What are your religions beliefs, if any?

[Silvanus]

Well, just like what I talked about. You heard from me that the ultimate hell is powerlessness, but you don't KNOW that. You've probably never truly felt it to that extreme extent. If you did, and you didn't believe in any afterlife then you might get more scared than you could possibly realize. That idea, that possibility, could hound you.

Well, sure, plenty of things could hound me. It's the talk of abysses and voids that I find to be unnecessarily verbose, and to not do many favours to the topic.

It's personal preference, I admit. It just puts me in mind of Uni Lit students talking about how if we stare into the abyss it stares back at us. They think it's so dark and edgy.

 

[Arnox]

It just puts me in mind of Uni Lit students talking about how if we stare into the abyss it stares back at us. They think it's so dark and edgy.

Nah, I use the term, "abyss" very intentionally here. I don't pass that word around very often if at all. When I say, "abyss", I use it so intentionally that I almost mean the literal definition of it.

 

[Houseman]

I too think it's a little melodramatic

 

[Arnox]

I too think it's a little melodramatic

Good.

 

[Ogoid]

Interesting topic (and nice forum, BTW).

My religious beliefs are, honestly, an asystemic mess of all the stuff on religions and occult systems I read in my late teens and early twenties, plus a good bit of Jungian psychology on the side.

When it comes to specifics... I believe human consciousness is independent of (if temporarily attached to) a physical, material body; I believe in reincarnation, in karma, and in free will. I believe in a God insofar as I believe there is an ultimate cause and reason for all things, but I believe that to try and conceptualize it in any but the most abstract of terms is to inevitably turn it into a straw-filled scarecrow made of one's own limited understanding. And metaphysics aside, I believe "love thy neighbor as thyself" is really what it all comes down to in the end.

 

[Arnox]

I believe in a God insofar as I believe there is an ultimate cause and reason for all things, but I believe that to try and conceptualize it in any but the most abstract of terms is to inevitably turn it into a straw-filled scarecrow made of one's own limited understanding.

But why would God have there be scriptures written if everything was so above our heads as you say?

Also, thank you! Welcome to the forum.

 

[McElroy]

My view is materialistic. No souls, no spirits, no supernatural, no miracles.

Though I can't say I'm completely irreligious as I'm still a member of the Lutheran church here. This is because I think they preach about good things (generally - people and thus priests are all different).

How does that work? What does your membership entail? How do you benefit?

Voting in the Congregational election and "a church wedding" are definitely for members only. I think the Congregations can decide (the people that have been voted in decide) how big a part of their activities are restricted in that way. All in all, membership itself is important as it's a national church with the right to collect tax, and with that comes great responsibility too. I used to participate in their youth activities as a teenager and that likely contributes to me not leaving the church.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I believe in a God insofar as I believe there is an ultimate cause and reason for all things, but I believe that to try and conceptualize it in any but the most abstract of terms is to inevitably turn it into a straw-filled scarecrow made of one's own limited understanding.

But why would God have there be scriptures written if everything was so above our heads as you say?

I believe that qualifies as Agnostic which is also how I qualify my beliefs.

And that's not really a fair question; you're prescribing objective truth to your faith's text which doesn't really leave room for an answer you'd ever find remotely reasonable.

The text exist; this is true, but by the allowance of God (let alone directly by His hand) is a matter of belief, not fact. Not to take anything away from your beliefs, but as a good Agnostic, I can only say I don't know why the scriptures exists. They could easily have been written by man completely removed from divine influence at all. There's a version of the Bibles called the "King James Version;" that alone tells me that man had a significant hand in its creation, and man is fallible. Hell, the Bible has been translated into dozens of languages; which is the actual Word of God? Modern English? Greek? French?

At over 2,000 years old, the Bible certainly has stood the test of time, but seeing as one need only go back half the time to the language of the Anglo-Saxons to find "English" unrecognizable, you have to wonder if some things may have been lost (or added/intentionally omitted) in the Bible's iterative translations which is why I personally find it difficult to understand faiths that put 100% stock that "the Word" exactly as it is written in their text of choice is THE truth and their learnings become somehow what they "know" and no longer what they "believe."

Don't get me wrong, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc. all have excellent lessons to teach for those seeking spiritual guidance, but I feel those lessons are deeper than the ink on the page on which they're printed and requires more of someone than simply believing what a books says and doing what other members of [insert religious group here] say.

