs.

As for Jesus, many would see him as an example of a fine, spiritual human being who is an example, more than a one-off who was (is) different from us and was "sent" to "save"us. Some see him as "perfect"and take him as their spiritual master, others might place him less centrally in their personal beliefs systems, and perhaps see him in more down-to-earth terms as one spiritual teacher among many, with some good stuff to say which can be combined with taking inspiration from others as well. Actually, many christians on the liberal wing of christian churches tend more towards that direction than towards the traditional dogma, or they might, for example, say they see in Jesus a beautiful human being, attuned to God and reflecting his nature - and the central example to follow in our western culture -  but again, more an example than a figure to worship, and probably not in any literal sense a "sacrifice for our sins" as traditional theology says. Of course this also means you have to decide how much of the Bible you feel you can believe as well (even though the text of the Bible is not so clear-cut in its message as church theology would have us believe anyway) and the search of the "historcial jesus" has been going on for centuries, without scholars really agreeing. Most agree Jesus existed, but beyond that, as to which parts of the stories are literally true, people generally disagree. Many think some of the most obviously miraculous happennings may have been legedary, aimed at making him sound more godly and impressive, and as for the resurrection, many would suppose that it may have been of a spiritual kind rather than a literal one (that his actual physical body came back to life and later rose into Heaven). Once you stop being fundamentalist and thinking the BIble must all be factually true, you can see there are human errors (I mean even in such basics as two authors producing different genealogies - each working seperately and possibly without much factual knowledge of Jesus'family history, and with a main aim of tracing him to David , thus showing his credentials for being the Jewish messiah) and maybe inventions, but that that doesn;t necessarily detract from what many still see as inspiring aspects of Jesus' sayings and life. You'll probably find your opinions and beliefs fluctuate through over the years, but that's life unfortunately. Once you look at things with an open mind, unchanging certainties about these things are hard to pin down. I guess that's why the spirit of the thing - trying to be more "like" Jesus rather than believe things "about" him is probably the most important thing.
Good luck  :)

Patrick,

It is very common for Fundamentalists to get disillusioned and then throw out the baby with the bath water.  Has it ever occurred to you that God sparked your experience of the Dark Night of the Soul to prepare you for a healthier, more fulfilling, and more accurate grasp of your faith?  Fro example, what if you could be convinced that, contrary to your church's donctrine, the Bible does not teach predestination to eternal damnation?  What if you could be convinced that, according to Scripture, God never permanently abandons anyone after death?  What if you could be convinced that the hellbound are there because they choose to be there on the basis of  the principle that like attracts like?  Have you considered the possibility that you need to replace a toxic brand of Christianity with another approach which is more persoanlly empowering and more conducive to life-changing EXPERIENCES of God's presence and grace?  In a few days, I will start a thread that will address some of these questions.

Don    

I was never a fundamentalist, but I was a Christian for a few years. I loved God, and thought of Jesus as a friend. (the savior thing, I never grasped.) I got sick of hearing the bible beaters telling me how "fundamentally flawed" I was, and yet, I was made in God's image. I argued about the old testament, and eventually rejected most Christians as "brainwashed, judgemental, condescending/intolerant to OTHER religions, and "regimented". All I can say to you is you have a right to find God, and Jesus/whoever in your own way, and that religious "threats" are absolutely useless. Fear and "God" (as friend) do not go well together.  Never allow a religion to tell you HOW to and when to love God. Nothing gets more Personal than your friend, God. Keep up a loving dialogue with your creator and stay away from the "fire and brimstone" crowd.

Hi Patrick,

Yes, I have been disillusioned in the past. Many years ago. I believed that the Bible, the New Testament in particular, which I read for comfort at the time, was encouraging me to remain in an abusive relationship. I felt that it was telling me to hold on in a situation which, in reality, was life-threatening and good for nobody.

Yes, the negative experiences I had at the time carried over into my "bible experience" and therefore, by association, I became somewhat repulsed, no, that is too strong a word....let me just say, continuing those studies did not feel right to me anymore at the time. I found many other sources of inspiration which were truly helpful to me over the years, so all was not lost.

You have received excellent comments here. I just want you to know you are not alone. I too, wondered if I would "make the grade" when I reached the other side. But that is really just fear talking....and fear is not love. If the priority is love, fearing God makes no sense to me. And fearing oneself is no better.

