I am doubting my faith - need guidance/advice.

rockpie, It was much before I ever learned about the Inquisition and other violence against others who did not "believe" as they did. We need only look at contemporary history to see "religion and faith" doesn't help them control hate and wars. It's not a matter of a small group that represents the whole.

If one looks at our country, the US, with over 80 percent who claim to be christians, we lose again. Our country is one of the most crime-ridden in the developed countries of the world.

I don't see the benefit of being religious, but I think buddhism fits into my philosophy of life; improve oneself, and don't worry about others.

The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean; I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15 years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean sweet breath again this side of the grave. Mark Twain

Your blind faith disgusts me.

TO ME the problem for each individual is not what choice or (as Frank Apisa reminds us) "guess" should we make about the ultimate nature of our reality. Pascal suggested that we would be wise to side with Christian theism, that is to believe in god is wisest since the possibility (not probability) of eternal life is a much higher payoff than the humanist bet that our ONE life will benefit from the freedom of thought permitted by the atheistic choice.
TO ME (and notice my personal phrasing) what counts most is the way we live our lives. If I choose to be a theist or atheist or mystical buddhist it will probably be a reflection of what Aidan points to as my "basic personality." In other words I don't think there is as much freedom to choose as we normally think. Some personalities need, and therefore gravitate toward, theism, some toward atheism, and some toward mysticism.
I "chose",as it were, to follow zen buddhism's practice in 1961 and this required daily meditation and a general mindfulness of each moment of my life. The latter, I found, is not completely do-able (outside of the monastic setting, but I do work at it. This working at it, this committment, is what I refer to as my religiousity. I practice what Nietzsche called "this-worldly religiousity." The theist is devoted to an "other-worldly religiousity."
On the other hand, I know theists, most of whom consider their religiousity to consist solely of that moment of CHOICE wherein they "found" God. But I also know a few Christians who, as does one episcopal and one universalist unitarian pastor, refer to themselves as Christian Agnostics. The episcopal pastor explains this label to me as an indication of his life-long search to discover what it means to "believe" in God, and what the concept of God can mean for him in an intellectually honest way. To him his religious committment has more to do with a life-long process of growth than a sudden moment of transformation.
TO ME, religion is HOW you live your life with reference to your theological committment; it is HOW you travel your path, not the path itself.

JLN, Your last sentence says it all; it's how we travel our path of life that counts. It remains a personal goal; not one that tries to impose our beliefs on others.

By the way, it may be that feelings of doubt regarding one's faith may be a constructive part of the growth I mentioned, as opposed to the obstructive denial of such feelings because of fear of Hell or shame and guilt.

hi,
in the first place...god is beyond comprehension....he is everything that we know and everything that we don't. every creation is god right from the smallest of cells and the wide universe....even u n me.....everything is god....now this becomes difficult to comprehend for the human mind....in order to really understand what god is all about one has to really rise to a much higher level spiritually. the whole thing of god creating something so heavy that he himself can't lift........the creator is god so is the created.....it is a universal force......this i too have heard and to my knowledge it is what god could be.........but to realise god is the ultimate goal of life......all this is the knowledge derived from my divine master Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba...

I believe what you are trying to say is that comprehension is beyond comprehension which is to say, I don't know what I don't know but it's clear in my mind that I don't know what I don't know. You know what i mean?

Actually, in the real first place, you don't even know if god exists. Which puts an end to the rest of your conclusions right away.

Welcome to A2K

Man, the day you suddenly say....."Wait-a-minute, that means there are no gods!!"....your master is going to burst out laughing, high-five you, and run down the hill and jump in the river for a swim.

Welcome to A2K vicky !!

It is interesing to note that the (dualistic) paradox of God's omnipotence involving the ability to lift an object he has made to be unliftable is resolved if one considers god to be simultaneously (i.e, nondualistically) both the omnipotent lifter AND the unliftable object.

god does exist..i dont doubt his existence.......merely from the fact that u n i exist..Taking an example....one can only taste what is sweet, what spicy,pain, joy... one can only feel them if u experience it....all of us may know that something is sweet but may never know what sweet really is if u have not tasted....similarly all of us have heard of god and talk so much about him...but to really experience god is what none of us know...thats what i mean saying god is beyond our comprehension at a particular spiritual level....then he is beyond our comprehension......to see the whole picture we need to grow , grow spiritually...take a swim or jump into fire whatever......the one who creates is god and so is the created....

vikasradhakrishnan-

You say that a god is beyond our comprehension.............yet you don't doubt his existence. Can't you see the contradiction in those two thoughts?

by comprehend i mean to understand...... i hope i made myself clear with my example......if somebody tells u a chocolate is sweet....the word sweet is known...but what is the feeling or taste ...sweet....all of us eat sweets so we know what sweet is but for the sake of argument lets say u havent eaten anything sweet in your life.....somebody tells u that a chocolate is sweet...u know that a chocolate is sweet....but what does sweet taste like...what kind of a taste is that...until u eat it u wouldnt understand what sweet is...similarly...all of us say god god god....but one has to experience god to understand...

A criticism of Kant was a contradiction inherent in his thesis that the Noumena that he posited as the reality behind appearances cannot be known in any respect, because then it would be Phenomena, the visible manifestation of the underlying Noumena or "thing-in-itself".
The criticism, as I recall, was that Kant WAS claiming SOME knowledge about the Noumena--its existence. This "known" trait was, however, a deduced rather than perceived one. The existence of the Noumena was a rational deduction rather than an appearance. I wonder if this may be similar to the proposition that God exists but cannot be comprehended.

Og sleeps peacefully until he dreams of Hell.

Too many Ogs. Not nearly enough Otzies

No it doesn't.

I do.

Not good enough for me.

You are entitled to your opinions of course, as am I. But you are only offering opinions, you are not stating facts. You are not even stating things which 'appear' to be factual.

That we all exust is no proof any god exists. What do you base your belief/faith on other than "we exist?"