If you want a good deconstruction of exactly how the Bible was written, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned, check out the book, Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Friedman. Portions of the Bible are actually merged from separate works.
If you want a good deconstruction of exactly how the Bible was written, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned, check out the book, Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Friedman. Portions of the Bible are actually merged from separate works.
Well, yeah. At Babylon. They grabbed all the religious texts, decided which ones should be canon and chucked the rest so they could fit it in one book/scroll thingee.
Granted, I'm remembering this from a class on Bible history that I took in high school, backed up by skimming a wikipedia article.
Please understand that I am a very curious person, this is not a question with any malicious intent: Why was the Bible written?
My understanding from my church experience was that the Bible was written to spread the word of God. Yet in all of the churches I have attended, and in being lectured by the ultra religious of differing faiths, I have heard the same thing: We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Now, I feel that if the Bible were meant to spread the word of God, and you believe that God is all powerful, then God would not allow it to be translated incorrectly. I was taught that his people were to read it and obey it's teachings. So I find it very confusing that people believe some parts and not others. Could someone out their give me their thoughts and ideas on this?
The Bible is a collection of books/scrolls/letters which were written by various people, but are "God-breathed," which is to say that God inspired these people in writing them.
Yes, God, who is capable of creating time and space itself, and our universe with all its beauty and complexity, is capable of ensuring that the Bible is written as He thinks it should be as well as translated properly.
Now, this being said, the context of the culture during the time in which the Bible was written is important to take into account, especially with regard to the Old Testament. For one thing, imagine, if you will, trying to explain the vastness of the universe as we currently understand it and the concept of taking tens of billions of years to get it to be as it is now, when the old Hebrew language doesn't even have a word for "universe" (which is why the Old Testament says "heaven and earth" when referring to it.)
When Jesus taught people, he used parables as analogies to help them to understand. In my opinion, the same could perhaps be said of the Bible's creation stories (of which there are two: The creation of the world and Adam and Eve are separate creation stories.)
The Bible isn't just a bunch of nice stories that someone came up with like Jennifer said. I heard a friend in high school claim to believe this. The people who wrote the books of the Old Testament had no idea that their writings would be preserved for thousands of years, and the New Testament books written by Paul are letters to fellow disciples and to churches. Paul himself was not writing specifically to us, at least that was not his intent. But God is capable of using Paul's words to bring us closer to Him, to make known to us how we should live, and to explain why we need a Savior.
There is a book called More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell which discusses evidence regarding the legitimacy of the Bible. I recommend you read it, as I have and found it quite informative.
(This is a serious response to a serious question made by dustpuffs. Please do not flame me for this post.)
I'm not sure Religion is the kind of thing that should be talked about online as it ends up with a few strong religious people and a few blunt Atheists
I'm personally more on the Atheist side as it makes more sense to me and I prefer to trust on science rather then faith
I'm pretty sure we'll never know till we're dead although we may not exist to ever know
The Bible isn't just a bunch of nice stories that someone came up with like Jennifer said. I heard a friend in high school claim to believe this.
I didn't say that. In fact I said this: "From a religious viewpoint, the Old Testament is the word of God as told by God and transcribed by men. The New Testament is a recount of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ by those who knew him best."
I did use the words stories and tales at the end of my post, but I never said that they were just something someone came up with. Whether you believe they are based on the word of God or not, both definitions still fit even if they were based on historical events (which is likely in some cases, such as the recount of the slavery of the Isrealites). Since they are told in a narrative fashion, they would be stories or tales (the definition of the latter: "a series of events or facts told or presented, an account"). The word you're thinking of is fables, and I respect everyone's faith too much to ever refer to the stories in the Bible in that fashion.
I'm not sure Religion is the kind of thing that should be talked about online as it ends up with a few strong religious people and a few blunt Atheists
I'm personally more on the Atheist side as it makes more sense to me and I prefer to trust on science rather then faith
I'm pretty sure we'll never know till we're dead although we may not exist to ever know
Eh, this thread's been around for long enough. And at least it doesn't have Tomp and Pants here to monkey around with it. Which got the last thread closed.
