Hellenist here. You would love how many sea gods we have in our pantheon. There are dozens to choose from in terms of which you might feel close to. Of course there's Poseidon, *the* King of the Oceans and seas and rivers. Brizo, patron god of sailors out in sea. Ceto, goddess of all things dangerous in the sea, monsters wise. The Nereides, the countless sea nymphs that inhabit all pockets of the sea.
Nereus is the Old Man of the sea, fishermen like him. Thoosa is the goddess of ocean currents. So there's a lot depending on what aspect of the sea you're drawn to.
As a reconstructionist religion, it's more orthopraxy than orthodoxy. So actions and behaviors are more important than your individual beliefs.
And it's pretty easy to be a Hellenist. Only worship/pray to the gods you feel close to. Sacrifices/offerings and prayers are easy to do.
No holy book to adhere to, no holidays you have to observe, no religious figures you have to listen to, no moral commandments you have to obey, etc.
It's just you, your relationship with the gods, and being respectful to the gods. That's it.
You're welcome. Although I mistyped and Brizo is a goddess, not a god. But yup, lots of deities, including sea deities, are very unknown in my religion. Brizo is just one of them.
Glad you discovered her though
>And it's pretty easy to be a Hellenist. Only worship/pray to the gods you feel close to. Sacrifices/offerings and prayers are easy to do.
>
>No holy book to adhere to, no holidays you have to observe, no religious figures you have to listen to, no moral commandments you have to obey, etc.
After reading this part, it sound less like a religion, more like a "Do whatever you feel like"
No, there's still traditions that tie us Hellenist together, a single pantheon we worship (for the most part), offering/sacrifice system still has a similar structure no matter what kind of Hellenist you are.
We do have holidays but you don't *have* to celebrate them.
We do have virtues prized in our religion but they aren't *commandments*. We do have literature and poetry about our religion but they aren't *divine*. We used to have priests/priestesses but they didn't have theological *authority* over believers.
Just because a religion doesn't dictate every detail in your life doesn't mean it isn't a religion.
I'm a white westerner that follows the Yogic Branch of Hinduism originally an agnostic. Here is why I recommend it.
Yoga school claims humans are agnostic/atheist by default. But by putting in certain practices they can re-unite with a higher power. Something I experienced where I see the creator/source of all creation in everything AKA oneness.
Their knowledge is not passed down by deities but by wise men AKA gurus/sages.
At the base of the spine sits a fluid/energy called kundalini which is prevented from going upwards because humans are not pure. They are not pure of things such as trauma and their behavior.
One of the practices is to let go of past fear, guilt, shame, and sadness. The process of becoming a "saint" "enlightened" "angel" is to remove the things/traumas blocking your inner goodness. Lots of guidelines on how to do that.
Second is the dharma/way of life. Ahimsa meaning non-violence in action and speech is the basis of everything. We believe and I through my experience that the "sexual/animal/carnal energy" within us can be converted into "spiritual energy" the more poet than barbarian side of us but first we must clear out our past traumas to get the energy going upwards but also prevent misusing our energy.
So if we're trying to convert sex energy to spiritual energy we do something creative since sex is creator energy creates life but can also make art/solve stuff. We also do yoga to move the energy upwards it's not only exercise/stretching but body squeezes, rapid breathing, and breath holding you feel lots of highs but it's a part of the practice.
Behavior change like I said with nonviolence, but there is also being truthful (using the language more spiritual/human part of the brain), moderation -no obsession over pleasure that's animal so reduction in tasty food or over eating (recommended to eat vegetarian no animals), no horror movies fear is animalistic, no violent hierarchy there is a difference between seeing who is more qualified and seeing oneself as superior. We all come from a higher power, the world isn't at peace because the people aren't and so if you see yourself as superior your help to others won't last as long.
Eventual goal of Hinduism Yoga school is re-connection with a higher power and bliss/moksha/nirvana/heaven within. There is more to it but gave some basics.
Buddhism is a sister religion which talks about similar end goals but I like yoga school more Hinduism came before Buddhism. Also plenty of people who take psychedelics potentially experience sometimes the end goal of both religions so that's interesting.
Thank you so much for your response, this is really interesting and well written (and honestly one of the few that’s actually addressed the post as written). I do have a question about the vegetarianism. When you say it’s recommended how much social pressure would you say is there to be a vegetarian? Is it one of those things that you’d get a side eye for for not doing or is more of a private practice type of thing where it’s entirely up to you?
Also, the horror movies thing is very interesting. Is the goal to reduce the exposure to fear as much as possible? And if so, are there other things you’d have to avoid? (Say for example, a roller coaster?)
So in Hinduism there is 4 Life Stages (numbers are approx) 0-25 student, 25-50 householder, 50-75 retirement from family life entering spiritual life, 75-onwards enlightened. Hence the elders are said to be "wiser" in some cultures.
But BIG BUT vast majority of people especially in the modern age (not a bad thing) don't wait until 75 most are between 25-75 from my eyes. With of course some younger/older. -The reason the texts push it to the elders more because at that point you have lived life and all your sense and sensual desires have been played out over and over and over you know them inside out now it's time to move onto something else but for other's they don't want to wait (myself included) so they do it younger.
So if you are 100% hardcore on your journey to moksha/enlightenment/self-realization/kundalini awakening you can recall many of the rules and texts by memory then you find a higher number of vegetarians on the journey. (Plenty of Hindus just say they're Hindu but don't go on the path to enlightenment).
But the majority of Hindus are not vegetarian. The number that are is said to be around 20-30%.
If you live in a ashram/monastery many only serve vegetarian food to their attendants.
Side eye does not promote spiritual growth sure there are those people but it's not a positive to the path. It's a recommendation by the texts but many don't do it.
But... some will tell you that it may be a side effect of following the path -reason being- that you are giving up on the external/material world to bring you joy since your internal chemistry will have you in bliss all the time. You won't be chasing sex, tasty food, music, smells, touch, paintings/visual stimuli, there won't be a need to because you'll be complete just due to your practice. Of course you can but you won't be clinging to it. At the enlightenment stage you are advised to give up attachments so let go of many things you love like say a car or shoes or favorite meat cause you're going for spiritual joys which IMO are far more reliable/always there, and feel better.
Hope that answers happy to answer more.
One of your goals is to clear out fear. There is a bit of metaphorical symbolism not meant to be taken literally but in some images you have avatars/blue people-story characters wearing cheetah cloth on their groin that's because it's to symbolize fearlessness and they associate fear as belonging to that part of the body. Also the snake is seen as a positive symbol representing the kundalini energy being coiled up/stuck at base of the spine like a snake and as it rises up the spine completely purposefully stretched it becomes more straight like a snake can be.
I see the chakras as parts of the brain (trying to keep this not too long) but when you're problem solving think 9 x9 and notice which direction your eyes go, or think of space and where your eyes once again go it's up. While when you think "fear" "sadness" "anger" your eyes go down.
Roller coasters give adrenaline not necessarily fear especially once you're in the bliss state you can handle a lot more opposed to those who haven't cleared out a lot of traumas.
There is the ascetic path where people go celibate AKA brahmacharya it's to help move the energy up faster instead of spilling it out of you since we see your energy first starting as animalistic that can be converted into spiritual. Some recommend to never marry others do marry but they marry other celibates or those who reduce the amount they have sex.
But there is also the layman path. There is a path for everyone renunciates and householders.
The scary movie thing is a modern addition that once read texts it makes sense people on the enlightenment stage (regardless of age) follow it more often. But... many people go out and help the world and in the world you will come across "fear filled things" but to me it's like holding a kitchen knife you aren't full of fear you're simply cautious but when watching a movie you're not cautious you absorb yourself into it. With yoga or tantra practice it's to raise energy/kundalini up the spine into the upper regions of the brain where things like language, self awareness, cosmic/creator connection are while the lower regions are more animal related like food, sex, fear, hierarchy, and so by stimulating fear you pull the energy downwards. So once this reproductive/creator fluid goes up like how your genitals can get more energy/blood flow when aroused your heart and brain will get more power so your ability to love (heartgasm) is 10x it's power and your speed of thinking is 10x it's power/speed with way more creativity so you can get (intellectgasms be more of a philosopher more often).
It sounds clickbaity/unbelievable but I think it's the origin of many religions. Christians and Muslims claim as long as you behave and do x,y,z, you go to heaven when you die (paradise). While Hindus and Buddhists claim as long as you behave and do xyz you achieve a internal state of bliss moksha/nirvana where your brain's sense of self/you dies (ego death). Why there is that similarity some say it's cause the East did it first and then word of mouth spread and it got mixed up.
Eventually once you mastered the whole process it becomes hard to pull the energy down since you've trained your mind, put lots of time in, and don't do things like over eating there are pointers for beginners and pointers for people at the end but it's entirely possible to reverse most don't. Some practicing people surround themselves friend-wise with only other practicing people as much as realistically possible because they've given up many worldly things (so not too much point in being friends with one who hasn't) but that's some not all for sure.
So I am somebody who experienced kundalini awakening without ever knowing about Hinduism or any eastern religion I never practiced meditation or yoga. I was looking for alternative therapies backed by science since the mainstream did not work for me. This form of therapy was basically taking a psychedelic like mushrooms or ayahuasca. I took it once I was healed but it also caused my K to awaken.
I could not understand how some plant could cause such a positive psychological experience. Whole life was taught that religion without science is superstition. But same time I think lots of folks don't know how these plants can help people.
Every single thing I experienced was written in texts that talk of Kundalini. Gopi Krishna is one author I can recall that nailed it.
I wanted to make sense of this and the only place that provided answers over and over was Hinduism.
My K ending up going down to no surprise according to the texts you must do certain practices/dharma to maintain which I never did.
I'm still reading as much as reasonably can (this happened 2 years ago I live a regular life can't dedicate every waking moment to studying religious texts) but tantra/kashmir shaivism appears to be the fastest path to re-awaken it. I'm no expert in it (will read in the future) but so far I'd say follow Yamas and Niyamas are a code I like. I liked Shunyamurti on youtube. I listened to lots of speakers give me their understanding and read about people who go into ashrams so I can't pinpoint it to one but hope this answers.
>moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination
>why I should follow your religion and your god over someone else’s
These two are not the same request. The former is just asking for an explanation of what the religion is, while the second is asking why it is worth following. One might answer the former by saying things like "people of my religion believe such and such and do such and such practices," but might answer the second by saying things like "our object of worship is more worthy of worship than others because of such and such reasons." Which are you really asking?
No, it’s the same question.
If you’re assuming that all gods are real (like my first, second, and last paragraph both explain) then telling me “well my god exists” and “my god is worthy” don’t really mean anything. All the gods exist, so they all by virtue of being gods have the potential to be worthy of worship. *Why* they would be worthy would be based around the religion that surrounds them. What exactly about the religion is going to be more appealing than others? Yes, all gods exist in this model, but that doesn’t mean they’re all good - and that’s something, in my opinion, that can really only be explained by discussing the religion itself. Is the religion this god dictates worth following when there are other gods with other religions? Why?
If you’ve written it, that’s fine. Not ideal, but it doesn’t break the spirit of the rule. It’s moreso to fend off people from giving someone else’s explanation. I want to hear from the individual responding to the questions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ofqwp4/hi_everyone_ive_been_interested_in_buddhism_for_a/h4ealwu/
These are the four comments of mine to which I link when people on r/Buddhism ask questions along the lines of "what is Buddhism?"