I don't worry about whether I'll "make the grade" anymore. We don't have to "prove" we love Jesus enough. Ever. This is a much more benevolent universe than that, and the possibilities for transformation are truly everywhere we look.

Just remember, love feels good, is good, and has good results.  And I don't say this lightly. You'll be able to return to those teachings anytime you need them, but exploring other teachings will help you to see what they have in common, what is really the truth.

Now, I am exceptionally grateful for for having been exposed to the teachings of Christ. It is not an issue for me anymore. But I will not say it has been easy when I have occasionally had to try to "defend" my own point of view. Therefore, I don't try to do that anymore in most situations in my everyday life...at least, that is the direction I am moving toward. I'd rather just listen. There is always something to learn, in listening to anyone.

love, blink :)

Gweexldax wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2007 at 5:42pm:

I got sick of hearing the bible beaters telling me how "fundamentally flawed" I was, and yet, I was made in God's image. .

Yeah - I mean, if we take it literally, God made this creatures - Adam and Eve - in his image, but they almost immediately messed up and disobeyed him, so condemning the rest of their reace for evermore to sin and Hell. Pretty rubbish result! If he wanted perfectly obedient creatiures, why didn't he just make them that way!

Or maybe he really did make them in his image, and he isn't the kind to passively obey...!

When a belief system breaks down, usually it leaves a hole. Of course. Before, you were inside a system. You had a role, a position, an outlook, duties. But eventually, one discovers inconsistencies which make the belief system fall apart. And/or it is fear driven, and has so many and hard claims that one falls simply off that system because it's unbearable anymore.

In the first time, the relief of having let go the pressure of such a belief system might be covered by the feeling of emptiness, due to the remaining hole. Instead of pressure, now everything seems pointless. So, there had to be some reconstruction- but not with the overcome system, but with something you feel attracted to. This is of course difficult in a depressed state. The easiest maybe would be, if you could find an activity you really liked to do in your past, which wasn't connected to the worn out belief system. Maybe something you stopped doing because that belief sytem had left you not time for doing so. If you can find something like that, you might keep it up again. Besides the effect of hopefully having found again something which brings meaning in your life, it would as well serve as something to reintegrate the events of your life, seeing a line in your life again, grounding you.
(Bruce told about something similar in his recent book)

If there is the need for answers to questions about the "big picture", you can read around here. A standard is, to become inspired by some reading is ok, but finally everyone has to find out for oneself, maybe through some methods like meditation or so. If you still think a lot of Jesus, there is a good chance to rediscover him- probably in a totally new, more joyful way.

Spooky

Hello Patrick:

First of all, fear and spirituality are a bad combination. If one is going to grow spiritually, one will do so because it is a joy to do so.  Fear based reasons just cause one to close down to that which is glorious.

Regarding the role Christ plays, I don't believe it comes down to a recently deceased spirit arriving at the gates of heaven, and being told you better believe this way or else. I've had what I refer to as a night in heaven experience. I was an atheist at the time. Yet one night I found myself in a wonderful heavenly realm. The happiness level was wonderful. I understood that God (not in an old man in the sky sense) and the afterlife did exist. Not only did I understand that they existed, I understood how it was possible for them to exist without having to think about it. It was like, "oh yeah, of course." It was such a relief. I didn't see nor hear Christ, nor did I ask about him, but I understood that he was/is a big part of the realm I found myself in.  There was no need for anybody to try to force me to accept what I was experiencing. It was so wonderful and certain, I had no reason to argue. At the end I saw a bright star flash that I understood to be a symbol for Christ. I believe I was able to experience the above even though I was an atheist at the time, because I was a loving person.

When it comes to how we feel about Christ, I don't believe it is a big pass or fail test.  It is hard to know what spiritual reality is all about while here in the physical.  Therefore, each of us will be surprised in our own way when we cross over and find out what divine reality is about. As long as it is wonderful, we aren't likely to be in a complaining mood. "No, I want it to be this way!" :) Or in other words, our hearts will guide our way.

P.S. I've had a number of experiences that have involved Christ is some way, yet, I'm not a fundamentalist.

i had a major crash when i realized the bible was basically a book of fairy tales.  it was very depressing.  i didn't know whether God was real or not or anything.  i also suffered while i DID believe because i thought i was an evil sinner.  understandably, i'm less than thrilled about Christianity, or any religion at all.  i've gotta go with john lennon, dreaming of a world without religion...