I read a book once called the "The last templar", and it really changed my viewpoint on religion in general. I consider myself an atheist (and have been for the past ten years or so). But the book posited that the new testament of the bible was made up of four books selected by the church out of many hundreds that had been claimed to be accounts of events. The church selected these because they made Jesus into a mythical being with strange, miraculous powers. The reason for doing this was to strengthen the attraction of christianity to create unity. They later find a gospel written by the man himself. In which he was but a wondering preacher, teaching about what he saw as a better way of life. None of the son of god, or miracle malarky.
And that is what I believe happened. Chinese whispers distorting memory of events, and a selective and manipulative church creating a religion (which i accept was probably a good thing at the time) out of it.
It's hard to put across how persuasive the book was, but I really enjoyed it, and would recommend it to anyone. And the book doesn't try to convert you. In fact, the ending leaves you to pretty much take what you want from it. But I just thought it put across an interesting idea,
As for my personal views on whether there is a god? I couldn't care less. If there is a god, I am not spending my time worshipping them. Not if they can sit by an allow/cause all the hardships in the world to carry on. Far too many people close to me have died for me to be grateful for his potential existence. If there is a god, he completely ruined my life growing up, leaving deep emotional and mental scars. First my father. Then my favourite nan. And then my gran. And then my aunt. In the space of about 18 months I lost them all. I went from an happy and innocent 8/9 year old to a a shy, withdrawn kid with trust issues. Something I only really recovered from in recent years. In my view, there is no god. Not if something like that could happen to a church going family who hurted no-one.There is no god, no afterlife. Nothing. Religion was a device used to comfort the needs of humanity "Mourning? Don't worry, they've gone to a better place". "Feel useless? Well everyone has a god given purpose." "Confused as to what to do? Follow these moral laws."
I'm not saying religion is a bad thing. Indeed, the people that went to my old church were really nice people on the whole. If you're in the UK, the Lee Abbey christian retreat in Devon is an awesome place to visit. I just despise what it is based on.
I gave my opinion on your question here and Alcormortis did as well here (back a page in this thread).
That comment was not addressed to those of you who gave your opinions, it was addressed at those who suggested reading about how it was written.
I find it fascinating to see how differently people can view the same body of work, and I really appreciate those who are willing to discuss it. It is a refreshing change from the "we don't question, we just believe" stuff that I heard from Sunday school teachers growing up.
As for my own religious views, sometimes I am torn. My father and a couple of my siblings are now atheists, and my father is the type to not let you think whatever you want, but to constantly try to convince you to his way of thinking. I get sick of hearing him go off on people whose beliefs he finds foolish, but I am equally sick of being told I am going to hell because I don't go to church. When I read reputable news accounts of things with no explanation other than a miracle, my belief in God is strengthened. When I look at the pain and suffering in the world, and in particular that of my children, it makes me question if there is a God altogether.
It has always been very important to me to be the best person I can be. I try very hard to treat others with respect and kindness, as that is how I wish to be treated. I am very honest, charitable, and devoted to my family. This has nothing to do with trying to get into Heaven when I die, but simply to make my life the best it can be while I am alive.
I read a book once called the "The last templar", and it really changed my viewpoint on religion in general. I consider myself an atheist (and have been for the past ten years or so). But the book posited that the new testament of the bible was made up of four books selected by the church out of many hundreds that had been claimed to be accounts of events. The church selected these because they made Jesus into a mythical being with strange, miraculous powers. The reason for doing this was to strengthen the attraction of christianity to create unity. They later find a gospel written by the man himself. In which he was but a wondering preacher, teaching about what he saw as a better way of life. None of the son of god, or miracle malarky.
And that is what I believe happened. Chinese whispers distorting memory of events, and a selective and manipulative church creating a religion (which i accept was probably a good thing at the time) out of it.
