Theology
Discussing religion is generally a very bad idea on the internet, but there are a lot of down to earth and rational people on this forum so I decided to give it a go.
I want to hear your beliefs. Also, try to keep an open mind and show respect to other people's opinions. I don't care weather you're a fanatic catholic, fanatic atheist or whatever. Arguing about "who's right" is just a terrible cliche.
Personally I believe that there is a god. I'm not agnostic, I believe in god, but that's just my own spiritual reflection on it. I don't judge other religions and say that "this is right", it's more along the lines of Baruch de Spinoza's take on it where you see god as everything. Maybe there's a word for what that is, I don't know. I prefer to look at everything that is beyond our understanding with humility. Most of my religious knowledge lies within catholicism and I generally agree with the ten commandments, but I also believe that the religion is blurred for the sake of politics, ways of maintaining order and fanatic influences (edit: + things that are lost in translation). In short, I'm a read between the lines kind of guy.
My knowledge on the subject is limited, so it's possible that I won't be able to keep up with the discussion. I'd just like to hear your views
I want to hear your beliefs. Also, try to keep an open mind and show respect to other people's opinions. I don't care weather you're a fanatic catholic, fanatic atheist or whatever. Arguing about "who's right" is just a terrible cliche.
Personally I believe that there is a god. I'm not agnostic, I believe in god, but that's just my own spiritual reflection on it. I don't judge other religions and say that "this is right", it's more along the lines of Baruch de Spinoza's take on it where you see god as everything. Maybe there's a word for what that is, I don't know. I prefer to look at everything that is beyond our understanding with humility. Most of my religious knowledge lies within catholicism and I generally agree with the ten commandments, but I also believe that the religion is blurred for the sake of politics, ways of maintaining order and fanatic influences (edit: + things that are lost in translation). In short, I'm a read between the lines kind of guy.
My knowledge on the subject is limited, so it's possible that I won't be able to keep up with the discussion. I'd just like to hear your views
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
2. As theology is an ancient field of study, there certainly is a name for your type of belief. I can't name it though, as you did not yet specify if you just believe that God is everything, God is in everything, everything is God or everything is part of God ... I think there are more directions of this but I can't remember what they are called and what the exact difference in meaning is.
That sounds like me, with exception for "disavowing authoritative creeds" as I can remember reciting the Apostle's Creed on more than one occasion during a worship service (though not on a regular basis) and "by grace through faith alone."
Suffice it to say that I believe that Jesus Christ is both 100% man and 100% God; that The Bible is "God-breathed" (which is to say written by man and inspired by God); and that God speaks to me on a regular basis, whether literally or through someone else or certain otherwise-unexplainable circumstances.
None of the atheists or agnostics on these forums will sway me from this, even by quoting passages from books of law from the Old Testament (which are usually taken out of literary or cultural context.) I follow what Christ teaches, as exemplified in Matthew 22:
...again, I really do hope that this thread doesn't descend into a fight and get locked.
I agree that this thread should remain civil. Everybody has their own path in life, and I honestly believe that they are all perfectly valid.
I don't believe in God, but I kind of feel like if he exists (which, again, I don't believe to be the case. But I try to keep open to the eventuality that when I die, I might realise I was actually wrong), it doesn't change anything anyways. I always try to do what feels right, and I personally think that if God exists, what will put you in heaven isn't believing in him or praying, but doing the right things for the right reasons.
However as I said I feel religion is something personal, and I feel praying isn't something people do for whatever God they believe in but for themselves, and I do believe it is helpful. Just clarifying that I'm not bashing praying, either. I simply think it is irrelevant to whether you're a good person or not.
I've never understood people who try to change each other's mind. If you believe in God, I have no reason to take it as a personal insult or something. On the other hand, I am annoyed by people who hide behind their religion to excuse their bad behaviour, basically saying "you should respect my right to persecute other people because it's my religion!" I've known enough tolerant, religious people to know that religion is no excuse for being intolerant.
I think that covers it. Basically I don't feel that religion should be such a big deal. I feel it should be a personal thing and that your spiritual beliefs should only guide your own behaviour, and not become some sort of law that everyone has to live by just because you want them to.
I personally am Catholic, simply because I like a more rigid structure to religion, but also try to follow Buddhism as a philosophy, because I think that it has some very good ideas as to how to live everyday life.
I've thought about adopting a Buddhist philosophy myself. How well does that blend with your Catholicism, out of curiosity? I'd imagine some traditionalists raising an eyebrow at that.