Patrick and others -
It seems to me that one of the defining characteristics of God is love (as evidenced by Jesus saying the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love others as much as you love yourself).  God is motivated by love for every one of us.  Its unfortunate when people get a perception of Christianity that is driven by fear.  Fear is a powerful motivator.  And yes, there are things to be afraid of.  But not if we are honestly trying to make ourselves into better people with God's help.  When we live a life consisting of doing terrible things towards others, and have no regard for anyone but ourselves, then yes we should be afraid of what is to come in the afterlife.  But we don't need to be afraid - Jesus constantly told his disciples to fear not.

So yes there is punishment for some in the afterlife.  God loves people so much that it is terribly upsetting when evil actions cause them unnecessary suffering.  But what if it weren't so?  What if God was more like a senile grandfather than an omniscient, loving father?  Again the reason why justice demands this is because of real, human suffering.  Everyone on this board has been through terrible experiences that others have done to us.  What if there were no setting of right of anything?  What if the materialists are right and this is all there is?  Then we would be living in a universe that is worse than a sick joke.  It would make a mockery of human suffering, and of attempts to find meaning, value, and purpose.

I'd like to throw in two cents here as a Christian, but definitely not as a fundamentalist one.

First off I'd like to say that not everyone who reads the bible thinks its inerrant.  In other words, there are slight contradictions in the bible, but it doesn't really mean the whole thing is a fairy tale.  An example would be the different resurrection discovery stories in the gospels.  In one account women go to the tomb, see it is empty, and someone who is as inconspicuous as a gardener tells them that Jesus is risen.  In another account this person looks like an angel with garments like lighting, and two male disciples discover this.  In another account its two people who look like angels.  The story is easily explainable if we don't have a presupposition that the bible must be inerrant.  In those days women were not valued as much as in today's society; in fact there testimony was not considered valid in a court of law.  So what it seems like happened was Mary and Martha discovered the empty tomb.  This would have been terribly embarrassing to the early Christians - 'you are believing two women?'  So they changed the story a bit and said the disciples were male and that they were told this by someone who looked like an angel.  By the way, the disciples later on were all martyred for their faith, besides John and Judas.   So it makes sense that they didn't change much - if they didn't truly believe Jesus was raised from the dead then they wouldn't have held to their story even in the face of being tortured to death.  In addition, there were many appearances of Jesus after his death to the disciples.  Whats the point of the story?  Even if an occasional detail in the bible is off base, the main facts are true; Jesus was raised from the dead.  The empty tomb, testimony of the early church in the face of martyrdom, and growth of the church all are the best evidence of this.

There are very strong reasons for believing that God exists.  One of them is the Kalam cosmological argument that has been put forward lately by William Lane Craig.  It follows like this:

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.  The universe began to exist
3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Its hard to argue against this logic, and each of the statements has more meaning.  In a nutshell, this cause must have been outside of space and time (since the big bang created space and time)

Secondly I think if God didn't exist then people cannot be both happy and consistent in their world view.  In fact I would say (from Craig again) that life has no meaning, value, or purpose, if there is no God.  Most people trying to put meaning on a meaningless world are just pretending, putting on an inconsistent lie.  And if we do not live in the afterlife, then life is simply a meaningless joke which makes a horrific mockery of human (and animal) suffering.

Lastly, I have a friend who is a pastor who happens to be a Calvinist.  I wrote arguments against Calvinism as a specific variant of Christianity that is false and wrong.  I will post it in the next post, in case anyone is interested

8.Arguments Against Calvinism

Logical Arguments

1.      Argument by Analogy – Arbitrary, Not Loving
a.      If I was parent of 6 children, and loved 3 – showered them with love, and didn’t love the other three, and the other three grew up to spend their lives inflicting suffering on others and themselves, my actions would be not loving.  In the same way under Calvinism God is not loving.
b.      Love consists of actions and attitudes that have the other’s best interest in mind.
c.      God is the creator of people.
d.      God draws some people to himself through irresistible grace (in Calvinism).
e.      God does not draw some people to himself through irresistible grace (in Calvinism).
f.      The people God does not draw to himself will end up in hell, with terrible torment.
g.      Ending up in long term (eternal?) terrible torment is not in the best interest of people.
h.      God is not loving to some people (in Calvinism)