 

[Silvanus]

At over 2,000 years old, the Bible certainly has stood the test of time, but seeing as one need only go back half the time to the language of the Anglo-Saxons to find "English" unrecognizable, you have to wonder if some things may have been lost (or added/intentionally omitted) in the Bible's iterative translations [...]

We know this happened. The historic Church(es) convened councils to determine what would be canonical, and what would be apocryphal, very often depending on highly personal and arguable reasons.

Don't get me wrong, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc. all have excellent lessons to teach for those seeking spiritual guidance, but I feel those lessons are deeper than the ink on the page on which they're printed and requires more of someone than simply believing what a books says and doing what other members of [insert religious group here] say.

They have some excellent lessons. The consistency is extraordinarily low, though, and there are plenty of bad or nonsensical lessons in there alongside them.

 

[Ogoid]

But why would God have there be scriptures written if everything was so above our heads as you say?

Also, thank you! Welcome to the forum.

Thanks! ;D

As for scriptures... I tend to view them as human artifacts, if no less valuable for that; overall, pretty much all of them say the same thing - "be a good person" - and they even agree, by and large, on what that entails.

I would say I believe there is a transcendent intuition behind the principles those texts set down, but that Divinity itself - God - is something that can't really be fully apprehended at our - humanity's - current level of intellectual and spiritual development.

 

[Houseman]

Voting in the Congregational election and "a church wedding" are definitely for members only. I think the Congregations can decide (the people that have been voted in decide) how big a part of their activities are restricted in that way. All in all, membership itself is important as it's a national church with the right to collect tax, and with that comes great responsibility too. I used to participate in their youth activities as a teenager and that likely contributes to me not leaving the church.

What exactly do you do there that makes being a part of it worthwhile, though? I assume you don't just show up, listen to a sermon based on beliefs that you don't share, and go home.

I mean, if I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't still do JW stuff.

Hell, the Bible has been translated into dozens of languages; which is the actual Word of God? Modern English? Greek? French?

It's not like an omnipotent God can't ensure that an adequate translation of the same idea can't be expressed in multiple languages

 

[McElroy]

Voting in the Congregational election and "a church wedding" are definitely for members only. I think the Congregations can decide (the people that have been voted in decide) how big a part of their activities are restricted in that way. All in all, membership itself is important as it's a national church with the right to collect tax, and with that comes great responsibility too. I used to participate in their youth activities as a teenager and that likely contributes to me not leaving the church.

What exactly do you do there that makes being a part of it worthwhile, though? I assume you don't just show up, listen to a sermon based on beliefs that you don't share, and go home.

I mean, if I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't still do JW stuff.

The cultural aspect of the Lutheran church here is significant, historically even more so. As I said, I believe there is potential for good in their teachings (easily outweighing the bad). I do have plenty of "habitual Christians" in my extended family and in their minds I want to be somebody that didn't leave the Church while giving them spiritual support in the rare case they might be struggling (I have a godchild too). To put it short: for appearances and convenience - it's still a somewhat strong institution that I don't wish to leave as of now.

I mean, as a teen I actively participated because of friendships, never because of faith. Though even so, the final nail in that coffin came later.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Hell, the Bible has been translated into dozens of languages; which is the actual Word of God? Modern English? Greek? French?

It's not like an omnipotent God can't ensure that an adequate translation of the same idea can't be expressed in multiple languages

I’m NOT saying that’s not possible; I’m saying I don’t know, that I don’t believe anyone “knows,” and that I personally could not sign up for a faith that assumes that’s the case without allowing for interpretation and mandates that I simply believe the literal words to call myself “one of the group.”

I’m certain you’re armed with plenty of explanations being a Witness and trained to field questions, so answer me this if you will: if the Bible is to be taken as THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied, how does one explain a God who, at a time when scientific and medical studies have explained so much of the world around us, when man is armed with more irrefutable, intimate knowledge of the state of our existence than ever, would relegate himself to fantastical, enigmatic texts and requisite blind faith when the Word would have us believe he is more that capable of more direct interactions? The parting of a sea, a burning bush and a voice booming from the heavens would indeed be a “miracle” or a “sign” to someone 2,000 years ago; given the state of the world today, don’t you think we’d benefit from similarly overt divine intervention when even the simplest souls can explain away what was thought to be “divine” thousands of years ago? At a time when faith is easiest to lack, why does God hide?