EDIT: And the thread tags roll in. Good job on the open-mindedness, anonymous people.
It blends pretty well. I'm of the opinion that most religions are compatible anyways, of course, but its really just like adding more substance to an existing religion. It always bothered me that Catholicism didn't have much of an opinion on how to treat yourself or how to live in this world (its more about preparing for the next) so I just added on a little extra.
Doubtless it would bother the Opus Dei segment (actually, I'm positive it would) but I don't really care.
On a seperate note, I went to my cousin's wedding at a Unitarian Church (her mom's church.) It was so weird. Unitarian churches (which are not Christian, btw) are marked, so I understand, by their intent on including anyone that would hold any religious belief of any kind, even those who have none at all. The effect of this seems to be that it might as well just be a club where people come to hang out.
But I digress. The wedding ceremony was strange. For one thing, the pastor gave a prayer at some point, but it seemed as though he was praying to anyone or no one at all. It felt as though he might as well have been praying to the light fixtures in the ceiling for all the difference it made. ...And then my uncle got up and prayed to "Jesus for shedding His blood on the cross to rescue us from our sin." The pastor's face went so beet-red/purple it was almost comical.
*blushes* Thanks, just my view of the world...
I' a bit curious about this part. Is it a bad word choice or did you actually decide it? Because I certainly didn't decide not to believe, I just never did. Just like you, it's a part of me, and I can't just start believing, I wouldn't be true to myself, I'd be living a lie, just like you would if you had to pretend you didn't believe anymore, I assume.
I say that because honestly, if you could decide, I'd probably have decided to believe something. I mean it would be much easier to go through life thinking you won't really die, and instead end up in a better place, rather than believe your own being is going to simply vanish and you won't exist anymore in any way, shape of form. That's a terrifying though. I'd take burning in hell for eternity over that any day.
So, I'm curious. Not that I sincerely want to start believing, as I said I wouldn't be true to myself if I did. I have to follow my own path, even if it's a hard one to live with. But I'm just wondering if you really thought "okay, I'm going to believe in God now" one day or something. Just seems like a weird phrasing.
I guess I'd feel the same about someone who'd say they decided to be gay or something. I certainly didn't choose to be straight. If I could have chosen my sexual orientation, I would have chosen bisexual for sure, way more possibilities!
But I digress.
From my own personal observations/ponderings of the beauty in nature, the expansiveness of the universe and the complexity and improbability of life itself, it just seems ludicrous to me the idea that it all could have happened by accident.
For example, from a documentary I remember watching on the Discovery Channel, they said that if our planet were any closer or farther from the sun than it is; if its orbit was more elliptical like that of most all other planets from other systems that have been studied; and especially if we didn't have a moon exactly the size and distance from our planet that the moon is, that life on Earth could not exist.
Not trying to step on your toes either, just explaining the way it feels to me. Anything that is complex, wonderful and unlikely is less complex, wonderful and unlikely than someone able to create it.
And also, if one were to think outside the context of linear time, where time as we understand it doesn't exist, then to spend "eternity" with or without God has a different meaning.
As far as the concept of Hell, I don't see it as a true Lake of Fire. I think the Lake of Fire is a metaphor for God's wrath. Imagine not being able to see, feel, think, hear, or speak, or move, but still be able to exist. Well maybe you could think, but that's about it. Imagine that, and the torment of it, with the only knowledge being that you are cut off from God or life forever. That is what I imagine Hell to be like. I feel that that would be the most awful existence possible, and imagine for eternity as well. People say God would have to be evil to do that to someone, but to be honest, if someone doesn't want to believe in a God or doesn't want there to be a God or exist with a God, then what why would God force them to love Him or exist with Him. I once heard an interesting saying that I don't hold to like stone (I don't hold to most things like stone, I only say this is what I believe right now) but think is possible.
There is no coincidence, only inevitability.
I think it was inevitable that the universe was formed. I think it was inevitable that Earth was formed in it where it is, and that we humans came to exist. I think it is inevitable that all living things will eventually die.
That said, I would be somewhat less inclined to disbelieve in a deity like Loki or Kali, who aren't really all that nice. I mean, I don't believe in any deities, I just don't see that there's any evidence they exist. But at the very least it's not such an anathema concept to me to believe in a deity which is not very nice.