2.      Argument by Analogy – Responsibility for One’s Creation
a.      If I created a virus that would create a lot of suffering and death (it may work directly or indirectly), and I knew ahead of time who the virus would affect, and I released the virus anyways, I would be not loving, but rather responsible for the damage the virus directly or indirectly caused.
b.      God is the creator of people.
c.      Love consists of actions and attitudes that have the other’s best interest in mind.
d.      God foresees that some of his people will create evil in their actions; on the whole their life will be more evil then good.
e.      God knows that if he does not draw people to him through his grace they will behave in an evil way.
f.      God creates evil people anyways.
g.  God is not loving to some people (in Calvinism)



3.      Argument by the Problem of Evil
a.      There is a huge amount of evil in the world; both natural and moral evil.
b.      God is the creator of people.
c.      Love consists of actions and attitudes that have the other’s best interest in mind.
d.      Good actions are similar to loving actions; both have the best interest of the other person in mind.
e.      God has given some people the appearance of choosing good behaviors; in fact they are not really even given a choice (in Calvinism), but are irresistibly drawn to behave in a loving, good way.
f.      God has not given some people the appearance of choosing good behaviors; in fact they are not really even given a choice (in Calvinism), but are selfish in nature and aside from God’s drawing them in will behave in an evil way.
g.  God is indirectly responsible for the moral evil in the world (with Calvinism)



4.      Argument by the Extreme Nature of Hell, and God as Worse than Hitler
a.      Hitler was a torturer and murderer (among other things); his actions were evil (in one sense) because he inflicted unnecessary suffering on people.
b.      God has created people that are by nature selfish and on the whole will do evil over the course of their lives.
c.      There is way more suffering and evil in the world then is necessary as a consequence of evil actions of men (see argument 5 if you disagree with this premise)
d.      Hell is the punishment for leading a selfish, hurtful earthly life.
e.      God has created a system that leads to eons of time (if not eternal time) of unnecessary suffering.
f.  God (in Calvinism) is more evil than Hitler.



5.  Argument by Options of God
a.   If God is able to draw us all to lead good, holy lives, irresistibly, why doesn’t He?
b.       Logically speaking, there are only 2 options:
1.      God is not able.  This goes against Calvinism however (and standard Christianity as well).
2.      God is not willing.

Therefore, God is not willing to draw some of his people to himself to lead loving lives (with Calvinism).
     Is he not also their creator?
     Does he not share responsibility for the actions of these selfish people he has created when he is not willing to draw them into loving lifestyles, and he knows ahead of time they will commit evil and does not prevent it?
     Is God not arbitrary in his love?  What has one child done to receive the undeserved love and attention that another child does not?




Biblical Arguments

6.       Argument by God Calling us to Love All Men and Not Doing it Himself
a.       Love consists of actions and attitudes that have the other’s best interest in mind.
b.       We are called to love others; and not to make a distinction between loving the elect and not loving the damned.  
c.      Jesus loved other people; including those who rejected him.
d.      In Calvinism God is seen as being loving towards the elect, but allowing the damned to continue in selfish ways, leading eventually to hell.  Hell consists of suffering, for eons of time (possibly eternity).  Therefore in Calvinism, God is not loving towards the damned but simply allows them to continue on to hell.
e.      There is a direct contradiction between God’s attitude as expressed in Calvinism and Jesus’ example in the bible of showing love towards everyone.




7.      Jesus and the Prophets Believed We Have Free Choice and Exhorted Us to Choose to be Loving.
a.      Jesus assumed we have the power of free choice when he taught and commanded us to do good actions and to be loving.
b.      The prophets assumed we have free choice when they exhorted us to choose to be loving and to choose good actions.
c.      If we do not have free choice then Jesus and the prophets were mistaken and wasting their breath – some people will turn out good and others not, and it doesn’t matter what is said if there is no free will.
d.      There is a direct contradiction between God’s attitude as expressed in Calvinism and Jesus’ and the prophets examples of the expectation of free will in their audience.


8.      Direct Refutation of Calvinism in One Verse
a.      1 Timothy 2:3-7 "...God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle - I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." (emphasis mine)
b.      So if God wants all to be saved according to the bible, and if Calvinism holds that this is not the case; they cannot both be right.  One or the other is correct.
c.      Again if God wants all to be saved, and some are not (as the bible also teaches), then this is inconsistent with the doctrine of irresistible grace.  Again, either the bible is correct, or Calvinism is correct.
d.      Given the choice between the bible which is clearly contradicting Calvinism, and Calvinism, it is very clear that the bible should win out if someone is considering this in a detached manner.

Thank you for you replies! I haven't been replying because I was traveling with my family this weekend, I just got back.