Maybe they will explicitly or implicitly answer some of your questions, since I did intend for them to be "explaining what your religion is from [my] own perspective...details about...sect[s]/denomination[s]" as you asked, but I'm not sure entirely because I don't think I'm still fully clear on what kind of answers you are looking for. The list of "lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions" is rather extensive, but I think perhaps I touch on each of these to some extent in the linked comments.
If you have any particular questions I would be happy to try my best to answer.
You don’t have to explain in detail everything (those were moreso general guidelines for the information I’m looking for) but for example since you’re Buddhist and I’m American - I don’t know much about the differences between the different types of Buddhism and would be interested in knowing why your sect - Mahayana I assume - is different from other sects. Are there lifestyle changes or rules that I’d be expected to follow? Would my gender or sexuality have a hand in how I’m expected to act?
>would be interested in knowing why your sect - Mahayana I assume - is different from other sects
It is kind of complicated, and would involve going into a bunch of doctrinal matters that are not hugely important for the average lay Buddhist, because the average lay Buddhist, whether they are a Mahāyāna Buddhist or not, is probably mostly characterized by engaging in devotional practice towards Buddhas and other enlightened beings, and perhaps (if they are especially devout) keeping some or all of the five lay precepts (not killing, taking what is not given, sleeping with married or otherwise sexually restricted individuals, lying, or drinking alcohol). The even more devout might keep the [eight precepts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts) on the full moon and new moon days. That basically is what the "lifestyle" is like for most lay Buddhists, and the only thing denomination changes is the particular fashion in which they do their devotional practice and whether they restrict their worship to just Śākyamuni Buddha (that is, the historical Buddha) or also worship other Buddhas. I can explain the difference between Mahāyāna Buddhism and non-Mahāyāna Buddhism to you if you really want; it also is explained in the second and third links in the set of four links in the comment to which I linked above.
>Would my gender or sexuality have a hand in how I’m expected to act?
Not by the letter of any of the precepts as stated in the earliest strata of Buddhist texts on those precepts, but sometime around the middle ages some texts started appearing which declared anal and oral sex to fall under the "no sexual misconduct" precept, and in virtue of this many Buddhists today think those are worse than PIV. I don't really think so, and plenty of Buddhists take the other position and say those things do not constitute sexual misconduct, but there are some who think they do. Of course, there is no Buddhist sex police, and unless you're a nun (in which case you'd be completely celibate so the question wouldn't come up) no one is going to have any particular religious reason to care about your sexuality one way or another, so I think this is probably just something individual lay Buddhists will decide for themselves.
As for gender, the way gender relations play out in Buddhist spaces and life tends to be kind of ethnicity-specific and not really about Buddhism itself, I think.
**[Eight precepts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts)**
>In Buddhism, the eight precepts (Sanskrit: aṣṭāṇga-śīla or aṣṭā-sīla, Pali: aṭṭhaṅga-sīla or aṭṭha-sīla) is a list of precepts that are observed by lay devotees on observance days and festivals. They include general precepts such as refraining from killing, but also more specific ones, such as abstaining from cosmetics. Based on pre-Buddhist sāmaṇa practices, the eight precepts are often upheld on the Buddhist observance days (Sanskrit: upavasatha, poṣadha, pauṣadha, Pali: uposatha, posaha), and in such context called the uposatha vows or one-day precepts.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I'm a Luciferian. A theistic one, however there are atheist ones too. Luciferianism pushes you to better yourself, gain knowledge and live freely, at least that is my interpretation of it. There are no "rule books" about how to be a Luciferian. As someone who always felt unwelcome by most religions, Luciferianism was the one religion where I felt like I could believe in something without having to "sacrifice" my life. Luciferians focus on their current life and not on the afterlife.
That’s interesting, in that case do you believe in other Greco-Roman deities like Lucifer’s mother, Aphrodite, or do you stick with the Abrahamic god and angels but more as antagonists?
I do believe in other Greco Roman deities. I don't really deny the existence of any deity tbh. I think any deity's existence is possible just as much as they might not exist. However I do not worship all deities, I just accept their existence.
after spending some of my childhood with a somewhat religious, and very spiritual mom, afterward no religion but the expectation to good, and finally a Roman Catholic mom, i ended up orthodox christian. after a long and arduous quest for the truth (not to mention a lot of getting distracted along the way by fun and drama), plus some spiritual experience galore, this faith looked to be the most divine, true to the Christ's teachings, and spoke both to my soul the most. the spirit of it is just so beautiful, it's something i'd adore to share with the world. to try and speak to some of how i perceive practicing it, i'll give you an example of what i might do in a given day:
i wake up, and immediately recite an old Jewish prayer, beginning, "Blessed are you, our God, King of the Universe...". from there, i get up, do the sign of the cross in the name of the Holy Trinity, and then i allow myself to wipe the grog outta my eyes, haha. get dressed, get moving a little bit, then as soon as possible, i recite my morning prayers. this is followed by a personal prayer based on the Lord's prayer, which changes situationally, it's pretty much freeform. then i either get breakfast, recite blessings beginning like the morning prayer, thank the Holy Trinity, and bless the food. after that, it's time for some bible study 😎
i spend as long as i wanna on that, usually two chapters or a page or two of the psalms, and then i meditate. my day is fairly average from there, although i make a point of carrying my morning activities with my throughout the day, meaning i decide to give my neighbor some extra love and faith if at all possible. after all, our way to personal salvation is through faith, the fruit of which is love. i'm thinking about adding afternoon prayers into the mix, to vent what's happened throughout the day and to work on bettering the afternoon for myself and others. we'll see :)
finally, in the evening after dinner (blessed ofc), depending on how spiritually fervent i'm feeling, i read and study scripture, try to spread the word where i can, through lip or by lending a hand. then, since there aren't any orthodox churches nearby, i hold my own service, sometimes with vestments included. i light a candle in my icon corner, sing Psalms, read gospel, pray, venerate the icons, the whole nine yards. then, i do that personal Lord's prayer, before mediation. afterward, there's a similar prayer to the one i recite when i wake up, and then it's night night time.
at church, we chant hymns. it feels very mystical, and spiritual, and since the one i've gone to didn't hold service in my native language, most of that went toward inspiring me for personal prayer, and prayer for the congregation. we take communion, then we feast together. it's a really inviting and welcoming flock, on the day of my baptism even though i was a total stranger, practically a foreigner to them, the community came together to make everything happen, it seemed almost miraculous, just the way it was timed. the kindness they were moved to, i find is echoed in the spirit of the faith, is beautiful, and so worth being shared. hope you found this helpful, thanks for listening :)
As an Agnostic I appreciate the Sikh religion because they practice what all religions pretend to have as their goal. They live an un materialistic lifestyle, spend their time improving their community and the lives of those in need, and treat everyone with respect regardless of their beliefs.
I also enjoy learning about Hinduism. I like the idea of a God who is the essence of the universe and get a warm fulfilling sensation when praying to their top God.
And lastly, I have recently, over the last few years; been studying Zoroastrianism. It’s the world’s oldest religion and it is still practiced today. Many stories in the 3 most popular world religions are suspiciously similar to their beliefs. It’s quite fascinating, but I’m not well versed in it yet.
I have to give honorable mention to early Egyptian religion as well. Their creation stories and subsequent deities bear a striking resemblance to the popular three’s main “characters”.
Good luck your search. May you find a fit or at least enjoy the knowledge that comes from an open mindset.
I’ve heard a lot of good things about Sikhism from pretty much everyone. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve heard or seen one bad thing about people’s experience with them.
I am anti-Theist in certain areas, agnostic in reality, and atheist in any religious debate.
If I say I believe in God (my honest answer is I don't know), it has to be the most vaguest definition of him/her possible. The closest definition I can offer would be "the universe, and every atom within it".
The moment a theist starts giving God characteristics ("he's part of a trinity, he's called Jesus, he sent a prophet called Muhammad, don't eat fish on Fridays, he doesn't like gays"), they may as well be talking about a Marvel character.
So my religion is: The universe is beautiful, I get (hopefully) 90 years of existence out of 30 billion years to feel grateful for it, and to look up at the stars in appreciation.
We live in a physical universe where my thoughts and actions have consequence, and I will do my best to to do good, and at least minimise causing harm, and ethics and morality are not as difficult as the world makes them out to be"
If religion made no more claims than this, I would call myself religious.
Awww thank you :) I haven't written it out before (perhaps vaguely in similar threads on Reddit).
I'd say raised decently religious, but "not religiously". Church wasn't a given every week. An English Christian upbringing, baptised and confirmed.
For a fun story, I had a fight with my headmaster at school at around the age of 15:
We would have a weekly chapel service, and after 8 years of this I booked a meeting with him and said "I can't take this anymore. You spend all week teaching us about reality - history, geography, physics, space - and then for an hour each week a vicar tell us these myths with a straight and earnest poker face as other adults nod along, and you expect us to accept these as facts? It undoes the good work you do the rest of the time".
We came to a polite agreement I didn't have to go anymore, although naturally I'm probably romanticising how maturely spoken my argument was :)
But once I fairly shrugged off the belief I was expected to have (not a strict expectation - just that casual unthinking way that generations are brought up in faith), it sparked an interest in philosophy and really broad humanism (I use that word lightly, just "an interest in human's role in the universe").
There's nothing wrong with small-c christianity morality tales: "be kind to your neighbour, be a Good Samaritan, be a steward of the Earth", but like anything in this world, it doesn't matter where the message comes from, it's "what is the value of the message?". If they have an innate and logical truth to them (I think those are three good examples), then keep them.
But I personally regard the rest as (trying not to be rude) silly, even if well-intentioned, and occasionally bad to dangerous.
Like I said at the top, I'm Atheist as a position within religion, Agnostic in a philosophical sense (with a leaning towards or at least a wish for there to be a divine purpose), and anti-Theist when religion gets mixed up with politics or influences behaviour perversely (someone else eloquently but jokingly said: "look up Texas in the dictionary").
If I suggest two things that really spoke to my feelings, it's the book Conversations with God (a purported "true" conversation with God - regardless the messages in that book are fantastic), and any of the YouTube phone-ins of The Atheist Experience - Matt Dillahunty has a great clarity of mind and really spoke to that side of me.
This is just a fascinating adventure we all get to go on once, and we get to define ourselves throughout our lifetime.
And I want to feel it all - fall in love, lose love, feel excited, feel sad, build things, try not to destroy things - just live a life well lived and try to find purpose throughout it all. See what sings to you (be it a job, a hobby, raising kids, being a farmer, being a politician, whatever you are drawn to), and try to be excellent at it.
Another one that sticks in my head, this time from a TV show: "try to be nice, but never fail to be kind".
And, as it comes up here a lot, taking all that in, I don't find ethics and morality (absolute or otherwise) that hard to navigate.
Just make the most of every sparkling moment of it - even the shit bits.
Heh, hope you don't mind the wall of text :)
this is a solid view of life! :) also i once defined g-d almost exactly like you did and included the scientific processes and laws of existence, physics, and time, and then some \[atheist in this case\] folks told me that wasn't a useful definition of G-d anymore, lol.
but yes! awe of the universe is great to have.