I know that seems the go-to, elementary “prove it” argument, but in my mind it is so much more. I don’t need “proof” so much as a reasonable explanation; this is why I am agnostic; I find it equally hard to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God who’s held the fate of our souls in abject silence for 2,000 years and burdens me with faith in Him bases on what other men say about Him from a pulpit or doorstep as I do that 14 billion years ago “nothing” exploded into “everything,” and the complexity of it all is just chance and chaos.

 

[Houseman]

answer me this if you will: if the Bible is to be taken as THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied,

We don't quite believe that. We all need to interpret the bible, since interpretation is the process of understanding. At least, that is how I interpret the word "interpret".

how does one explain a God who, at a time when scientific and medical studies have explained so much of the world around us, when man is armed with more irrefutable, intimate knowledge of the state of our existence than ever, would relegate himself to fantastical, enigmatic texts and requisite blind faith

We don't believe in "blind faith" either. Or rather, we do not believe that faith is inherently blind.

when the Word would have us believe he is more that capable of more direct interactions? The parting of a sea, a burning bush and a voice booming from the heavens would indeed be a “miracle” or a “sign” to someone 2,000 years ago; given the state of the world today, don’t you think we’d benefit from similarly overt divine intervention when even the simplest souls can explain away what was thought to be “divine” thousands of years ago? At a time when faith is easiest to lack, why does God hide?

Yes, I think we would benefit from similar signs today.

The answer to why there are no more miracles today, is revealed in why miracles were needed in biblical times. All miracles were done for a purpose. God spoke through angels, visions, and burning bushes in order to prod people into action. They were prodded in order to establish, and at times save the nation of Israel, God's chosen people. God gave more miracles to this nation so that they can grow strong and loyal. These Israelites were used create Jesus. Jesus did miracles to prove who he was, and what he was capable of doing. Christians came after Jesus and were given more miracles in order to prove that they were now God's chosen people.

Christians are still here, so why do we need miracles today? Has the proof "worn off", so to speak? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the miracles you mentioned were real, and were accurately described in the bible, then why should we assume that the bible does not accurately depict these miracles as well? Therefore, since miracles have proven the Christian congregation, and since the Christian congregation still exists, and since we have the bible where all of these miracles are accurately recorded, we need nothing more.

So that's why. In a word: we do not need miracles. We have the bible.


But Arnox would say that miracles still exist, and are being performed by those of his own religion. That view is not wholly based on the bible, nor do they hold the same assumptions about the bible as you ("THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied") so it may not apply to your question.

 

[Xprimentyl]

answer me this if you will: if the Bible is to be taken as THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied,

We don't quite believe that. We all need to interpret the bible, since interpretation is the process of understanding. At least, that is how I interpret the word "interpret".

how does one explain a God who, at a time when scientific and medical studies have explained so much of the world around us, when man is armed with more irrefutable, intimate knowledge of the state of our existence than ever, would relegate himself to fantastical, enigmatic texts and requisite blind faith

We don't believe in "blind faith" either. Or rather, we do not believe that faith is inherently blind.

when the Word would have us believe he is more that capable of more direct interactions? The parting of a sea, a burning bush and a voice booming from the heavens would indeed be a “miracle” or a “sign” to someone 2,000 years ago; given the state of the world today, don’t you think we’d benefit from similarly overt divine intervention when even the simplest souls can explain away what was thought to be “divine” thousands of years ago? At a time when faith is easiest to lack, why does God hide?

Yes, I think we would benefit from similar signs today.

The answer to why there are no more miracles today, is revealed in why miracles were needed in biblical times. All miracles were done for a purpose. God spoke through angels, visions, and burning bushes in order to prod people into action. They were prodded in order to establish, and at times save the nation of Israel, God's chosen people. God gave more miracles to this nation so that they can grow strong and loyal. These Israelites were used create Jesus. Jesus did miracles to prove who he was, and what he was capable of doing. Christians came after Jesus and were given more miracles in order to prove that they were now God's chosen people.

Christians are still here, so why do we need miracles today? Has the proof "worn off", so to speak? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the miracles you mentioned were real, and were accurately described in the bible, then why should we assume that the bible does not accurately depict these miracles as well? Therefore, since miracles have proven the Christian congregation, and since the Christian congregation still exists, and since we have the bible where all of these miracles are accurately recorded, we need nothing more.

So that's why. In a word: we do not need miracles. We have the bible.


But Arnox would say that miracles still exist, and are being performed by those of his own religion. That view is not wholly based on the bible, nor do they hold the same assumptions about the bible as you ("THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied") so it may not apply to your question.