I have been reading articles on L. Ray Smith's website: bible-truths.com, where he basically exposes the christian doctrine of eternal punishment as false. I would encourage anyone who thinks that the bible teaches eternal punishment to read the articles on his site. You might say that, well the word eternal and everlasting are right in the bible, but if you examine the Greek it is a mistranslation. Ray knows what he is talking about!

I don't believe the Bible to be infallible, I have abandoned those silly teachings.

I am feeling a little better (the intrusive thoughts still bother me) but I am not looking forward to Monday.

Oh, and according to the Bible there is no such thing as Free Will. Free Will in the sense of a humans ability to make uncaused choices. If you are interested, Ray has written a four part article on the myth of Free Will.  bible-truths.com



Love,

Patrick

Just for Philosophy's sake:

Quote Pratekya:

There are very strong reasons for believing that God exists.  One of them is the Kalam cosmological argument that has been put forward lately by William Lane Craig.  It follows like this:

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.  The universe began to exist
3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Its hard to argue against this logic, and each of the statements has more meaning.  In a nutshell, this cause must have been outside of space and time (since the big bang created space and time)  

Logically, this is not a resolution of this (at least) 2300 years old dilemma; I can continue:
5. The universe has a cause
6. The cause is before the effect
7. Therefore, there must have been something before the universe
With this "before" you can start over again this reasonning ad infinitum.  The formerly called "beginning" of the universe isn't the beginning at all, because the cause of it was before, therefore the formerly called "beginning" isn't a beginning.
Of course, the only solution then is to say "outside of space and time", but then "cause", "effect", "beginning" have no meaning anymore. Furthermore, the relationship to God is not given in this reasoning.

Spooky

Spooky and others -
 What you are proposing is an infinite regression.  Infinity works as a concept but you cannot have an infinite number of things, such as events, because if you did there would be a whole host of absurdities as a result (again this material is almost directly stolen from William Lane Craig).  
 Imagine for a moment that you have a hotel, with an infinite number of rooms, and the rooms are all full (this was put forward by David Hilbert, a German mathematician).  Now imagine a new guest shows up.  'But of course' says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on, out to infinity.  As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest checks in.  But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full!  It gets even stranger as you continue this line of thinking out - including an infinite amount of people added to this hotel of infinite rooms.  An actual number of infinite things cannot exist because of the absurdity of their logical consequences.
 The problem with what you're suggesting is that a beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.   We can logically say then, that a beginingless series of events in time does not exist, and like you pointed out, it is somewhat meaningless to try to string out an infinity of causal relationships before there was time - and it still has the problem of infinite regression not being possible because of the absurdities created.

Lets get back to what we do know.  We know the universe had a beginning, and with that space and time was created.  We know that something outside of space and time created this.  So whatever this thing was, it or they was/were very powerful - powerful enough to create space, time, matter, and energy.  If we take this along with the anthropic principle, we know this thing (God, group of Gods, whatever), chose to create rather than not create, was intelligent enough to create a universe with physical laws that permitted life (which is highly unlikely just based on chance), and was powerful enough to do all of this.  It sounds like an outrageously intelligent and powerful being or beings did this, since we have the universe rather than nothing at all, the universe has been fine tuned for the possibility of life, and the fact is that we live in a universe where things always have a cause.

If you are saying that this does not point to the Christian God necessarily, I would mostly agree with you.  It points to either polytheism or monotheism, not necessarily of Christian nature.  But if we take Ockham's razor, and say the simpler explanation is usually better, then monotheism would have a slight advantage here.  And lastly, taken with the revelation of Jesus in the bible (that I think is largely valid but others may disagree with me on my last point), it seems to be more reasonable to believe in a sort of Christian God (more or less) than to be a materialist.  I guess at this point you could argue for another religion other than Christianity, but my message has been more like it's more reasonable to believe in poly / mono theism rather than a beginningless or totally naturalistic cosmos.

I buy the idea that the logic of this reality implies that it's underpinned by some sort of coherent and loving intention, and that that implies 'God' whatever he/she/it/that is. But I find it tough to go much further than that - because for me it requires extending our conventional linear cause and consequence logic beyond its limits.

The way we're wired we can't intellectually get beyond this logic - we end up implying causes acting from outside of this reality in terms of the rules that apply within it and that may not be the case.

Maybe the Buddha had the right idea when he avoided dealing with the concept of God - reasoning as I understand it (?) that going there is basically a distraction from the real work of awakening which happens mostly at the personal level.

