Well first off, welcome to the forum, hope you find it suiting.

I'm interested in just what you mean in your definition to your theist belief. You don't have to go into it here but maybe you could start a thread on it to explain your position.

I hope so, too. IMHO, a good forum is all about having good moderation. The point system utilized here seems to be a good idea if it's applied fair way across the board for all users. Moderation can make or break a forum.

I'll be happy to go into here; might as well.

First off, I use the word "God" for ease in communications, but the word, in itself, is a bit misleading. I don't conceptualize God as being male or female, nor having any physical traits in common with humanity.

Physically, I believe God is a non-corporeal energy entity exists in our present reality in a quantum state. It would be safe to say that I think God or God's mind is 'everywhere' in our physical universe; omnipresent.

Emotionally, I believe God is benevolent and altruistic toward Humanity. I do not believe God is angry, vengeful, stern, or resentful. I believe that God genuinely cares about Humanity and wants to to be happy.

I believe God has a "hands-off" approach to humanity, similar to Deism, though not the same thing. I believe that this is our world to do with as we will. I don't think that God favors any nation, race, people, or religion, nor that God is going to physically intervene to stop things from happening.

I believe God may (key word) nudge things a tiny little bit from time to time, but I think for the most part God allows humanity's world to exist on it's own.

Many theists say, "Everything happens for a reason" with the implication that all events happen because God either wills them to occur or personally sanctions their occurance. -- Not only do I disagree, but I also find this sort of fatalism disturbing and, if I may be so bold, quite mindless. Most people who espouse this belief have rarely thought it all the way through. It's sort of a mantra that people repeat without actually thinking about.

I believe that God manifests in different ways and often speaks through different people. While I definitely do not thing that all religions are the same or have the same basic goals, I do think that God has spoken through many different religious and philosophical persons throughout the history of the world. I believe that God can speak through anybody, actually, including atheists.

Going back to the "hands-off" thing, I think that God has this policy in order to allow Humanity to have free will. I'm sure we could have a whole discussion about that.

I believe that God plays the role of a spiritual teacher who can help us if we choose to ask for that help. I believe anybody can ask God for help, but there are two caviats: 1) The request must be genuine and humble, 2) One must be willing to do the work involved. Moreover, asking God for "help" is just that - help, not fixing all your problems, making you rich or powerful or popular, or making something you want happen.

I believe requests for God's help and guidance must be generally selfless in nature, except in the case of requests for personal spiritual strength.

Things I have no idea about:

1) If God created existence, the world, humanity, etc.
(Nor do I care. I exist; how I came to exist is irrelevent to me.)

2) If there is some sort of "afterlife".
(Nor do I care. I exist now and am concerned with this reality.)

Since I have come to have a relationship with God, my life has changed dramatically for the better. However, it's also gotten more difficult too because now I choose to consider what God would have me do in situation instead of just doing whatever I want to do. Still, I find it very gratifying. God has helped me and continues to help me in every aspect of my life.

This is my extended take on what God is.

I'm open to all feedback and question, however, let me stress that I am not here to try to "convert" anybody, espouse any religion, nor fixate on this topic. I have a lot of philosophical beliefs and topic I want to get to as well.

--IntoTheLight--

NOTE: I have reposted all of this in a new thread in the Philosophy of Religion base. The thread is located here:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/6685-my-take-god.html#post104807

Anybody wishing to discuss my philosophy of God should reply to that thread instead of this one.

Welcome to Philforum!
The Staff here makes every attempt to balance freedom of discussion against the intellectual violence of personal attacks and "unphilosophical" and discourteous behavior; I think you will find the forums, and the Members, to your liking.
Regards,
John

That is excellent to hear. Thank you for response; I've already jumped into the discussions and look forward to meeting more people and learning from them.

--IntoTheLight--

Welcome to the forum. Glad to see another theist come by, I don't feel alone now . I'm looking forward to trading some ideas and interesting thoughts.

Leonard, thanks for the reply. It's nice to see another theist; I got gang-banged by the Fundamentalist Atheists earlier today. LOL

--IntoTheLight--

welcome to the forum-i think you found the right place and you will be happy here!

Just wanted to say THANKS! to everyone who have been so welcoming and engaging on this forum.

I've been here less than three days and have already made new friends and had some great conversations. This place is really awesome and I'm very pleased I found it.

Hello,....

I would like to pose a question...if I might be so bold.(though I am not bold, and would not categorize myself as such)

How is it that a select few of you can "label" yourselves...I have not yet become comfortable with that myself, and would just like to know whether or not it was a difficult process, to devote your-self to dogmatic categories?

This is not to be posed as an insult but a purely Socratic inquiry.

I'm confused as to what you're refering to. Could you give an example?



Which "dogmatic" categories are those?

--IntoTheLight--

This is one example of a couple, in which people had labeled themselves...you are a Existentialist? Or do you merely "know" it best? Theism is understandable(as in I understand it, yet a Theist I am not), because the content of a Theist is clear....and I'm not saying that labels themselves are dogmatic of course, or that necessarily the ones who follow the labels are dogmatic. But it does make you vulnerable to dogmatic peop0le when you do in fact label yourself.

So the question is, how did you come to a point in your life to where you were comfortable labeling yourself?
Like I said, I mean know offense, this question is purely a Socratic inquiry.:detective:

Perhaps you could clear these things up for me, and perhaps help me understand what category I may fit into.

are all categories dogmatic?

i assume you are referring to labels in philosophical schools, political groups etc? or are you speaking of whatever we choose to put as a title under our avatar?

i would choose a label to show my philosophical or political tendencies, but i havent found one that fits. and on top of that, too many people have differeing ideas of the meaning of those labels. so i tend to avoid them. the first label i was willing to accept was 'mother'. that is fully understood in any country or historical period at least by other mothers. i now accept 'muslim' as a label and will admit to that in the 'what religion do you practice' category of questions. that is as far as i have gotten.

if you did mean the avatars, some of us tend to change that a lot, and others remain more stable. some dont use the function at all. it must reflect something about us. mine has changed as many times as months that i have been on the forum, i think. i am looking though for a real label i can have that if someone asks 'what are you?' in any category at all it will apply and be understood by anyone.

human being should work, but somehow it doesnt...