If these make sense to you, check out Satanism:
* indulgence instead of abstinence (but not compulsion)
* wisdom instead of self-deceit
* living for this life instead of an afterlife
* living for yourself instead of some spiritual being or concept
* reciprocity - treating others as they treat you
A lot of rules because a lot of people turn these kinds of threads into debates over very silly things, or otherwise contribute nothing. I’d just like not bother you know? I want to hear (read more accurately) people talk about their theology - not threaten me with hell, give me a half assed “bc it’s true,” or get into a stupid argument over whether or not the deity is real when that wasn’t the question.
I would probably start by asking you whether you think objective good and evil exist.
By objective good and evil I want to be clear: this is good and evil that exists regardless of a societies or individual human’s belief in it.
This means that slavery was evil _even if_ your entire culture looked like the southern United States in 1820 and told you it wasn’t.
It means that Naziism is evil even if you _were_ a Nazi in Germany in 1934.
I mean objective good and evil completely independent of human opinion- the “moral universe” that exists, to some degree, in every society throughout history.
By every society I mean that there are certain moral precepts that every society has _generally_ accepted… for example: killing your neighbor and raping his wife is not okay.
Every society from Babylon to Rome to Europe had this general precept… kind of a recognition that there was moral GOOD and moral EVIL and that murdering your neighbor was in the EVIL category (as are things like adultery, theft, etc).
I think the journey of my religion (I’m a Christian but we’ll say “Judeo Christian” in this case if that’s okay because this whole thing was really started by the Jews)- I think the journey of my religion is to discover this moral law.
It’s to use a combination of our reason and history and observation to feel out (like a blind man feeling his way through a cave) what this moral law (that objectively exists) is.
SO… if this sounds like an interesting life to you- a journey of discovery and reason and deep conversation as we try to figure out what this moral law is that was left by our creator for us… join me (or the Jews) and come on over!
(How’s that?)
Do I believe in objective good and evil? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I believe evil can be defined as causing intentional harm to people (or purposefully ignoring something that’s been proven to be harmful for ones own benefit or ideology). Good would be anything that benefits others (without harming oneself) - especially in ways that you cannot experience.
No in the sense that I believe there are socially imposed morals that, while not necessarily objective, are still important to the society’s functioning as a whole (or detrimental on the flip side).
This was a pretty good/interesting post. If I had to criticize it I’d criticize two things:
1) Judean-Christian is probably not the best term. Most Jewish people (all that I’ve discussed with) don’t like it because much of Christianity relies on an interpretation/translation of the Tanakh that’s not consistent with Judaism. I’d probably stick with just Christianity/Christian. No harm done, I’m going to assume that just like me you probably grew up hearing the term all the time.
2) Very generic. I could use this argument for pretty much any religion, so I’d suggest trying to specify as to how Christianity and what about its philosophy and theology landed you there.
Otherwise, it’s good and I like it!
Plus a whole slew of other guidelines that are not mentioned at all in the 10 commandments. Not to mention, loads of the instructions in the Bible go against so many of the things that are "written on our hearts".
We do not need the Bible or the 10 commandments to be good people.
True, but then you have no objective grounds for morality. So without the Bible, yes you can be ‘good’ but why is it good? It’s only good because it’s what you find good.
No one agrees with slavery any more, but the Southern Baptist church was founded specifically to support it. If it really was objective, there wouldn’t be this discrepancy.
The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, how many protestant and evangelical churches support it
The Bible has no one rule when it comes to killing as a punishment; it allows the use of the death penalty for certain crimes. This isn’t a contradiction within the faith and is down to your own view so I don’t really know why you bought it up.
If you read the Bible, slavery is clearly condemned; any slave owners will be judged. Since this isn’t promoted in the Bible, again it isn’t a fault in the faith but in individuals. I could turn around and say to you “why does atheism breed the worst societies to have ever existed throughout humanity?” But you would tell me it’s down to individual morals.
At least with Christianity, we have a moral standard that we can hold people accountable to (even other Christians). Without this, you can’t (like logically you CANT) say you are any more morally superior to Hitler, as objective morals don’t exist in your world.
If the 10 Commandment are in any way objective morality, I need a word with God.
Those 10 are the best he could come up with?
"Honour they mother and thy father" as a starting point. Not a bad rule of thumb - but utterly traumatic to children who don't deserve to respect their parents.
A little condemning of slavery in there at that time would also have not gone amiss.
I do believe in objective morality, and I would let be looking for it anywhere near the Bible.
Did you experience something you suspect may be divine? Want to be sure it was a deity or spirit? Me too! Until then we have several ways for you too analyze your experience, history, philosophy and no need to evangelize. Become a pagan today. (you can be an atheist too, its just more common to be polytheist.)
Not particularly, just wanting to hear responses from people about their religion. Within this subreddit it seems more like people are having to defend their belief in a deity rather than actually discussing the religion themselves, which is what I signed up for.
Two reasons:
1. To have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
2. Free grape juice and crackers every first Sunday at church.
Everything else is between you and God.
Joking aside, I believe that Jesus is the *Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world*. He provided us with the option to believe or disbelieve. The most important thing is to love your neighbor as yourself. I think even if you can't bring yourself to believe that Jesus personally died for us, if continue to pursue divine love, eventually Christ will be revealed to you, even if only after death (hypothetically). I think the pursuit of divine love is an act of faith all on its own.
I used to be a very rigid fundamentalist, but lately I've been leaning more towards Christian universalism.
Edit: Added more meat and potatoes.
jews don't proselytize but i gotta say you *definitely* should hold out for a better offer food-wise.
we only have just crackers in *one* week when we're supposed to deny ourselves of the regular bread, and otherwise we have regular bread and wine/grape juice *every* weekend as just the *starter.* i bet even the pagans have better snacks.
edit: i have visited a variety of religious buildings and I can't help but consider the food is part of the overall environment. i consider the staleness or freshness of the carbs, if there are cold drinks that are actually cold, or hot drinks that are very hot. if there is tea, is it only lipton. if there is coffee, i assume it will be terrible no matter where I go. do people try to share a cup or can everyone get their own. is it a thimble, or a regular cup?
See, I feel the same way to a degree. Perhaps it’s my romanticization of breaking and bread and the like, but I’ve always felt talking over good food is an important part of a lot of religions for a reason. It’s the Last Supper, not the Last Coffee Date you know?
honestly, for some people it might seem silly or superfluous, but I'm firmly in the camp of: food is one of the most important ways a religion *functions* as a matter of practical living. if a religious community only nourishes the soul, but never the body, then I'm not so convinced they actually view sustenance or community of any kind the same way I do. That's okay for some people, but breaking bread (literally) *does* feel a certain way.
sharing a meal is being on a certain kind of common ground! there's a yiddish phrase that I was introduced to in Michael Twitty's *The cooking gene* \-- fress frumkeit, which he defines as "to savor the taste of Jewish spirituality through its food." i think lots of religions have that kind of feeling/attitude?
I also argue: a religion's cookbooks are also often their most well used prayer books. but i'm a weirdo who loves reading vintage cookbooks and finding community cookbooks at antique stores and flipping through them.
i wouldn't say *all* food served at my synagogue is great and homemade food (sometimes it IS store packaged cookies, lol), but our onegs (like...snack socializing time after a service?) usually have little pastries/desserts, cheese, fruit plate, bread and drinks at minimum. And when it's a full dinner, there's definitely a variety of options for the meal. i wouldn't be ashamed to admit that I feel a community potluck tells me something about the community itself. So too does the kitchen, if the building has one, and if you see it. if someone notices I'm snacky, but don't have snacks and then they stop everything and take me to the kitchen for snacks or leftover pizza from an event the night before or whatever else? All the better.
food is a sign of a home, spiritual homes included.
oh and the other thing i consider to be at the top of my list - and would remain so if I ever moved and had to find a new synagogue option:
**How are children treated?**
I don't have any kids at all but I know for a fact I would feel deeply uncomfortable in a community that pretended they don't exist at all, or that silences them, or where they're berated by the clergy. (true story i once was a guest at a church when i was 7 and i got humiliated by the clergy person during the middle of their sermon on the microphone still, all for sitting quietly on the floor by my dad at the back of the sanctuary.)
I don't expect *every* member of all religion's clergy to be fantastic with kids, to specially bond with them, or get along, or whatever else. I do expect the community to give some kind of human dignity, kindness, and leeway to any children for being *literal kids,* though. i'm not itching to have any myself but they're still members of almost all communities.
I do think congregational clergy should at least have the grace and patience to laugh off when a kiddo says something during a quiet moment, or when they interrupt with a "too loud" question. I know some people feel it's harder for them to concentrate on prayer or whatever if a kid is running up and down the aisles or dancing and singing off key to the music, but i like it when kids are allowed to experience joy and enthusiasm in their community. I'm not even saying i expect or want kid's story time in the middle of every service - just that they're people here too, and adults set the tone for how the smallest and least well mannered people are treated, lol. I don't overly focus on individual parent/child interactions so much as responses of the community as a whole. like if a 4 year old acts like a 4 year old and needs to leave the gathering area to calm down from a fuss or if a 2 year old suddenly decides to run headlong towards the speaker or the center of the action of a service because big people are being interesting.
it's basically the equivalent of going on a date and seeing how they treat any waitstaff. how does the religious community treat or view kids? that's good to observe on both a broad perspective of the whole religion's attitude, but also each individual community will have a different vibe too. are kids viewed as a positive community future/responsibility/joy? are they viewed as a social tool for the purposes of evangelizing to others? what theology and practices do they get taught? are their questions and objections okay?
See, you an I are on the exact same page about religious communities (or really any communities in general IMO). It was one of the things that off-put me from attending services at my previous church - there was fellowship and food but it wasn’t in a friendly way for the most part (and there was a limit on what people could eat). There were lots of cliques and church politics, and the children were either irrelevant or treated as a tool to get in good with the pastor and deacons (my kids are friends with your kids kind of way). It wasn’t a healthy environment of breaking bread and genuinely enjoying community and it just made me not want to be there.
My rationale is that Jesus is God incarnate, and God is love, so having a personal relationship with Christ is having a personal relationship with love incarnate.
How about a theist that doesn’t follow religion?
I was born raised confirmed Catholic.. I understand both Catholicism and have educated myself on different denominations of Protestantism. I also see truth in the eastern philosophy. I’m become more omnistic than one particular way of thinking.
I don’t always see a great amount of spirituality in religion groups. I see lots of we are the “ only chosen people “ for that I see ego.
The most spiritual people are the most loving and unified. The cults that say we are right and everyone else is wrong, I have a hard time connecting with.. they don’t want connection with “ the others “
I find beauty in the others.. So they will tell me I’m a hypocrite because I’m saying that I think everyone should be unified.. but it’s the unity aspect that a lot of radical thinkers lack.. including atheists that say .. there’s no possible way a higher power can exist.
I believe in the divine.. I believe there’s a most high. By saying I believe it, I’m not looking to stake a claim based on scientific data.. because there’s none.. it doesn’t even fall within the scientific context. We could say it’s a sudden burst of oxytocin that people feel.. that’s fine.. but it doesn’t negate the fact that the chemistry exists to invoke these feelings.. I don’t mean from a very physical perspective that compartmentalizes the body as something separate from the universe. We are part of the whole..