I read somewhere, from a Social Stand Point, God is a construction for help us to live better, in the way we always have a security about the stuff we don't understand. Nobody is stoping you to figure out how everything works, of course, but believe in something greater help us to cope with the stuff we simple can't get. For example, after natural dissasters, people suddenly become a bit more religious (Also, they divorce less, because they need a bit of stability in their life). So, in a way, been Atheist is in fact Anti-human nature, and somehow, you will believe in god eventually. (I mean, I read that. I'm not saying all atheists in the world will believe in God anyway in some point of their life, but, for me, make sense).
For the Record, I'm Agnostic. In fact, you can say I'm Christian (Even Catholic) but I don't feel well saying that if I don't participate in said community. I was infant baptized (Mostly because my mom is catholic) and I did the First Holy Communion (Mostly because I was in a Catholic School), but eventually I grew bored of some ways of the Catholic People, how they divide theirselfes and what not (Combined with lazyness =P), so I decided to not participate in the ceremonies. My mom never actually tried to convince me to go back to participate in the ceremonies, and she respect my decision, but, for some reason, she decided I was Atheist. "No, I'm agnostic, there's a difference" and she relaxed after that. And THAT was the weird part.
I would also be proud of those who reached their own conclusions and turned out to be right, but I guess what I mean is that I don't feel that believing in me and praising me would be the point. The point would be that they tried to do the right thing, help people who asked for help, didn't hurt other people, and really thought things through before acting. Even if they ended up making mistakes.
I guess the whole "you're punished because you didn't constantly praise me and tell me I was the best" just seems incredibly arrogant to me. Not the attitude I'd expect from a being who cares about people.
Take a debate like this one, or the other debates we've had. I'll always respect someone who disagrees with me but makes a good case for it, uses arguments, explains their position, more than someone who agrees with me but just quotes me and adds "+1" or "that", or expresses their opinion in such a way that I feel almost ashamed they agree with me.
Not sure if I'm making sense. Obviously, I am not God, nor can I ever truly understand what God is about since I don't even believe in him. But I just feel like believing or not isn't the point, the point is being good just for the sake of being good, and not acting because of the fear of punishment or the certitude of not being punished. I think if you're a good person, you act the exact same way whether you believe in God or not. It doesn't affect your actions, or only barely.
If it makes a big difference, as in, you're helping someone cross the street but you'd push them under a car if you were 100% sure God doesn't exist, then to me you're not a good person at all, just someone who's being clever, binding their time and faking it until they die so they can get eternal happiness instead of eternal punishment.
And I feel it would be incredibly unfair if such a person was rewarded over someone who's always been good just because it felt right and with no expectation to ever be rewarded for it, but just happened not to believe in God, or not in the right one, or not in the right way or something.
(I realize that this is an extremely volatile line of thought, so be assured that I'm only theorizing.)
I have a tendency to get rather deep in my ways of thinking regarding stuff like this.
If I posit that God is absolutely good and perfect in every way and, given the availability of free will, I also point out that, compared to Him, I am a total screw up by any standard of comparison... then why ought He to allow me to exist in His presence at all? Why shouldn't I be obliterated from existence, or at least permanenty separated from He who is perfect? Grace in the answer. I don't deserve it, but He loves me that much anyway. Yet, I also have to accept said grace before it does me any good.
Furthering that thought from a Christian perspective, given the previous statement that I should be destroyed and/or separated from God as a result of my comparative imperfection (ie. sin) one can surmise that if someone/something else were to become a sacrifice to take the penalty for my screw ups, then I would be able to avoid the consequences of those screw ups. Christians believe that such a man existed as actually to be God made into flesh, who Himself is/was also perfect, was willingly given as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice for our screw ups, and if we accept that sacrifice then we are given reprieve from punishment.
I can't speak for other religions, but I'm pretty sure Catholicism doesn't actually require belief to go to heaven--more of the good works category. Belief is good, and supposedly makes it easier to be good, but is not necessary. This, I think, is a more recent change in catechism, which says that anyone can go to heaven as long as they live good lives, regardless of belief (Yeah, I understand that the new pope botched this, but it still applies anyways).
In contrast, if you believe in God but do bad things, then you would still be punished.
Of course, there isn't a whole lot of talk about hell either, mainly its accepted that unless you're exceptionally good or exceptionally bad, you'll go to purgatory, which is like hell, but only temporary.
To sum it up: doing good works in the name of the devil counts as God's work while doing bad things in the name of God counts as the devil's work.