Not to mention that he basically taught that this whole reality (form - both the apparent sense of self, and the total external reality that validates it and vice versa - as experienced both here in C1 and in the afterlife) has no inherent reality - that rather than giving it and consequently the delusion of self more validity through belief that the game is to see through and transcend it.

:) The other little issue seems to be that those that manage to transcend this reality somehow find their experience on the 'other side of the veil' so to speak and the truths that express here from there (emanations of Christ mind or Buddha nature like love) pretty much impossible to describe or to make sense of.

They just 'are' - you know it when you see it, but you can't quite define it.....

I have read also that there were a number of things the Buddha either refused to give a view on, or was basically agnostic about, including how the universe began. According to a "Buddhist Glossary"site I just found "Whoever speculates about these things would go mad and experience vexation" so don't bother if you don't want to be "vexed"  :o

I find it refreshing that a great spiritual leader could admit to not knowing everything. But also, I agree that my understanding is he basically said much speculation on such things wasn;t helpful to the goal of working on yourself to be a better and freer person. Which also sounds sound advice. I like the fact BUddhism advocates spiritual effort to be a better person rather than emphasizing doctrines and rituals

Pratekya:

I don't suppose an infinite regression nor a creation out of nothing- these are just the two not very satisfying consequences of this old "beginning or not" riddle. Any attempts to resolve this problem have to obey to not bring new propositions, like introducing something which is beyond space and time but still could create, which is not very understandable; this wouldn't be a correct logical solution of the original problem.

 You are right, we have to consider the possiblility that our space and time concept is not everything. But it is nearly impossible to say something about such a state, as our thinking and language is based on space and time.

 Regarding the intelligence of the creator, I wouldn't claim anything about it, because we have no criterion of it; and we don't know how many universes do exist. Maybe there are many sillier ones, and many more intelligent ones. But who will be the one to judge this? (I only can tell that I, in my physical appearance, am not smart enough to create a universe)

 If theism at all, monotheism to me is the most elegant. It is simply, when we think of the most stable, most harmonic, most perfect state we just come to oneness. This is inherent in the term of an allmighty, all knowing, all creating god. It can only be one with this image in mind. With many gods, we had separation, and that is not what I see as the ultimate source/destination/home, this can only be the one.

 Infinity: I see what you mean. When you have a number line, going to the left and right to infinity, and you divide it, both parts are still infinite, though, on the other hand, only one half. This tribe called "mathematics" now had simply invented classes of different mightyness of infinity, and they seem to get along with it as far as I can tell. But true, it's counter-intuitive, every actual infinity is.

Spooky

What caused the original Big Bang or (what preceded the Big Bang) to be?  It is counter-intuitive to believe that the originating energy of the universe is simply an "unintelligible brute fact."  Of course, when God or an intelligent Designer is plugged in to fill this void, the skeptic immediately applies the why question to God, and discussion grinds to a halt.  Clearly, there is only one way out.  Something must have in its own nature the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?" Put differently,  something must have in its own nature the reason for its existence.  By default, only God seems to qualify for such a lofty requirement.  Still, even this answer seems unsatisfactory when we pose the question, "Whether the First Cause is God or the universe, how can it ever seem more logically inevitable that either God or the universe just is or has Being?  Something is wrong with this form of conceptualizing.  God can neither be consider a Being among other beings or even as that which exists.  In my view, the solution to the problem lies in this insight: God does not exist; rather God is the ground of all existence.  "Ground" here means that God is the why for every existent thing, but is not "Himself" any thing.  This way of talking expresses the standard approach to Theology, but is still far too murky to constitute anything like self-evident Truth.  Still, it is interesting to observe that the original meaning of the Hebrew term "Yahweh" (God) is "the One who causes to be."

I guess these comments muddy the metaphysical waters even more! :-?

Don (or am I just a thought in the mind of "God" with no reality of my own?  Duh!)

Don wrote:
"In my view, the solution to the problem lies in this insight: God does not exist; rather God is the ground of all existence."

Yes, this is a good approach in my view. Maybe, depending on terminology, we could even add "ground of all existence and non-existence". This makes it clearer that God is not (necessarily) limited to the human way of perceiving and describing the world. Therefore, it is clear that this is the threshold where we can't get further with logic and language, and other descriptions come into play, like those of meditators, mystics, when they tell paradoxons in order to express what is beyond words.

Spooky