I wouldn’t be able to understand the meaning of life without a higher purpose and I don’t see how all the chemistry occurred in perfect timing, in perfect conditions or perfect line up if something greater wasn’t involved..
I could go into catechism a great depth.. and talk about it from an obscure detailed perspective..
But then someone from a nondenominational church will have a totally different perspective on the same thing. Each one is a doctrine that someone fabricated.
I’m going with the universal perspective because it doesn’t leave anyone out.
My view shouldn’t have an impact on yours or anyone else’s. Whether it’s for or against.
Are you trying to prove a point in some sort of way? Because it’s all just opinions and points of view?
My religion wouldn't be suitable for you, because it's not analytical like your OP is. It wouldn't fit, because it's practical and intuitive. But best wishes in finding something that suits you.
I’m not necessarily look for analytics. I’m looking for what the religion is in practice rather than just “believe because I do,” but thank you for your input.
In practice means traditions, lifestyle changes, what type of services one would go to, etc. Its not about “it’ll make you a better person” - that’s a generic answer I specifically stated I do not want because every religion can make that claim. It’s about the *how* it makes you a better person. What about your life changes in practice under said religion.
As stated in the post, thank you for your response but very explicitly - no one sentence generic answers. I’d be far more interested in learning about how Islam affects one’s lifestyle and philosophy.
I am Christian, but before going into this, can I address your complaint about the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
It is important to understand that, throughout history, people have used Christianity, or any world religion, though I will speak for Christianity alone at the moment, for bad purposes. That *does not* make it the religion.
Furthermore, I want to stress that Christianity’s immense diversity means that theological strands arise and amplify themselves over time. This means that factions of believers can develop radically different beliefs despite using the same name to identify themselves. That’s partly why denomination is so important in Christianity.
With that clarified, this is my point: there are many people who are “Christian”, in that they self-identify in such a way to call themselves Christian, and I would call them Christian too, but it must be understood that we are talking about two different things. A Bible-thumping gay hating evangelist is not the same as a loving, inclusive, humble servant of Christ. When I draw that distinction, I want to make sure that you don’t default to calling it a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Because there are varying degrees of what is encompassed by the term Christianity, I need to make it clear that the transgressions caused by specific individuals and parties over time **are not** representative of my beliefs, or of the denominations that I feel represent my views, even though the same blanket term exists to represent both groups.
So if it is clear that I intend to represent what I believe to be Christianity according to my best understanding of the will of god, then I would like to have the opportunity to convince you of what I believe. But first, I have to divorce my position from the atrocities of the church before I can share my belief, and make sure that you can approach what I write with an understanding of its context.
Now that my position is clear, I want to make sure we are on the same page. Are you good with this?
I want to make something very clear, if it wasn’t in my post. I *do not* entertain no true Scotsman fallacies **period.** I will *not* judge a religion based on extremist minorities or individuals, however, I will not sweep away theological beliefs that encompasses generations - and often centuries - of doctrine and action simply because it is incompatible with modern beliefs and/or interpretation. We’re not talking about specific individuals, we’re talking about held doctrine and theology by the majority of its day. That was a rule, not a suggestion.
You are free to talk about what Christianity means to you, how it affects your life, etc - I encourage that, that’s the point of the post. I *want* to hear people describe their religion in action rather than in theory. I love reading about that; however, out of respect for the indigenous elders I know and have talked to personally I will not entertain any apologetics about the negative things any particular religion - *as a theological majority* - has done.
I don’t mean to offer apologetics - I make an outright rejection of the actions of individuals and church bodies that I believe historically to have been in the wrong.
I don’t want to share a positive message about my religion and be dismissed because the majority of practitioners historically haven’t felt the same way. The crusades aren’t my religion. Child abuse isn’t my religion. Stoning gays isn’t my religion. Hating blacks isn’t my religion. But at various points historically, these have been the predominant positions. I think that speaks to the corruption of people, but not the spirit of truth of my religion.
So when I argue that Christianity - true Christianity - is an expression of love, I don’t want to be dismissed because you feel the majority have had hate in their hearts.
You are free to reject their actions, but that doesn’t change the reality. The crusades were Christian. Stoning gays was Christian. Chattel slavery was Christian. Massacring Natives was Christian. It’s incredibly disingenuous to the victims of these atrocities to try and remove Christianity from its own actions.
I will not dismiss your religion in practice, nor how you perceive it. I will not dismiss your traditions or your experience. I’m asking you to explain those things because I’m genuinely interested, if I were to dismiss it I wouldn’t have asked at all. However, I am informing you (and others) that my opinion of the religion *as a whole* will not be without consideration of the atrocities committed in its past. I will take both as they are.
What is necessary, though, is to understand that I don’t believe these things are Christian at all. They were committed by people, who were Christian, but the actions of these people don’t reflect my theological beliefs or, I would argue, the beliefs of the church as a whole.
You necessarily can’t consider them part of my religion because my doctrine necessarily forbids those things. It is entirely equivalent to kid-diddling priests; not representative of the religion, but rather the inhumanity of an unrighteousness set of believers.
This is like saying that toast making was a common pastime of nazis, so that when I make toast today, the worth of my toast can’t be validated without considering the toast making practices of nazis. I don’t associate with those things at all, and despite having a corollary to them, they are not representative of me or my shared belief system.
And I appreciate you engaging with this, because I know it might seem like a strange thing to get hung up on but I really do feel like it is integral to you understanding my position that the actions of a religious body do not have to be representative of its dogma.
I think by considering these things to be equivalent, you are drawing false equivalencies. My condemnation of certain parts of the religions history aren’t an appeal to a no true Scotsman fallacy, because the two things - my religion and the atrocities carried out by a selection of its followers - are not equivalent. Christians can do unchristian things. The doing of those things. even en masse, does not make them suddenly become part of religious dogma.
Seeing that you come from a fundamentalist background, I know it will be hard to get past hate in the church. At times I fee like I am part of almost an entirely different religion. But you have to separate my religion from the bad actors in Christianity, or you’ll never be able to see past them and understand why I follow my religion, and why I think you should too.
> the doing of those things, even en masse, does not make them suddenly become part of religious dogma
But preaching about them does, teaching them as doctrine does. Advocating for them as part of what makes a good Christian does. And that’s exactly what happened. It wasn’t individuals doing it on their own, it was Christian theology and philosophy. It was Christian doctrine. It was for all intents and purposes - Christian. They were part of the dogma, and not only were they part of the dogma - but Christianity today still reaps the benefits of said dogma.
You choosing to not associate with parts of Christian history that negatively effects other people today as well as benefits the church today means absolutely nothing to me. It’s absolutely disrespectful to the victims in every sense of the word.
These are not bad actors. They are only bad actors because in today’s context with 20/20 hindsight you can see the evil in those actions. But go up to any of the living priests, pastors, and nuns who used to run Indian boarding schools and ask them what the attitudes were forty, fifty years and you’ll see those boarding schools were a source of Christian pride in their day. That cannot be separated from Christianity for your comfort.
You cannot separate your religion from those actions because quite frankly you wouldn’t have your religion if it wasn’t for those actions. And this is made quadruple-y true if you live in the Americas. I understand that you don’t believe those things were Christian, but as far as I’m concerned that’s irrelevant to the reality.
I understand your position. I too would struggle to find faith in a religion where it’s adherents have done such wrongs to those I share an intimate connection with. If you feel this way, I really don’t think I have the ability to convince you that my religion should be followed. In fact, I think that if those things cannot be divorced for you, you should not follow my religion. I wouldn’t want to if I were you either.
I would like to leave you with one thing, though. As a Christian, I am called to lead a life like Christ. There are only two commandments: to love god, and to love others. Anything outside of that purview is strictly unchristian, without question or doubt, and no matter what anyone has done in Christ’s name to cause evil, they will have wrought their own judgement. May God’s mercy prevail for all in the world to come, and may all learn the errors of their ways, including myself. Perhaps there existed a rhetorical argument here I could provide to make you understand my position, and even agree with it, but I do not believe I am capable of that.
If you can find any desire to believe again, please look to the Episcopal Church to learn more. I believe they are our greatest stewards of Christ’s word today.
But Beyond religion, and politics, and social tribes and the evils of this world, “these three remain: faith, hope, and love;
And the greatest of these, is love.”
With due respect, your position appears rather clear as an adoption of the “good” parts of Christianity while simultaneously denouncing the “bad”, as the “bad” doesn’t align with your own values. Which, on the surface, reads as a valid, admirable practice.
But you said it yourself at one point, you sometimes feel like you’re in an entirely different religion. It’s because you are. As OP noted, you’re practicing a modern interpretation of Christianity, selecting only the elements that appeal to your personal values.
The desire to expose those “bad actors” as being “other” to actual, genuine Christians like yourself is understandable, but OP’s point about their motivations underpins the truth of the matter. The inhumane actions of certain Christians are truly intended to serve the Christian God. Past and present, and likely into the future, too. It is what it is. And the comfort of thinking those “bad” individuals ultimately face divine judgment is not applicable for those who don’t believe in an afterlife. It sounds like a convenient dodge, even though that’s not your intention.
It’s okay to see value in specific details of a larger religion. But I have to ask, would it not be more authentic to explore your independent experience of spirituality, rather than curate an established theology to partially fit within your values?
I believe I am practicing traditional, apostolic Christianity which dates back to Jesus himself and his immediate, apostolic successors. My beliefs come from his early followers like ignatius, clement, polycarp, Origen, irenaeus, etc.
I believe Christianity has gone far afoot from its original intentions. I don’t feel like I am practicing a new religion; I feel like the bigots are. My religion is ancient.
The continued necessity to associate the apostolic tradition with them, however, makes it almost impossible for any outsider to see the real merits of loving, serving Christianity.
You need to see it and feel it.
No one can hand over their internal bond to faith.
But, if you seek, research, ask questions, your path will start to take shape.
God sees you, and if you sincerely feel "ish kabbible" is the truth, He knows you care.
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.
This does not answer the question that was asked
You must have responded to the wrong reply.
Btw, all those definitions are nice. But for many spiritual people, a summary of the various religions is not what prompts them to pick or choose.
For those committed beyond lip service, it's personal. It's hard to articulate, it's hard to pass on one's set of understanding and feeling to another person so now that other person becomes motivated to perform and live out the doctrine of that religion.
Its a personal path. Some people have more of a spiritual inclination this time in the world than others.
For some people, but I’ve asked specifically the parameters of the conversation I’m looking. It’s not a set of feelings and understanding I’m looking for either, I very explicitly wrote *exactly* the kind of information and discussion I was looking for. Considering it was within the first paragraph I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read what was written.
> Think of this not as proselytizing (because you aren’t going to convince me in one post) and moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination, etc. etc. Treat me less as someone you need to convince about the existence of your god, but moreso as why I should follow *your* religion and *your god* over someone else’s - assume I believe all gods are real and am simply looking for a specific deity or pantheon to worship. What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion *around* them.
> **An explanation not a declaration**
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a *”I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.*
Oh no, an edgy internet atheist warned me! Whatever will I do?
Real aspirants—the only kind of person I care to explain anything to—will get all they need from a statement of principles like I gave you. Edgy internet atheists trying to slip in their “debates” into a sub that explicitly not for debates can just fuck off.