You are welcome to believe as you like, and you’re certainly fortunate to have the conviction that you do if it satisfies and fulfills you, but that’s circular reasoning; you believe the Bible’s word because you have the Bible? The first step in your logical process assumes the miracles of biblical times actually happened as they are written, which is what I consider “blind faith,” and that’s where it falls apart for someone like me. Maybe “blind” is the wrong word?

For an agnostic, to stand back and see how many different ways people interpret the same “God” of the Bible, and how many different ways other people believe in a god or gods that have nothing to do with the God of the Bible, and how many different ways all these same people have found to argue, fight, indeed wage WAR over their beliefs because “we’re right, and you’re wrong,” and all this in the light of humanity’s inherent fallibility and brutal, selfish nature, it’s hard to believe ANY of them “know” anything. And that is not, I repeat, is *NOT*, an attack or accusation on you or anyone; I “know” no more than anyone else, I just lack the conviction to stake the flag of the soul I believe I have in any of the myriad camps that claim to have it “right.” (I believe JW’s refer to their faith as “The Truth?”)

I try to live a good life; I try to be kind and generous to others; I follow my innate moral compass that tells me cheating, stealing, inciting violence or otherwise causing others pain and suffering is wrong, and I avoid these things. I tell my friends and family that I love them; I celebrate their lives; I share their pain; I mourn their loss. Am I perfect? Ha! Far from it, but at the end of this life, if whatever “God” should judge me and find me lacking because I didn’t attend a regular church or ate pork or celebrated a birthday or worked on the Sabbath, then I guess shame on me for not “knowing” better; a priori knowledge doesn’t come easy for me.

 

[Houseman]

You are welcome to believe as you like, and you’re certainly fortunate to have the conviction that you do if it satisfies and fulfills you, but that’s circular reasoning; you believe the Bible’s word because you have the Bible?

When did I ever say that?

You are the one that began with the assumption: "...if the Bible is to be taken as THE definitive Word and not questioned or interpreted, only applied..."

I was only operating under this same assumption.

You began with "If X, then explain Y."
And I explained Y, given X.

 

[Taesahnim]

Agnostic. Religion is a lie from start to finish. No one knows if a god of any kind exists.

 

[Signa]

Agnostic. Religion is a lie from start to finish. No one knows if a god of any kind exists.

The idea of a skydaddy is almost certainly a lie. However, a good religion will push its members to strive for success and improve humanity. I don't know how you could say any of that is a lie if you know anything about religious history.

 

[Tony]

I believe in pyramid energy and the grand unified theory of the quantum tetrahedron

 

[Taesahnim]

Agnostic. Religion is a lie from start to finish. No one knows if a god of any kind exists.

The idea of a skydaddy is almost certainly a lie. However, a good religion will push its members to strive for success and improve humanity. I don't know how you could say any of that is a lie if you know anything about religious history.

My comment was based on years of studying religion from both a social and historical point of view.

The goals of religion are to accumulate wealth and gain power over its adherents. If they push people to strive for success, it's done solely so that those people can put more money in the religion's pockets.

 

[Houseman]

My comment was based on years of studying religion from both a social and historical point of view.

The goals of religion are to accumulate wealth and gain power over its adherents. If they push people to strive for success, it's done solely so that those people can put more money in the religion's pockets.

I can certainly believe this is the case for perhaps a majority of religions, but I'd hesitate to believe you if you said that this is the goal of 100% of religions, without exception.

For example, in my religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), everyone who lives and works at our HQ, the leaders included, make a vow of poverty. Our leaders that we call the "Governing Body" don't fly around in private jets or drive luxury cars or anything like that.

 

[Signa]

The idea of a skydaddy is almost certainly a lie. However, a good religion will push its members to strive for success and improve humanity. I don't know how you could say any of that is a lie if you know anything about religious history.

My comment was based on years of studying religion from both a social and historical point of view.

The goals of religion are to accumulate wealth and gain power over its adherents. If they push people to strive for success, it's done solely so that those people can put more money in the religion's pockets.

You're speaking of organized religion while I'm speaking of belief structures. There's a big difference

 

[Helladamnleet]

Just curious

Since this is the only thread I'm allowed to post in apparently:

I think religion is the interpretation of events by a society that didn't understand, mixed with the will of world rulers throughout history. I don't exactly believe we are the genetic experiment of an alien race, but I do think we were visited, observed for a few decades, and deemed not important enough to fuck with yet, either because of galactic law preventing interfering with an undeveloped planet, or because our tech wasn't nearly advanced enough for them to give a shit about us yet.