It's hard to put across how persuasive the book was, but I really enjoyed it, and would recommend it to anyone. And the book doesn't try to convert you. In fact, the ending leaves you to pretty much take what you want from it. But I just thought it put across an interesting idea,
As for my personal views on whether there is a god? I couldn't care less. If there is a god, I am not spending my time worshipping them. Not if they can sit by an allow/cause all the hardships in the world to carry on. Far too many people close to me have died for me to be grateful for his potential existence. If there is a god, he completely ruined my life growing up, leaving deep emotional and mental scars. First my father. Then my favourite nan. And then my gran. And then my aunt. In the space of about 18 months I lost them all. I went from an happy and innocent 8/9 year old to a a shy, withdrawn kid with trust issues. Something I only really recovered from in recent years. In my view, there is no god. Not if something like that could happen to a church going family who hurted no-one.There is no god, no afterlife. Nothing. Religion was a device used to comfort the needs of humanity "Mourning? Don't worry, they've gone to a better place". "Feel useless? Well everyone has a god given purpose." "Confused as to what to do? Follow these moral laws."
I'm not saying religion is a bad thing. Indeed, the people that went to my old church were really nice people on the whole. If you're in the UK, the Lee Abbey christian retreat in Devon is an awesome place to visit. I just despise what it is based on.
The problem is that it's ignorant of history. Unfortunately it falls into a fallacy that many people do when discussing an institution by approaching it from a monolithic, top down format. This was not the case with the church until at least Constantine 300 after Christ, by which the number of books had already been whittled down. However that process couldn't have occurred via top down imposition. There were two churches opposed to each other's interpretive process in Antioch and Alexandria, but they both settled on the general same set of books. 150 years before Constantine Marciom as the greatest threat to the traditional church. His followers were significant and numbered the normal church, but were at most guilty of saying the Old Testament should be ignored while settling on the New Testament as we generally know it. But geographical competition in the century before him could not have had authoritative council establishing that corpus because they simply didn't have the influence. The church occupied geographic territory from Rome to Egypt, had only slowly delayed communication and for the most part was confined to urban elites. The country side was an ever wilder situation for Christianity and hundreds of books claimed to be testaments of Christ. The oldest and most constantly referenced were held up by multiple proponents in multiple places over a long spam of time. But there was no church, in the way you're describing it, to comman the use of only certain books.
To slant the issue slightly... In the 1600s, what council of Natice Americans could tell all the native Americans of just the United States to codify a unified body of tenets? If you can describe the unified beliefs of the native Americans of the U.S., then we can start describing the Christian church in the same way.
I did not say I didn't understand how the Bible was written. I asked why you believe the Bible was written. Completely different things.
Okay, then:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(and)
John 20:30-31 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The problem with the question "Why was the Bible written?"... is that there is no such thing as the Bible. Different religious institutions/traditions have their own canons (see here for a comparison).
So you'll have to rephrase the question. "The" Bible really is a collection of different scrolls and books, written across a vast amount of time, so you could try narrowing it down. Or you may want to know for each and every Bible book why it was written. You'd probably get a different answer for almost each and every one of them, and for some Bible books, there will be no clear-cut answer.
To give some examples, there are Bible books written to comfort the people of Israel who were experiencing hard times in the face of their enemies (such as Babylon or Egypt), there are collections of songs (Psalms, Lamentations), there are letters to churches, written to steer them into a certain direction and to further the institutionalization of religion (which is why I'm not a particular fan of the Pauline epistles), and there are your historical writings, which, as Alcoremortis already explained, are just historical records (with some embellishments here and there, no doubt) to keep the past alive.
So... any particular Bible book you want to know about?
Wait. What? You're injecting names into your bloodstream? Far be it from me to judge... but that's a bit weird.
Taking the Lord's name in vain, however... well, that's one of the 10 "never do this under any circumstances" rules, right? You just have to decide for yourself what's right, I guess. I mean, would typing "OMG" be the same as "goddammit"? I dunno. And I certainly don't know what the status is on video games since the Bible is curiously silent about them. Maybe there's a supplement to help with that sort of thing.
Since you're not the one who is committing those acts and saying those things in violent video games (or movies, books, music, etc.), there shouldn't be a problem reconciling your enjoyment of those things with your following the Bible's ten commandments (or other moral guidelines).
If you're a strong believer of following those moral guidelines, then there's no chance that playing, watching, reading, listening to, or in any way experiencing anything that goes against those guidelines is ever going to get you to do or say those things yourself. And in the end, that's what really matters.