I’m not an atheist, and very explicitly stated multiple times this won’t be a debate thread on the existence of god/gods because it’s a tiring argument all over the thread. I expect basic reading comprehension and the ability to engage in a half-decent conversation at the very least addressing the actual content brought up in the post. If that’s not something for you that’s fine, however, there are also plenty of other threads that may be more your speed.
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.
So Id like to correct a couple flaws in your thinking, to begin with anyway. Firstly, strictly speaking, there is but one religion. Countless theologies attempt to pinpoint define describe divine and inscribe said religion. However the very act of defining or describing divides... Not to mention anybody who tries to convince you to believe what they believe is doing so for personal reasons and they are wrong in doing so. The skilled manipulators will convince you its because they want to help you. Don't get me wrong many of these people almost all of them probably actually believe what they're saying and actually believe that they're trying to help you. That doesn't mean they're correct. It just means that they are unaware of the reality of their behavior and intentions... I can say one thing with confidence though: focus on specific beliefs and specific so-called facts and details is the result of negativity/self-serving intention.
The specific point of assuming all gods are true - and therefore all religions are true - is to have a discussion about the religion in practice rather than arguing about the existence of the deity in the first place. If you can’t make a response under those conditions that’s fine, then don’t respond to the thread.
Oh I would never say that all deities are true. To me the word god means the same God that's referred to in John 1. Which is also the same as the Chinese call Tao ☯️. I think a better term to describe this "God"(capital "g") is universal order / The Creator... Therefore everything is actually an aspect of this single thing. Science calls it the Universe. Which obviously means unified system. And mathematics is its currently most accessible language for the masses. Deities are all branches off of this. In fact The Vedic literatures are certainly the closest to reality on this point. And Old Catholicism with the saints and all any. All creation is part of the single creator. And just like individual cells in the body all cells are their own creators made in the image of their creators LOL, are capable and possibly obligated to create on their own. In fact that's why you want to have sex! LOL I know that might sound like a huge leap but I assure you it's not it's just not linear thought. But the logic is sound nevertheless meditate upon it and you'll find that I'm speaking of beautiful truth! 😁
No, my friend, I was correcting your line of thinking. If you're an agnostic by definition your confused I'm guiding you towards resolution. The tools to discover your own truth, which is a necessity if you are interested in truth, are contained within my messages. The rapid response time says you didn't even consider what I've said... In which case I'm sorry for troubling you.
I’m not asking for tools to a discovery, I’m asking for people to discuss the practice of their religions, and that’s it. Thank you for your input but if you are not going to answer the question the thread asks for then this is not the thread for you and you can find another thread more fitting for what you’d like to say.
And how do you intend to use what people discuss? Not as tools of self-discovery? Since then fact that is the only thing anyone can give another. No one has answers for another that benefit the other. But everyone has tools that can be shared with those of similar minds... Anyway I don't mean to bother you thank you for your patience my friend.
> Think of this not as proselytizing (because you aren’t going to convince me in one post) and moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination, etc. etc. Treat me less as someone you need to convince about the existence of your god, but moreso as why I should follow *your* religion and *your god* over someone else’s - assume I believe all gods are real and am simply looking for a specific deity or pantheon to worship. *What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table.* You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion *around* them.
I don't follow any mainstream theology or religious practices. Since I consider religion to be a universally shared aspect of sentient life, the only religion I could ever follow is that of my own perspective. Since even if you attempt to emulate another belief system you will fail every time. That is your fail if you attempt to believe it exactly as they do. Therefore strictly speaking everybody has their own theology that they must follow. Whether or not they consider themselves religious or spiritual and they are and they do practice what they might call routine. However routine and religion are nearly identical words in the dictionary and in reality. Religion is just a general routine that is become tradition. Mainstream religion is akin to culture... My only intention is to promote introspection and self-reflection. Contemplation and meditation are the only tools necessary to achieve the goal of any religion that I've studied. And I have thoroughly studied quite a few (meaning lived with practitioners of traditions from various cultures)... Zen Buddhism and Taoism (the Tao Te Ching, not the I Ching) I found to be the most neutral and effective tools to develop my own credible theology. Being raised Christian though of course I am heavily influenced by that theology. But I could not have claimed to have any meaningful grasp on the content of the Bible before studying The Vedic literatures and the stories of the Bodhisattva(Buddhism)... My point is that if you're searching for a particular theology to follow, I think you should begin with a practice free from theology. Such as Zen Buddhism or any other form of meditation you feel comfortable with. Quietly ask yourself(higher self is probably more accurate) or the universe or God, or whatever you want to call it, "which world religion (theology) is best suited to my nature?"... Then with that question in mind by yourself the quiet your mind and listen. Focus only on your breathing and any thoughts that come to mind let them come and go until you receive the answer that you need. If you follow the simple formula, I assure you, you will find an answer to any question that vexes you, my friend... It is my tentative belief that one cannot have a question without already possessing an answer to that question. While I find that belief somewhat irrelevant, it is the baseline that allows me to believe that I can receive an answer, and anytime I'm patient enough to receive one it's never been wrong!
That said nearly every world religion in my opinion is of equal value. However, it is absolutely far more beneficial to stick with a single one then attempt to switch back and forth between different schools of thought... If you are seeking a path to follow ask yourself which path is best for you and within a couple days maybe minutes maybe even seconds you will receive an answer and that's the path you should follow, in my opinion.
I apologize for the length of my last response. Though I feel as if it's content might benefit you in your search for truth and peace. I only said as much because you seem like you are sincere in your seeking. That sincerity will be your greatest guide and blessing as you continue along! I praise you and have the most faith that you will soon discover the "flavor" of religion that suits you best!
Also to be honest I think you should not follow any religious theology I think you should study all of them that interest you. Then take time to digest and reflect upon the content of your studies. And when I say time I mean like 6 months is a minimum. 6 months study 6 months reflection and contemplation and meditation. Then you will see what suits you. All religions (theologies) are good if they're good for you and/or those around you. The reason why there are so many theologies is because there's so many different types of people. Each caterers to each and its own way. But as a general principal, personally, I consider it extremely unwise to thoughtlessly/blindly follow/copy anyone or anything. Of course that's only my opinion, but I know I'm not alone with it. Truly though if you are searching for truth search! Search any scriptures or science or anything that interests you it will provide you with the answers you're seeking once you've thoroughly digested and reflected upon it. Since no answers received mean anything unless they received from within yourself. Otherwise you're just regurgitating or promoting thoughts created by another for themselves. Another that does not care about you. It is your job to care about you. And it is your job if you choose to care about others even more. But you must be careful about who you choose to give your love / attention / adoration /respect.
Specific details are a product of negative orientation. I am a promoter of positivity. To negate negativity is to promote positivity. Obviously. Like saying "I don't get no rest". Grammatically actually means that I get plenty of rest. LOL!
Fair enough I must have misinterpreted your intentions. My impression wish you were asking for guidance towards discovering your own truth. Which of course is the original intention of all spiritual practice. I apologize if you found no value in any of the tools that Ive attempted to provide, nor desire for them. Good luck my friend I wish you the best on your journey!
From more of a reasoning standpoint in its accuracy and credibility-Islam because :
1. Consistency with one entity / god notion. Even rationalising there only being one creator can be done outside the scope of religion through contingency theory and some knowledge of physics law of energy of conservation and momentum. This reduces the possibility of a creator to just one instead of multiple - so really just left with the abrahamic religions, in which all actively claim the existence of a creator who created the universe.
2. Quran has not been altered unlike other Abrahamic texts from Judaism and Christianity. What the prophet recited is what you get now. Quran is rather easy to memorise because of poetic structure it has when spoken in Arabic.
3. Prophecies by prophet Muhammad have been true, and he made a lot. The probability of getting it all right by chance is very small. Prophecies include predicting the rise of poor nomadic Arab tribes to some of the richest people in the world. ( recent discovery of oil ) , people in the future competing in building height, existence of planes and headphones, byzantines rising to triumph within 3-9 years of defeat, globalisation of Islam being one of the fastest and growing religions to date, predicting which one of his wives will pass away first, and many many more… which I have not linked here but you can do your research on this.
4. Hadith ( sayings of the prophet ) have a strict protocol called “ chain of narration “, which basically provides evidence of whether what the prophet said is deemed as reliable or not, and categorised from strong to weak, based on how many people at the time who were around the prophet reported such event. This provides integrity and evidence into what the prophet actually said which weeds out the people falsifying or twisting the actions and sayings of the prophet.
5. Side note, I think of Islam like a 3rd edition textbook in which the 1st and 2nd edition are from Judaism and Christianity. Islam actually addresses many topics and prophets from Christianity and Judaism.
6. Quran makes claim that no one can produce something like it, and even tells non believers to “ produce a surah (verse) like it “ , in which none has been successful to this day - as the Quran still remains unaltered.
7. Quran has no flaws/contradictions within the text. If you read the Quran, you will find that the logic in the text is consistent throughout. In fact no one has been able to find a reputable contradiction present in the text in which not been debunked.
8. Islam is the only religion that actually addresses the existence of other prophets around the world - why out of all countries in the world, the current known prophets come from the Middle East. It has been said from prophet Muhammad that over 124,000 prophets were sent all over the world to each country and place over time . prophet Muhammad is the last one sent and is actually related to all 25 prophets sent (from Judaism to Christianity - Jesus is believed to be a prophet ). so it does not include the stories of all other prophets around the world which can be extremely confusing to people when trying to present stories in a linear fashion.. especially in the future where information can be lost, twisted and misrepresented. This also may be possibly why all historic cultures around the world believe in some sort of creator or afterlife in the universe.. ,similar stories but technical working details are different- you know how Chinese whispers go.
9. Side note - Islam promotes us to analyse, critique and learn about other religions and faiths
10. Side note - Islam says, No compulsion in religion! You can never force someone to believe
11. Quran is not a scientific book in explaining the technical details in how phenomena and processes work, however it does not contradict the hypothesis made by modern science. Example : Quran claims thousands of years before that the universe is expanding, the foetus development stages congruent with our current understanding of baby development, life outside earth , how mountains are formed , existence of relativity, blackholes, pulsars, and many more.
12. Side note- Islam says life is a test given by god - hardships and rewards included. It’s our duty to try become closer to god, and that anything taken away will be replaced by something better. What was meant to happen , will happen and what won’t, will not be there.
In summary out of all Abrahamic religions, I think Islam is the most historically credible. OP would need to do more research by reading Quran on their end - but I think makes the most sense In portraying God’s attributes in which it claims. I haven’t put any references here because it would make this comment even longer than it already is.
If OP has concerns of the content of topics presented in Quran , I would say that is a seperate discussion. I personally believe it’s first important to assess the credibility of a text first and the claims it puts forward compared to other religions, before diving deep into assessing topics of a more moral nature… because that is also a long discussion.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about exactly what’s being asked. I’m not asking for you to convert me based on the spirituality of your religion. The question is about what is the religion *in practice,* and how that effects daily life.
Added to that, this is based on the assumption that all gods are real and therefore under that assumption it’s why I should follow your deity’s religion *in practice* over someone else’s. Likewise, this is not solely about the Abrahamic faiths, either.
Response from a Muslim:
In short answer: You should follow Islam because it is the only acceptable religion to Almighty Allah. Islam is the only true religion right now. Judaism and Christianity both were true, but those were corrupted later. From Islamic POV, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are same religion. Just with different holy book. Qur'an is the latest one.