This reminds me of the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do as ye will." (hence my belief that all religions are but separate paths to the same end)
I never knew that. That's pretty awesome, though, that two pretty different religions have such a similar philosophy.:D
These days I favour a semi-religious pick and mix of atheism, Discordianism and paganism. If I was going to convert to a 'mainstream' religion, I'd probably go with Hinduism or possibly Shinto.
First of all, I'm agnostic towards the existence of God. To clarify, agnosticism is the belief that something is unknowable - I believe that it the existence of God is unknowable. I do, however, think that it's more likely that God doesn't exist because all of the evidence for its existence that I've seen is anecdotal, which, in the field of science, is unreliable.
Talking of "the field of science", I disagree with those who say that science shouldn't be brought into religion and that the two are separate. I think that this view comes from a misunderstanding of what science is. Rather than a specific doctrine or set of beliefs, science is the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Knowing this, I think that it is silly to disagree with what is held as scientifically correct without a proper scientific rebuttal. I think that religion is something which came about as part of sincere scientific study of the world - when certain religions were first established, most of the followers believed what that religion preached to be scientific fact. As certain claims get replaced by improved ideas, however, I think that humility and concession are both extremely important (i.e., people should swallow their pride and consider the new information).
On the subject of Jesus, I disagree with those who say that Jesus was, in whatever way, supernatural (that is, that he was the son of God, that he was God, that he was somehow in contact with God, etc.). I also disagree, however, with those who say that he didn't exist. From the evidence that's been presented to me, I feel that it is safe to assume that Jesus was an ordinary Jewish man (a Rabbi, in fact) who had some very advanced philosophical ideas on morality, most of which I completely agree with. I would even go so far as to say that claiming that Jesus was supernatural in whatever way detracts from his teachings. I think this because it sets him on a much higher level than everybody else, which is extremely contrary to almost everything he said. Here's a weird analogy to help illustrate my point: if everybody said that Stephen Hawking was a super-intelligent being or the son of some deity, it would discourage people from listening to what he actually has to say and, even worse, it would discourage people from trying to think as he does and elaborate on his studies.
I also disagree with the notion that Jesus died for our sins. In fact, I disagree with the notion of sin. Morality is a subjective, human idea which has, according to lots of evidence, developed in humans over many thousands of years. In other words, it seems more sensible to say "morality is something which has developed around humans" than "humans are creatures that have developed around morality". Having said that, I think that morality is largely
objective within the confines of human understanding. It bothers me to think that some nations are allowed to treat women as second-class citizens, for example, simply because "their morals are different to ours". I think that this view is ignorant of the truth. Ethics can be treated, to a certain point, like a science. I find that utilitarianism is the most effective discipline for this purpose. In order to find out whether something is unethical in terms of utilitarianism, you would attempt to predict the amount of happiness and pain that would occur as a result of each possible outcome. The one with the most happiness/least pain wins. Using this logic, things like treating women badly are clearly unethical. Many people of the offending nations or religions would argue that the happiness is greater than the pain, but it is the happiness of God rather than of humans, or they would argue that the happiness of a woman is less important than that of a man. I would refute these two claims by saying that they are unsupported and based on a circular argument, respectively.(END OF SUPERLONG POST)
Neo-Paganism is a blanket term for a lot of things, in the same way Paganism is a blanket term/insult which refers to everything which isn't Christian, Jewish or Islamic.
I personally am not religious, I would classify myself as an Atheist. I don't have any problem with anyone practicing any religion unless it affects others, I had an argument with Scientologists for this reason.
In our Chinesse class, our professor is a woman, and she has to talk about their customs for us to understand how her language work. They have different names for the Dad's Side family and for the Mom's Side family, for example. Always, but ALWAYS when she has to told us that kind of things, she always say maybe for us is machoism, but for them is custom. And for they is ok to be in that way. And for her is not machoism in any sense. They can break the custom by the way (And the Chinesse Goverment is trying to do that) but, after years and years of doing the same (Especially with the amount Unliterate people they have) is difficult to change.
In a way, something similar happened to us when I and my family, went to a in a construction Mosque in Coquimbo, Chile. The guy in charge here give to us a tour (And we been in places we, as non-muslim people, we'll never get the chance to be again, mostly because those weren't finished) and explain to us in a way, they Take care of their Women. It's not like we are a second grade people, they think in the way the Women have to have an special treatement for protect their. (You can say is mostly the same thing as classificate us as second-grade people anyway, but, in the way he told us that, I was truly convinced he was talking about protect). *
So, been in a some sort in contact with those explanations from, in a way, the source, make me understand they aren't doing that because they truly believe harm them is ok because they are different, they really believe is the best for everyone. Change their ways about those things from our view are wrong, if it's not from clearly understanding of their own views first, is pointless. Because they really believe is the best way to do it, for everyone sake.