I am Catholic. I believe in most of the dogmas, such as Jesus being son of God, the divine Trinity,... But I think the most important thing is that the Bible is that it has to be read like a book of moral teachings that people should apply in their everyday life, not like a reliable historical account or being followed by the letter.
Is there anyone on these forums who is Jewish or Buddhist? It seems because of this thread that there are only Christians, Theists, Agnostics, and Atheists.
Maybe not, but it's just as offensive to my ears simply because I've heard it so freakin' much (particularly in American television). The expression is uttered so much in Western culture that it should just be outlawed due to over-use.
I am Catholic. I believe in most of the dogmas, such as Jesus being son of God, the divine Trinity,... But I think the most important thing is that the Bible is that it has to be read like a book of moral teachings that people should apply in their everyday life, not like a reliable historical account or being followed by the letter.
We still need to consider the historical side of it, though. We need to consider every aspect of the Bible, actually. Context is everything! Much of what is written in there is only exclusively applicable to specific groups of people, during certain time periods, within certain cultures. We need to study the historical context so that we don't make the mistake of following the Bible by the letter.
Also, if we are to put our trust in such a book, and consider it a teaching of accurate, beneficial morality, then we need to study the historicity of it, and make sure that it can stand on its own two feet historically. Because if the historical veracity of the book is compromised, then the credibility of the rest of the book's content goes down with it.
The way we're meant to approach the Bible is to do so as a whole, to consider the big picture surrounding the text. And history is a part of that context. We can't just look at it as a book of lessons, because it's so much more; it claims to be so much more! It claims to be a historical source, so we have to treat it accordingly.
Is there anyone on these forums who is Jewish or Buddhist? It seems because of this thread that there are only Christians, Theists, Agnostics, and Atheists.
BTW, “Oh my God” is not a statement of blasphemy.
I call myself Buddhist Atheist as I agree with the principles and idea of buddhism and it is one religion that does not actually have a God
It is a religion I agree with and is a lot more flexible and is about living a good life and how all life is equal
I call myself Buddhist Atheist as I agree with the principles and idea of buddhism and it is one religion that does not actually have a God
It is a religion I agree with and is a lot more flexible and is about living a good life and how all life is equal
Buddhism is definitely a very interesting religion, and it is often practiced alongside other religions. There's probably a lot more practicing Buddhists in the world than recorded by census because of this.
What branch of Buddhism do you follow, Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana (or a combination)? I'm more inclined towards the Mahayana teachings since I believe that it is possible for those who have reached nirvana to regress, since even the most principled human being still can stumble (and, optimistically, I also believe that after regression they still have the ability to reach nirvana once more).
I'm an honorary Buddhist. I got a perfect score on my Buddhism test in high school, so my teacher gave me a tiny statue of Buddha and declared me an honorary member.
More seriously, I've always liked Buddhism. I think it's a very practical sort of religion and doesn't have any of those hidden clauses that require you to treat other people badly. If there was one religion that I think would be the closest in accuracy to the state of the Universe, I'd go with Buddhism. (It's also nice that you don't need to adopt it as a religion either. It's a perfectly valid philosophy. And unlike religions, you can follow multiple philosophies)
Comments
Well, yeah. At Babylon. They grabbed all the religious texts, decided which ones should be canon and chucked the rest so they could fit it in one book/scroll thingee.
Granted, I'm remembering this from a class on Bible history that I took in high school, backed up by skimming a wikipedia article.
Yes, God, who is capable of creating time and space itself, and our universe with all its beauty and complexity, is capable of ensuring that the Bible is written as He thinks it should be as well as translated properly.
Now, this being said, the context of the culture during the time in which the Bible was written is important to take into account, especially with regard to the Old Testament. For one thing, imagine, if you will, trying to explain the vastness of the universe as we currently understand it and the concept of taking tens of billions of years to get it to be as it is now, when the old Hebrew language doesn't even have a word for "universe" (which is why the Old Testament says "heaven and earth" when referring to it.)
When Jesus taught people, he used parables as analogies to help them to understand. In my opinion, the same could perhaps be said of the Bible's creation stories (of which there are two: The creation of the world and Adam and Eve are separate creation stories.)