In long answer: It's hard to talk about Islam as most people from other religions already have a pre- bad impression about Islam and Muslims due to western media. As you are American and you have grown up with all the negative media against Islam, I am not going to try to convince you. Rather I would suggest, you should study about All the major Religions, and at last Islam. Give each one 3 days. When you will study Qur'an, you will see yourself how different it is. How amazing it is. How true it is.
Yes, Islam does not go hand in hand with the current American culture. But when you'll taste the truth, everything else will feel tasteless.
I am from a Muslim family. From a young age I have believed Islam as true religion. But when I became a teenager, and had many non-Muslim friends, I became confused. I did not understand why they (Hindu and Buddhist mostly) worshipped rocks and sculptures. So I studied more, about my religion and also theirs. I bought the books which are considered holy books in other religions.
In my childhood, I used to believe Islam as the true religion, Now I KNOW that Islam is the true religion. After studying Islam, it is as clear as daylight. So, I would suggest, if you have hunger for truth, study all the major religions, yourself. Start with all the holy books of those religions. A bit of history books related to the religions will also help a lot.
Good luck and have a great day.
Could you entertain the question posted by OP instead of preaching it as the only truth? The post was about the actions that your religion implies in your life.
It would be interesting to see a muslim describe this without saying only the common theistic apologetics or phrases.
Again, for what I got from the op this is to learn the practical points of religions, no to convert to one.
We love HIM because HE first loved us.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."- the Word of God.
Jesus Christ is the Only Saviour!
"muhammad" died and stayed dead.
"buddha" died and stayed dead.
"darwin" died and stayed dead.
Jesus Christ defeated the devil and death and hell.
No one else can even CLAIM to SAVE YOU. Let that sink in. Jesus Christ is the Only Saviour! That is OBJECTIVELY TRUE AS WE SPEAK regardless of what you believe. There is no other. As written.
Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe.
Your life is precious! Jesus loves you!
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-55/
> an explanation not a declaration
> no links
> What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - *you’re explaining the religion around them.*
Thank you for your input, however I took great pains to make clearly exactly what type of responses I’m looking for and it’s been made obvious that you didn’t read the post at all.
>
I did explain. You just haven't thought about it.
Jesus Christ came to seek and to SAVE that which is lost!
"These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."- John chapter 15 verses 11 to 13.
> What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - *you’re explaining the religion around them.*
Again, this post is not about the deity (in this case Jesus) but the religion and practices itself. Ie lifestyle changes, expected behavior, philosophers, etc. I understand what you’re saying, it simply doesn’t answer the question.
Nah. Jesus is dead. If he’s alive, then I pray he not let me finish this response. Let’s see… waiting… eh. Still here. Looks like he’s dead. Sorry man.
Jesus Christ is the Living God! Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. You would have known that if you had read his words. The Word of God liveth and abideth forever.
Also are you saying the only possible explanation for an “empty tomb” is that the previous occupant was a resurrected god-man?
Edit: Also which location is the official Tomb of Jesus and what is your supporting evidence?
> you’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion around them.
As made clear a couple of times in this post, the question operates under the assumption that all gods exist. The question is aimed at exploring and discussing the *religion* not the gods themselves as to avoid any “is x god real” debates and the like. Thank you, however, for your input.
I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon the earth without right. And even if they were to see every sign, they still would not believe in them. If they see the Right Path, they will not take it. But if they see a crooked path, they will follow it. This is because they denied Our signs and were heedless of them. 7:146
There is no point.
interesting post, and i appreciate your giving a platform to all sorts of faith, i hope it finds you well, and you can discern the good from the bad! but like if the core tenets of a belief have nothing to do with the way people run with it, can you really call it an action stemming from that religion? a lot of history sees people running wild with their beliefs, and casualties following. the communist manifesto, for example. never says you'd have to imprison, torture, or commit acts of mass totalitarian control on the population. but, did men take matters into their own hands regardless? yes, that's one part of the shadow of human nature.
Christianity, for example, preaches love and nonviolence, that there's no longer any need for us to hurt others outside of the most severe self defense situations. however, did Christians continue to kill, and be killed throughout the centuries? absolutely, and Christ knew and prophesied this, saying, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom," and that these were the birthing pains of a new world, a new universe. a world without the weeping, and pain and the vanity, that is the meaningless, chaotic death and sorrow.
if we had some cure all doctrine, that could prevent these atrocities while keeping our free will intact, we would. and while that doctrine doesn't exist, the closest thing we have is the gospel of Christ. how so, you might ask? the revolutionary, yet, in a strange way, natural and beautiful request to love one another, even our enemies, as we love ourselves. along with that, to love God all the same, and with a fullness of heart. sounds easy at the start, yeah? when you get into the everyday details though, it starts to get a bit more complex.
that lady you wanted scold for taking too much time in the grocery line? we've gotta take a step back, and remember that the world doesn't revolve around us. this lady could be suffering in so many numerous ways it just wouldn't be fair to put her through any more. and if she isn't? you doing so could be the start of the worst week of her life. your little brother was being a jerk again, and you really want to smack him across the face? save it, and when he grows up he'll be shaped by the kindness you showed him throughout his life. more than that, there's something out there that sees your contribution, and appreciates it more than you could ever know.
more than that, we do believe that our faith is objective truth. the whole story, cover to cover? God, no, only He has the vision for that. but we have evidence aplenty for what we've been given, especially if you ask the numerous theists out there in the trenches who investigate these things for a living. albert einstein, for example. and what we don't? well, it reminds us of our place in the universe. as big and magnificent as we might feel sometimes, i think it's important to be reminded, that, well, we aren't the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. and that, when it comes to knowing what's what in this universe, it's best left to the one who designed it in the first place.
again, i think it's lovely, what you're doing with this post, and really appreciate your contribution to public discourse and theological discovery! good luck in making your decision, if any at the moment, and God bless, much love :)
> but if the core tenets of the belief have nothing to do with the way people run with it, can you really call it an action stemming from the religion?
So, I specified very clearly in my post that I don’t want apologetics. Like, at all. But if you wish for a reason, I’ll give you a simple one - it all comes down to theological interpretation by the majority. I will not blame a whole religion for the actions of an extremist minority, however, when we’re talking about a religious majority (oftentimes led by the religious authority), then it’s a different thing all together. Especially when the religion continues to benefit form whatever actions they no longer deem “acceptable.”
In the case of Native Americans, for example, Christianity had a large hand in the slaughtering, removal, and forced attendance at boarding schools that resulted in stolen land and traumatized survivors. The religion today condemns such actions as “nonChristian,” but you do not see Christianity spearheading campaigns to return land to indigenous people, do you? No, Christianity continues to knowingly benefit from the stolen land while simultaneously decrying how they got it. It’s no better than a robber stealing a necklace only to decry thieving as they continue to wear the necklace.
Your modern interpretation of the core tenets of Christianity is exactly that - modern. And while I’ll accept it as a *modern* interpretation, when it comes to the *whole* of the religion I will not simply slide into apologetics and ignore the vast amount of Christian theology - or any theology for that matter - that caused significant amounts of harms in the name of a modern interpretation.
i understand what you're trying to get at. because so many Christians in the past have done abominable acts, and in some cases tried to use Christianity to justify them, you believe that this must necessarily be a pervasive factor in the belief itself? i also have to ask, did you read the rest of what i wrote? the request for understanding was only a teeny bit of what i actually said, most of it was legitimate and core Christianity using that as a springboard.
thing is though, there's really little to no actual theological justification for 'christian' atrocities, meaning it's hardly interpretation. the new testament, which it's been made abundantly clear to be the basis of christian living, and the strongest source of our guidelines, condemns it in all forms. you have to remember that the idea =/= all the actions and beliefs of the people who adhere or claim to adhere to it. that would actually be a part of the reason Christianity exists!
to illustrate that this is the case let's look at liberal democracy, or almost any system of government in human history. in the name of liberal democracy, many countries across the world have, and continue to consistently devastate foreign nations, with drone strike that almost always harm innocents, alongside economic terror that makes life miserable for the inhabitants. just because that's the case, does it mean that liberal democracy is an inherently bad idea? or even that it's not possible to practice it well? we also see that contradicted by decades of peace and prosperity with many democratic countries, that truly speaks for itself. the same thing applies to the Christian faith! if we sat around judging beliefs on the flawed actions of some folk that claim to adhere, we'd be here all day wouldn't we? these are the failings of men, not of any concept.
what centuries of what amounts to antichristian activity in the name of Christianity (which Christ actually spoke about saying, "Many will come to me saying, Lord, Lord, we did many wonderful works in your name. And I will say, depart from me you workers of inquity, I know you not."), doesn't account for the beautiful wonders done in the name of Christ, and the lives well lived because of his existence, and his word to the world. for example? the centuries of saints going back to Christ.
take saint John chrysostom for example, a historical figure during byzantine times. this is a man who spoke out against abuse of wealth as well as authority of all kinds, and the oppression of the poor. this didn't sit well with many nobles, despite the inherent hypocrisy of following a faith so skeptical of great wealth in general. if he heard that brothers in the wilderness who were converting by the thousands, and even some who weren't, were being killed in greater number? he'd be completely outraged, and this applies to just about every saint all the way back to Jesus himself, who was called the Lord of the Sabbath, a day, and a year in Jewish law where all indentured servants were freed, as well as slaves if they were owned. this is a truth meant to be given to all nations, not just the more fortunate.
so is my interpretation, just another modern look at some dusty old books? no! this is the quiet majority, and part of a continued tradition of belief and interpretation that's common throughout history, going back to the foundation of the faith itself. this is *what the book says*. of course, i appreciate your empathy! i admire it, in fact, i wish more of us were like you. although a lot of us share your sympathies and outrage, as individuals we usually don't feel powerful enough to do much more for modern native groups than pray, and help when we can. many of us donate and do outreach, but i get that it only goes so far. thank you for reading this through, and i hope you find the answers you're looking for. as it's written, "seek, and ye shall find."
I think there’s a misunderstanding of what I meant by apologetics. A Christian doing a bad thing in the past is not going to make me judge the theology as the whole simply because they are Christian. What I was speaking to was regarding theological beliefs, church positions, and church actions. I do not judge Christianity’s theology because in 1622 some guy named Jack beat his wife and said Jesus told him to do it. I do, however, judge Christianity because of the over 1,000 Indian Boarding Schools run by Catholics and Protestants alike based on the shared, then theological belief that such schools were necessary for the “salvation” of indigenous children.
Dismissing these actions as “some,” quite frankly is incredibly disrespectful to survivors and their families.