*Arab and muslim people, forgive me!
I would say that I believe that God is in everything if I had to pick one of those.
I believe that there is a God but I go by my own beliefs. That's basically humility, forgiveness, good intentions, ethical behavior and rational thinking. I don't choose to believe strictly in one religion, I choose to believe in the things that make sense to me. Or to put it in another way, I believe that everything is one religion.
I'd love to know what that kind of belief is called though, for the sake of future references.
Pantheism?
Science has it's limits and people depend alot on it and put their all faith that what science says, it's 100% accurate. And forget that science is an enterprise, a business that protect it's own commandment, but shares also it's contradiction. No one on Earth holds the truth to it, but those who choose to believe must do so with atleast a small portion of faith. You see mankind over estimate themselves so much it once considered themselves the center of the universe. Once Science got their big triumph (rightfully so in the dark ages of inquisitions) it has gone in the same direction the antique catholic church went. Deeming all that can be observed, hypothetise, experimented and tested as something that can reach a 100% conclusion. Yet science has made mistakes, is unable to provide full answers and even acknowledge the existence of love, hate, just because its not matter but a social construction.
I can't personally fathom to not consider Jesus as not unnatural when theres too much historic consistency to his acts, miracles, and life on Earth. There are 4 books, one written carefully by a doctor who repeat the words of Jesus in Crucifixion. Theres even books that predate the times of Jesus that announce what he will do since Genesis and yet theres no formal answer or logical explanation. Theres also absolutely no man on earth that has divided the times like Jesus has done in a way with BC AC. His influence was so strong that no man, has been able to leave such a profound and concrete trace of his acts like he did. 2000 + years after his death, cultures, economy and laws are based on what he spoke and talked about. He changed the laws written in stones to laws written in the heart of mankind.
And last but not least my personal experience with having cancer after a couple of months born, and the pcitures taken are so profound that science is left baffled not finding the answers to the reason of why i am alive. Yet it is this things that science is unable to address adequately. If it wans't God, then my body suddently developed defense system to attack and aggresive cancer that almost killed me?
Indeed, but the term is also used for a specific tree of polytheistic nature religions. For example, a Hindu may be "pagan", but he/she isn't "Pagan".
Whathever who says Science has to be 100% accurate and anything that cannot be proved by science is false, I'm pretty sure is not a scientist itself. The actual science is just a bunch of assumptions which cannot be proved false for the moment. And it's more of a proof of our own limits. Also, it's a proof of the fact humans likes to go beyond of our limits and try to figure out what's here. And, seriously, if there's a great believer of god, it's a scientist.
Sounds about right
Edit: Just as an addendum, science can't be wrong about things - scientists can. In fact, scientists like finding out that they're wrong because it's a step further towards finding the scientific truth they're looking for.
Personally, I believe there is a God. (I'm a brought up Christian btw). I also believe in angels, and I like the idea of both Guardian Angels watching over us and the idea that angels walk among us.
This I like too. I'm going to think about this a lot more. Thanks for sharing it. And thanks for starting this thread. I love hearing peoples viewpoints, especially on such a complex subject!
You are entering a difficult territory when you try to explain the existence of God through logic or facts. The bible is very inconsistent, and an enormous amount of claims made in the book are obviously historically erroneous. The earth was not created in six days, nor was it created 6000 years (or so) ago, there was no mass extinction through floods four thousand years ago, and there is not a shred of proof that thousands of jews wandered through the desert for 40 years - it's even highly unlikely that Egypt ever had a sizeable population of jewish slaves.
The fact that christianity has had a huge cultural impact on the western civilizations is not proof of anything. An Indian hindu or a Saudi-Arabian muslim could use this very same logic to prove the validity of their gods and myths. Other religions are extremely influential in other parts of the world - perhaps even more than christianity in people's day-to-day life.
Anecdotes about how people suddenly recover from a seemingly terminal illness can be attributed to any number of causes. It is wonderful that you made a full recovery, but ask yourself why God would intervene and heal just you. Millions of children die every year from various diseases and ailments. Why would God ignore so many, yet help a tiny, miniscule fraction seemingly at random (and also, seemingly, without regard for the religion of the parents). And, of course, "God exists" does in no way follow logically from "science does not know everything".