The Bible isn't just a bunch of nice stories that someone came up with like Jennifer said. I heard a friend in high school claim to believe this. The people who wrote the books of the Old Testament had no idea that their writings would be preserved for thousands of years, and the New Testament books written by Paul are letters to fellow disciples and to churches. Paul himself was not writing specifically to us, at least that was not his intent. But God is capable of using Paul's words to bring us closer to Him, to make known to us how we should live, and to explain why we need a Savior.
There is a book called More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell which discusses evidence regarding the legitimacy of the Bible. I recommend you read it, as I have and found it quite informative.
(This is a serious response to a serious question made by dustpuffs. Please do not flame me for this post.)
I'm personally more on the Atheist side as it makes more sense to me and I prefer to trust on science rather then faith
I'm pretty sure we'll never know till we're dead although we may not exist to ever know
I did use the words stories and tales at the end of my post, but I never said that they were just something someone came up with. Whether you believe they are based on the word of God or not, both definitions still fit even if they were based on historical events (which is likely in some cases, such as the recount of the slavery of the Isrealites). Since they are told in a narrative fashion, they would be stories or tales (the definition of the latter: "a series of events or facts told or presented, an account"). The word you're thinking of is fables, and I respect everyone's faith too much to ever refer to the stories in the Bible in that fashion.
Eh, this thread's been around for long enough. And at least it doesn't have Tomp and Pants here to monkey around with it. Which got the last thread closed.
And that is what I believe happened. Chinese whispers distorting memory of events, and a selective and manipulative church creating a religion (which i accept was probably a good thing at the time) out of it.
It's hard to put across how persuasive the book was, but I really enjoyed it, and would recommend it to anyone. And the book doesn't try to convert you. In fact, the ending leaves you to pretty much take what you want from it. But I just thought it put across an interesting idea,
As for my personal views on whether there is a god? I couldn't care less. If there is a god, I am not spending my time worshipping them. Not if they can sit by an allow/cause all the hardships in the world to carry on. Far too many people close to me have died for me to be grateful for his potential existence. If there is a god, he completely ruined my life growing up, leaving deep emotional and mental scars. First my father. Then my favourite nan. And then my gran. And then my aunt. In the space of about 18 months I lost them all. I went from an happy and innocent 8/9 year old to a a shy, withdrawn kid with trust issues. Something I only really recovered from in recent years. In my view, there is no god. Not if something like that could happen to a church going family who hurted no-one.There is no god, no afterlife. Nothing. Religion was a device used to comfort the needs of humanity "Mourning? Don't worry, they've gone to a better place". "Feel useless? Well everyone has a god given purpose." "Confused as to what to do? Follow these moral laws."
I'm not saying religion is a bad thing. Indeed, the people that went to my old church were really nice people on the whole. If you're in the UK, the Lee Abbey christian retreat in Devon is an awesome place to visit. I just despise what it is based on.
That comment was not addressed to those of you who gave your opinions, it was addressed at those who suggested reading about how it was written.
I find it fascinating to see how differently people can view the same body of work, and I really appreciate those who are willing to discuss it. It is a refreshing change from the "we don't question, we just believe" stuff that I heard from Sunday school teachers growing up.
As for my own religious views, sometimes I am torn. My father and a couple of my siblings are now atheists, and my father is the type to not let you think whatever you want, but to constantly try to convince you to his way of thinking. I get sick of hearing him go off on people whose beliefs he finds foolish, but I am equally sick of being told I am going to hell because I don't go to church. When I read reputable news accounts of things with no explanation other than a miracle, my belief in God is strengthened. When I look at the pain and suffering in the world, and in particular that of my children, it makes me question if there is a God altogether.
It has always been very important to me to be the best person I can be. I try very hard to treat others with respect and kindness, as that is how I wish to be treated. I am very honest, charitable, and devoted to my family. This has nothing to do with trying to get into Heaven when I die, but simply to make my life the best it can be while I am alive.