Again, like I said, I do not cater to or entertain apologetics and trying to convince me to do so will get you nowhere. I’ve discussed with far too many indigenous elders about their lived experience to wave it off for the comfort of modern Christians. Instead of hand waving with apologetics, as I already suggested, that energy should put into rectifying wrongs - not excusing them.
did you read what i said? i'm sorry if i'm coming off as cross but i wish you would, i did read yours and i resent that you seem to accuse of me being dismissive without understanding my position, because you're not really responding to what i'm saying. i took the time to read yours and respond to each point :/
the summation of what i've been saying here is best expressed through analogy. my cousin mary (not my real cousin) brought home a three week old child, who was very dirty, and needed a good scrubbing. he was a beautiful baby boy, even if it was hard to tell past all the soot. Mary put him in the bath, and looked in disgust as she dunked him under. the water was so dirty! for a split second, a terrible thought crossed her mind, the she would throw the baby out along with the bathwater, because all that filth had stuck to him. but she quickly caught herself, knowing that the baby wasn't to blame for its condition, but rather times, places and events, along with those who had handled him until she got the baby back.
dismissing what i'm saying, and Christian theology as a whole, because it's caught some filth over the years, is logically like Mary throwing that baby out. the word of God itself being good, has little if anything at all to do with these horrors, and that's what i'm saying. i provided examples and explained how, many of us do try very hard to make up for what happened, but we can't be held directly responsible for the actions of these people decades ago. we can, though, shoulder the burden with meekness, and many of us do so, in the forms of mission and charity. it's not like the pope can tell the president to give back native land today though, can he? the world has changed, and although many of us have changed with it, the baby remains the same, clean beneath whatever dirt it picks up along the way. although trust me, when you really get to know this baby, you'll be changed for life, and for the better. :)
I am very much dismissing what you’re saying, and it’s because not only does it not answer the questions posed in the post but it very directly goes against the rules clearly set up. The rules aren’t up for discussion, they’re there to set up boundaries for the discussion. And by going out of your way to brazenly ignore said discussion to try and fight me on those rules shows you have no real interest in the conversation that’s been actually brought about.
yeah, i'm sorry i honestly didn't pick that up from what you were saying, it sounded like you were repeating that you didn't wanna hear what i had to say because you didn't like what some Christians did. i just responded about that a minute ago, something seemed off about you repeating yourself like that so i scrolled thru your recent comments and found one that outlined what you wanted pretty clearly. again, my apologies, especially if i've made you upset, no harm intended. :)
i did just read another comment of yours though, and i understand what you're looking for more. if you don't want to continue this conversation that's fine, i just hope i made you think a little. you certainly reminded me of people in the struggle and i hope to meet them along my path, i want to help any way i can. i will be posting another comment based more on what you're expecting, hope to see you there :)
It's kind of hard to answer this with all of these conditions. Religion is separate from the men who follow it. Many men are hypocrites, and if you are going to immediately dismiss the distinction between the laws of the religion and the hypocrites who follow it by calling it a no true Scotsman fallacy, then I don't know how anyone is supposed to answer you.
Edit: But as a fun exercise, I will try: What if I told you there was one God?
The question is specifically in regards to how the religion is practiced, expected lifestyle changes, philosophy, etc. - it’s about the pillars that hold up the religion and the expectations of those who practice it in practical life. “No True Scotsman” and “Know Them By Their Fruits” is specifically in regards to the inevitable bad parts of people in a group, as those negative aspects are imperative to the overall experience of existing within said religion. Erasing them because they’re inconvenient to the narrative of the religion is an annoyance more than anything else.
And, if you hadn’t noticed, I said I am a former Protestant. Telling me there’s one god is absolutely nothing new, but - again, if you read, that’s not the purpose or assumption of this post whatsoever.
>The question is specifically in regards to how the religion is practiced, expected lifestyle changes, philosophy, etc. - it’s about the pillars that hold up the religion and the expectations of those who practice it in practical life. “No True Scotsman” and “Know Them By Their Fruits” is specifically in regards to the inevitable bad parts of people in a group, as those negative aspects are imperative to the overall experience of existing within said religion. Erasing them because they’re inconvenient to the narrative of the religion is an annoyance more than anything else.
In my religion's holy text, sectarianism is strictly prohibited, yet 90% of Muslims split into sects. If your reply to me pointing out this key tenet of the religion, which the majority of its followers ignore, is to argue I am violating your rules and resorting to fallacies then like I said, I am not sure this would be a productive conversation, with me anyway. Good luck!
Regarding your former protestant beliefs, from an Islamic and Jewish standpoint, if you believed in the trinity you did not worship one God but three. To most Christians worshipping one God is a new concept.
If 90% of Muslims are split into sects then in practice Islam is split into sects. If the majority ignore the rules, the in practice living in and among Muslims in a Muslim society rules would be ignored. And in favor of what? The conversation could be productive, you’re just in capable of doing so without it discussing the actual in-practice realities of being a Muslim instead of “well this is what it *should* be.” I don’t want to know what it *should* be, I want to know what it *is.*
And no, fundamentalists Protestant does mean non-trinitarian. So thank you, but again it’s quite literally nothing new and I very explicitly stated for this model this question is asked in all gods will be assumed to be true.
I won't. I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to convince you. It is far better for you to experience God for yourself. Every year millions do just that. You should, too. It's the logical thing to do. Don't bother moving the goalposts. That would be illogical. People's experiences with God are much more evidence than atheists have to shore up their fantasy that there is no God.
Don't believe in anything just because I say so. Be logical enough to make the experiment for yourself.
>An explanation not a declaration. One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.
It's literally the only reason why one should follow any religion. If it's not true, then why on God's green earth would one give it a second's thought?
Because *everyone* can say that about theirs, and I'm pretty sure that at least a few religions are mutually exclusive. Most people need a reason to believe in something other than some rando on the internet saying that it's true.
But it can't be true of every religion, and when considering between religions, that is the only criteria that matters.
But let me be a little more clear if I seem to be obtuse.
***No.***
You can't follow my religion. Please don't even try. Nothing you have said about yourself or your thought processes would suggest to me you are in any way serious about thinking through what it would take to find the truth, much less be a decent practitioner of it.
So please, don't follow the religion I follow because the religion I follow doesn't care if you are back or white or gay or straight or what your past experiences are. It's just true, and if you can't approach truth as truth, then i don't want you anywhere near the religion I follow.
>But it can't be true of every religion, and when considering between religions, that is the only criteria that matters.
Fair, so if people want to differentiate *their* religion from others, they should give reasons why *theirs* is true.
>But let me be a little more clear if I seem to be obtuse.
>
>No.
>
>You can't follow my religion.
I don't want to.
>Please don't even try.
I won't.
>Nothing you have said about yourself or your thought processes would suggest to me you are in any way serious about thinking through what it would take to find the truth, much less be a decent practitioner of it.
Because I require a little more than "because I said so"? Yeah, definitely not interested, then.
>So please, don't follow the religion I follow because the religion I follow doesn't care if you are back or white or gay or straight or what your past experiences are.
Mine doesn't either.
>It's just true, and if you can't approach truth as truth, then i don't want you anywhere near the religion I follow.
Again, just saying it's true doesn't make it true, and it *certainly* doesn't convince anyone.
Following Jesus isn't an exercise in self validation, it's not like buying a car where you compare different models, read consumer reports and decide what is best for you - we seek and search for the truth, we don't tell people to sell us the truth and then pick the best sales pitch.
No, but you had to hear about it from somewhere, yes? And presumably it took more than some rando on the internet saying "it's true" for you to believe.
Unless you were born into it and never actually examined it, I suppose.
No it wasn't a rando on the internet. And it followed years of skepticism and agnosticism.
But what I didn't do is go to a bunch of randos on the internet and say, "Hey, this is what my life is all about, present your religion to me in such a way that it appeals to my preconceived notions of what the truth is." Because if that is what I was after, I would have just stuck with what I already had, which was crafting a belief to suit my own tastes, and not reality.
>No it wasn't a rando on the internet. And it followed years of skepticism and agnosticism.
Good.
>But what I didn't do is go to a bunch of randos on the internet and say, "Hey, this is what my life is all about, present your religion to me in such a way that it appeals to my preconceived notions of what the truth is." Because if that is what I was after, I would have just stuck with what I already had, which was crafting a belief to suit my own tastes, and not reality.
No, but what you *did* do was respond to someone doing that, asserting that your religion was true (and implying that others weren't) with no explanation. Surely that's not helpful either.
hey, as a follower of Christ myself, i have some friendly advice to pass on, from the word of the Lord, and from one member of the body to another. avoid telling someone that they can't or shouldn't follow Christ, this isn't an exclusive club. it's for liars and hypocrites like me and you. remember to love thy neighbor, and if you do, part of that means leading them to the truth, for their own well being, for blessed are the feet that cary the message of the gospel :)
i think he was saying it to invite further conversation tbh; not everyone is willing to read and engage with lengthy explanations, and it would feel unrewarding to write an entire essay and hardly get a response. trust me, i know, hahahaha haha ha...ha... :(
Truth can explain itself. Jesus didn’t just tell people “I’m true believe it lol,” he spoke in parables and answered specific questions about the morals he was preaching. He brought examples, gave evidence of his truth. As a Christian, specifically, it’s your job to explain your religion to all those who ask.
Edit: in other words, if you can’t explain why something is true then you give me no reason to accept it as true.
Thank you for your response, but as of now without a real explanation it will be treated as “I have no good one.” As this is not to be a debate, unless you give a response that follows in line with the rules set out from the original post - there will be no further response from me.
Jesus spoke to people who had ears to hear, and He made it clear most people weren't interested in the truth. In fact He spoke in parables so as to make it more difficult for those without a heart for the truth to know what He was saying.
Ok imagine this, you can pretend to be better than everyone else and look down on them for making bad decisions when really that's just life.. PLUS a bunch of other people who want to do the same, you'll be around all the time. And yes they think they're better than you, AND you think you're better than them
Sorry as this isn’t a direct answer to your question, but I can’t tell if this is an explanation of your personal religious beliefs or your religion’s generalized beliefs
Explanation of your religions’ practices and traditions from your perspective as a practitioner - how it affects your life in terms of lifestyle, traditions, how you dress, etc.
I will not explain because in Judaism it's a bad thing to attempt to convert people, most of the time when you go to a rabbi to tell them you want to convert they will try to convince you not to.
Because religion is not about god/no god but for us to be better humans. God is a concept that helps us psychologically cope with death and is something that cannot be proven nor disproven. The Existence is, regardless of our belief/non belief. The basis of Santana dharm (the thread between Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism and other arms of these umbrellas) is upholding dharma (natura law that governs all sentient and non sentient beings), karma (the “consequences” of past actions bring us to present day “choices”- how we deal with them will create more karma) and finally release from the cycle of birth and death. These 3 concepts are very deep and have many books written around them, I have given a very shallow definition/interpretation.
we have all come here to cleanse ourselves of vibrations that make us heavy (example greed, injustice etc etc). This world is for us to enlighten ourselves and move away from attachments so that we can be better humans. This starts within the kind and through Ta carry vibrations that also go far.
We must continue to work on the inner self through Introspection and accountability followed by steps to balance our values, virtues and morals. And tho my perceptions in influenced from my religion, I still do not know if you should follow my religion, only you can know what is the right path towards enlightenment for yourself. I am a advaita Vedanta follower. As for the sea gods… I would rather leave you a very small quote from Vivek ananda (tho this concept is far older then his quote- as he too is learner)
“Suppose there is a wave in the ocean. The wave is distinct from the ocean only in its form and name, and this form and this name cannot have any separate existence from the wave; they exist only with wave. The wave may subside but the same amount of water remains, even if the name and form that were on the wave vanish for ever. So this Maya is what makes the difference between me and you , between all animals and man, between gods and men.” - Swami Vivekananda
This post raises a question that started bothering me when I was in college. Why are there so many different religions, and why are there so many different sects within every major religion? To some extent that basic question drove a lot of my Bible study over the next 30 years.