I suppose I could use the word categories, in stead of the word label...it is much more enduring. And like I said in my last post I do not consider any of the categories themselves as dogmatic, but instead categorizing yourself opens you up for dogmatic responses to any given topic.

Even mother for instance, set me up for a sympathetic response, because when I think of mothers I sense a strong emotional impulse within my self to respect such a person...So I guess I could say bias in stead of dogma.

Does that make it less controversial?

Thanks for the clarification.



It's what I identify as because, out of many other ontological philosophies it is the one that comes closest to my world-view. I posted those designations to give people a general idea of where I stand. Often times, coming into a new forum people jump right into the threads without ever posting a definitive statement about their various philosophies - then later get irritated when other people mis-label them or generalize them into a school of thought based on their posts. While I'm not given to resentment, I find it helpful to others to post a position statement up front so that people know who they're dealing with.

For example, I'm a Theist, but I'm also a Moral Relativist. Typically Theists operate from moral standpoint of Absolutism or Universal Moral Truth. Therefore, to differentiate myself from Theists who espouse Absolutist ideals, I specifically designated myself as something very different.



That's true of any discussion, though. For example, I used to spend a lot of time on pure Theology forums. Someone would come in and say, "I'm a Christian" and all of a sudden the Atheists would do a drive-by shooting, condemning them for fundamentalist thought - even though the person did not identify themselves as a "Fundamentalist", but only as a Christian. This happened all the time and eventually the Admins of the forum asked people to identify the specifics of their positions when identifying themselves.

For example, a Reformed Quaker is a very different kind of Christian than a Southern Baptist. The same is true for all philosophical / theological positions. A Deist is a very kind of theist than a Hassidic Jew, etc, etc.

But, yes, there will always be people who make dogmatic assumptions of one's position. But that's why we have discussion forums, I gather. =)



No offense is taken. Different positions took different amounts of time. For example, I've really always been a Moral Relativist since I was about 12 years old. I've identified as an Existentialist since my mid-20's. I became a Theist two years ago.

It took be 12 years (from age 0) to become a Moral Relativist. It took me 25 years to become a Existentialist. It took me 37 years to become a Theist.



Let me say two things about that:

1) Finding a ontological / moral / cosmological / spiritual identity is quite a complicated process and not something that anybody other than yourself is even remotely qualified to assist you with. You have to determine for yourself what these values are.

2) Philosophical positions are fluid and dynamic; not static (for most people, anyways). They tend to change as we go through our lives.

For example, Theologically, I had this pattern:

Agnostic --> Traditional Western (religious) Theist --> Agnostic --> Atheist --> Agnostic --> Theist

Ontologically, I've gone through all kinds of changes including Hedonism and Nihilism. Even my current Existentialism is gradually phasing into something else as we speak.

The point is: it's best not to invest too much in a identity, other than the identity of the moment because identities are often subject to change.

-ITL-

I do see what you mean by saying that stating ones position could be beneficial. You helped me see that perhaps choosing a position, or standpoint rather can help people understand you more, rather than just open you up to bias, and I thank you for that.

Would you happen to know how I could do some reading to find a few categories for myself perhaps....maybe a one size fits all kind of book, with a pleathura(forgivemy spelling) of these categories?

Thank you, all-inclusive.

Right on. =)



I would suggest some general philosophy text books from a university or college. Text books tend to go into more details about the various schools of thought. Also looking things up online is helpful.

Here's just a few of the various schools that related to many different things:

- Agnosticism
- Antinomianism
- Authoritarianism
- Cotextualism
- Deism
- Determinism
- Dualism
- Existentialism
- Fatalism
- Hedonism
- Idealism
- Monism
- Mysticism
- Naturalism
- Nihilism
- Panpsychism
- Pantheism
- Pluralism
- Pragmatism
- Rationalism
- Relativism
- Scholasticism
- Skepticism
- Solipsism
- Vitalism

And that's not even half of the various ideologies. =)

-ITL-

See how this forum works? You've been a member shorter than I, and already, you have been beneficial to me, and have opened perhaps several doors in which I could peak in on, and learn from.

You are a great asset to the forum, and I look forward to meeting you again, on the field.

-all-inclusive-

Thank you for your kind words; I appreciate them.

If I may be so bold, I think we all need to work together as a community - even those who have differing viewpoints - so that we may all learn from each other.

One user here, Krumple, has widely different viewpoints on philosophy than I do, yet she/he has been extremely forthcoming and accomodating in discussions with me. To not emulate her/his example would dishonor the fine job she/he did in welcoming me.

I don't believe in karma, but I do believe in Altruism. What you can do is repay the favor to another user or newcomer when they ask for feedback or assistance. =)

-ITL-

i see where you are going now, i think you are talking about the kneejerk reaction some people have when a person might say 'i am a leftist' and right away they think 'oh right, a bleeding heart type' etc etc...? so rather than dogma i think you might mean stereotyping?

i think even when a person agrees to being this or that as regards philosophy or religion they dont mean that they are rigidly stuck and bound to behave exactly as anyone else would who shares the same ideology. it may help to give an idea of the general tendency a person will have overall but shouldnt mean they think and behave identically at all times as everyone else who shares the same ideology.