The problem is that it's ignorant of history. Unfortunately it falls into a fallacy that many people do when discussing an institution by approaching it from a monolithic, top down format. This was not the case with the church until at least Constantine 300 after Christ, by which the number of books had already been whittled down. However that process couldn't have occurred via top down imposition. There were two churches opposed to each other's interpretive process in Antioch and Alexandria, but they both settled on the general same set of books. 150 years before Constantine Marciom as the greatest threat to the traditional church. His followers were significant and numbered the normal church, but were at most guilty of saying the Old Testament should be ignored while settling on the New Testament as we generally know it. But geographical competition in the century before him could not have had authoritative council establishing that corpus because they simply didn't have the influence. The church occupied geographic territory from Rome to Egypt, had only slowly delayed communication and for the most part was confined to urban elites. The country side was an ever wilder situation for Christianity and hundreds of books claimed to be testaments of Christ. The oldest and most constantly referenced were held up by multiple proponents in multiple places over a long spam of time. But there was no church, in the way you're describing it, to comman the use of only certain books.
To slant the issue slightly... In the 1600s, what council of Natice Americans could tell all the native Americans of just the United States to codify a unified body of tenets? If you can describe the unified beliefs of the native Americans of the U.S., then we can start describing the Christian church in the same way.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(and)
John 20:30-31
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
That's why.
So you'll have to rephrase the question. "The" Bible really is a collection of different scrolls and books, written across a vast amount of time, so you could try narrowing it down. Or you may want to know for each and every Bible book why it was written. You'd probably get a different answer for almost each and every one of them, and for some Bible books, there will be no clear-cut answer.
To give some examples, there are Bible books written to comfort the people of Israel who were experiencing hard times in the face of their enemies (such as Babylon or Egypt), there are collections of songs (Psalms, Lamentations), there are letters to churches, written to steer them into a certain direction and to further the institutionalization of religion (which is why I'm not a particular fan of the Pauline epistles), and there are your historical writings, which, as Alcoremortis already explained, are just historical records (with some embellishments here and there, no doubt) to keep the past alive.
So... any particular Bible book you want to know about?
Wait. What? You're injecting names into your bloodstream? Far be it from me to judge... but that's a bit weird.
Taking the Lord's name in vain, however... well, that's one of the 10 "never do this under any circumstances" rules, right? You just have to decide for yourself what's right, I guess. I mean, would typing "OMG" be the same as "goddammit"? I dunno. And I certainly don't know what the status is on video games since the Bible is curiously silent about them. Maybe there's a supplement to help with that sort of thing.
If you're a strong believer of following those moral guidelines, then there's no chance that playing, watching, reading, listening to, or in any way experiencing anything that goes against those guidelines is ever going to get you to do or say those things yourself. And in the end, that's what really matters.
BTW, “Oh my God” is not a statement of blasphemy.
Maybe not, but it's just as offensive to my ears simply because I've heard it so freakin' much (particularly in American television). The expression is uttered so much in Western culture that it should just be outlawed due to over-use.
We still need to consider the historical side of it, though. We need to consider every aspect of the Bible, actually. Context is everything! Much of what is written in there is only exclusively applicable to specific groups of people, during certain time periods, within certain cultures. We need to study the historical context so that we don't make the mistake of following the Bible by the letter.
Also, if we are to put our trust in such a book, and consider it a teaching of accurate, beneficial morality, then we need to study the historicity of it, and make sure that it can stand on its own two feet historically. Because if the historical veracity of the book is compromised, then the credibility of the rest of the book's content goes down with it.
The way we're meant to approach the Bible is to do so as a whole, to consider the big picture surrounding the text. And history is a part of that context. We can't just look at it as a book of lessons, because it's so much more; it claims to be so much more! It claims to be a historical source, so we have to treat it accordingly.
It is a religion I agree with and is a lot more flexible and is about living a good life and how all life is equal
What branch of Buddhism do you follow, Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana (or a combination)? I'm more inclined towards the Mahayana teachings since I believe that it is possible for those who have reached nirvana to regress, since even the most principled human being still can stumble (and, optimistically, I also believe that after regression they still have the ability to reach nirvana once more).
More seriously, I've always liked Buddhism. I think it's a very practical sort of religion and doesn't have any of those hidden clauses that require you to treat other people badly. If there was one religion that I think would be the closest in accuracy to the state of the Universe, I'd go with Buddhism. (It's also nice that you don't need to adopt it as a religion either. It's a perfectly valid philosophy. And unlike religions, you can follow multiple philosophies)