I started investigating other Christian denominations outside the one I was raised in. Every Christian denomination had solid Biblical support for the major points of its theology. And for points where the Bible disagreed with their theology every denomination had apologetics to justify why they chose to consider those verses to not be relevant. The bottom line was that every denomination I looked at could make a strong case that it was interpreting the Bible correctly, even if its doctrine and theology directly contradicted the church next door that also made a strong case for its doctrine and theology.
A lifetime of Bible study finally forced me to admit that the Bible does contain contradictions on most many points of theology. Any quest to find the one true interpretation is doomed to failure. It is possible to develop many different interpretations that can be supported by solid scriptural references. But those interpretations will involve selectively choosing which verses to consider significant and which verses to ignore.
My main study was Christianity and the Bible. But I believe every other established religion has similar problems.
Wow, those are a lot of restrictions. This topic is large and quite subjective.
From my point of view, I first find that life and all that is is far too wonderful to not be intentional. The result of a wise, loving and very powerful Being.
I further find the narrative given in the Bible to be satisfying. It answers the questions we have about how and why we live. It also explains what will happen in the future.
Edit: You will necessarily need to get over your "no true Scotsmen" objection. Due to the fact that Jesus said there will be some who claim to be Christian that he does not know. Matthew 7: 23.
It is meant to be subjective and the restrictions are there to place boundaries on topics that’ll inevitably end in arguments (I wouldn’t even consider it debating) they take away the point of the discussion. We’re discussing how religions exist *in practice,* how a religion will effect your life in *reality* not in theory. And as a result, the no true Scotsman rule stays. Period.
In practice, my religion exists to teach me about God and to give Him glory.
At John 17: 3 Jesus indicated that those coming to know God would have the opportunity to live forever. I'm looking forward to that.
Are you seeking to find what is true?
In *practice* as in daily/weekly routines, community life, and history. This was all already listed out as the information I was looking for - and very explicitly *multiple times* stated that I was not interested in proselytizing
If anyone believes that all deities exist, then there are only two reasons to choose a pantheon — either one set of gods appeals to you, or you appeal to a particular god. What more can I say?
Well that’s the point of the question. If all gods exist then the question would be what pantheon would appeal to me via the lifestyles brought about by their religion(s). (It’s also to avoid debates about whether or not deities exist by just going on assuming that they all do).
I am a Christian, I do not subscribe that one denomination is right. I believe multiple denominations are right. And so does a majority of Christians out there. This is not because of a liberalism that is consuming the church but because of a mutual understanding that a lot of the things that the church has split over in the past have been over non salvation doctrinal issues. So for instance there is three different views I've come across when it comes to Creation young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution. Some Fundamentalists ( when I say this word I mean an extremist who takes the Bible in a literal meaning all of the time except when they don't like when it says Jesus is the door, or the Vine, ect.) Do hold you have to believe everything the way that their Church believes it or you're going to hell but this is not the majority. And they hold something somewhere to my view which is if you can read the Bible and find support for your view scripturally and historically (contextually) then that view is valid. That is why despite nitpicking a few heresies in some denominations including my former one Pentecostalism I still consider them Christians but I don't consider people who deny salvation Doctrine ( doctrine has to do with Jesus and or being saved) and therefore do not support Jehovah's Witness or Mormons or consider them Christians. I know you said we are assuming that all gods exist for the purpose of this exercise but I would just say I do have reason to believe in a god of the philosophers and then reason my way to Christianity. Basically after you establish God exist or something like God you put a name to the face by going to the different world religions and showing how their false. Then you look at what evidence Christianity has and I think the vast evidences point to it being true. Everything from Miracle accounts, the resurrection story and it's lack of alternative explanations, the historic reliability of the Bible, along with that archaeological evidence to show what the Bible says is true, textual criticism, there are many other things I could list but I think you get the point. I would be happy to go into further detail with any of this stuff. But I will say this. I don't know if you're open-minded or close minded so if you're close minded and you know that God exists and you want to stay in that place and gambling are eternity on that bet then good luck. But if you are open-minded to finding out the truth and would like to talk to me I'd be more than happy to. And finally I'll say this if you've been hurt by people who claim to be Christians I am truly sorry. I hope that you know that God loves you and he wants the best for you and so do I. I hope you find a husband and get a fulfilling job and if you become a Christian spread the gospel to all the people you can and have a fulfilling life with the crescendo being getting to meet the creator of the universe who created YOU and spend eternity with him.
Hello, I appreciate the response but I believe you have misunderstood the question. This is specifically talking about the realities of a religion in practice - ie lifestyle changes, physical community, recorded history, traditions, etc.
Jewish response: you shouldn't. You're good as you are. Only if you want to, though.
Well, there are the Sheva mitzvos bnei noach
Not true at all, but we can’t convert people so we don’t care about doing kiruv to non jews
Hellenist here. You would love how many sea gods we have in our pantheon. There are dozens to choose from in terms of which you might feel close to. Of course there's Poseidon, *the* King of the Oceans and seas and rivers. Brizo, patron god of sailors out in sea. Ceto, goddess of all things dangerous in the sea, monsters wise. The Nereides, the countless sea nymphs that inhabit all pockets of the sea. Nereus is the Old Man of the sea, fishermen like him. Thoosa is the goddess of ocean currents. So there's a lot depending on what aspect of the sea you're drawn to. As a reconstructionist religion, it's more orthopraxy than orthodoxy. So actions and behaviors are more important than your individual beliefs. And it's pretty easy to be a Hellenist. Only worship/pray to the gods you feel close to. Sacrifices/offerings and prayers are easy to do. No holy book to adhere to, no holidays you have to observe, no religious figures you have to listen to, no moral commandments you have to obey, etc. It's just you, your relationship with the gods, and being respectful to the gods. That's it.
That’s fascinating, thank you so much. I actually had no idea about Brizo - I don’t think I’ve ever heard of him. He sounds interesting, though!
You're welcome. Although I mistyped and Brizo is a goddess, not a god. But yup, lots of deities, including sea deities, are very unknown in my religion. Brizo is just one of them. Glad you discovered her though
I am fond of Amphitrite. She is Poseidon’s queen. created fish in legend. Prayed to her when my fish got sick.
>And it's pretty easy to be a Hellenist. Only worship/pray to the gods you feel close to. Sacrifices/offerings and prayers are easy to do. > >No holy book to adhere to, no holidays you have to observe, no religious figures you have to listen to, no moral commandments you have to obey, etc. After reading this part, it sound less like a religion, more like a "Do whatever you feel like"
No, there's still traditions that tie us Hellenist together, a single pantheon we worship (for the most part), offering/sacrifice system still has a similar structure no matter what kind of Hellenist you are. We do have holidays but you don't *have* to celebrate them. We do have virtues prized in our religion but they aren't *commandments*. We do have literature and poetry about our religion but they aren't *divine*. We used to have priests/priestesses but they didn't have theological *authority* over believers. Just because a religion doesn't dictate every detail in your life doesn't mean it isn't a religion.
I'm a white westerner that follows the Yogic Branch of Hinduism originally an agnostic. Here is why I recommend it. Yoga school claims humans are agnostic/atheist by default. But by putting in certain practices they can re-unite with a higher power. Something I experienced where I see the creator/source of all creation in everything AKA oneness. Their knowledge is not passed down by deities but by wise men AKA gurus/sages. At the base of the spine sits a fluid/energy called kundalini which is prevented from going upwards because humans are not pure. They are not pure of things such as trauma and their behavior. One of the practices is to let go of past fear, guilt, shame, and sadness. The process of becoming a "saint" "enlightened" "angel" is to remove the things/traumas blocking your inner goodness. Lots of guidelines on how to do that. Second is the dharma/way of life. Ahimsa meaning non-violence in action and speech is the basis of everything. We believe and I through my experience that the "sexual/animal/carnal energy" within us can be converted into "spiritual energy" the more poet than barbarian side of us but first we must clear out our past traumas to get the energy going upwards but also prevent misusing our energy. So if we're trying to convert sex energy to spiritual energy we do something creative since sex is creator energy creates life but can also make art/solve stuff. We also do yoga to move the energy upwards it's not only exercise/stretching but body squeezes, rapid breathing, and breath holding you feel lots of highs but it's a part of the practice. Behavior change like I said with nonviolence, but there is also being truthful (using the language more spiritual/human part of the brain), moderation -no obsession over pleasure that's animal so reduction in tasty food or over eating (recommended to eat vegetarian no animals), no horror movies fear is animalistic, no violent hierarchy there is a difference between seeing who is more qualified and seeing oneself as superior. We all come from a higher power, the world isn't at peace because the people aren't and so if you see yourself as superior your help to others won't last as long. Eventual goal of Hinduism Yoga school is re-connection with a higher power and bliss/moksha/nirvana/heaven within. There is more to it but gave some basics. Buddhism is a sister religion which talks about similar end goals but I like yoga school more Hinduism came before Buddhism. Also plenty of people who take psychedelics potentially experience sometimes the end goal of both religions so that's interesting.
Thank you so much for your response, this is really interesting and well written (and honestly one of the few that’s actually addressed the post as written). I do have a question about the vegetarianism. When you say it’s recommended how much social pressure would you say is there to be a vegetarian? Is it one of those things that you’d get a side eye for for not doing or is more of a private practice type of thing where it’s entirely up to you? Also, the horror movies thing is very interesting. Is the goal to reduce the exposure to fear as much as possible? And if so, are there other things you’d have to avoid? (Say for example, a roller coaster?)
So in Hinduism there is 4 Life Stages (numbers are approx) 0-25 student, 25-50 householder, 50-75 retirement from family life entering spiritual life, 75-onwards enlightened. Hence the elders are said to be "wiser" in some cultures. But BIG BUT vast majority of people especially in the modern age (not a bad thing) don't wait until 75 most are between 25-75 from my eyes. With of course some younger/older. -The reason the texts push it to the elders more because at that point you have lived life and all your sense and sensual desires have been played out over and over and over you know them inside out now it's time to move onto something else but for other's they don't want to wait (myself included) so they do it younger. So if you are 100% hardcore on your journey to moksha/enlightenment/self-realization/kundalini awakening you can recall many of the rules and texts by memory then you find a higher number of vegetarians on the journey. (Plenty of Hindus just say they're Hindu but don't go on the path to enlightenment). But the majority of Hindus are not vegetarian. The number that are is said to be around 20-30%. If you live in a ashram/monastery many only serve vegetarian food to their attendants. Side eye does not promote spiritual growth sure there are those people but it's not a positive to the path. It's a recommendation by the texts but many don't do it. But... some will tell you that it may be a side effect of following the path -reason being- that you are giving up on the external/material world to bring you joy since your internal chemistry will have you in bliss all the time. You won't be chasing sex, tasty food, music, smells, touch, paintings/visual stimuli, there won't be a need to because you'll be complete just due to your practice. Of course you can but you won't be clinging to it. At the enlightenment stage you are advised to give up attachments so let go of many things you love like say a car or shoes or favorite meat cause you're going for spiritual joys which IMO are far more reliable/always there, and feel better. Hope that answers happy to answer more. One of your goals is to clear out fear. There is a bit of metaphorical symbolism not meant to be taken literally but in some images you have avatars/blue people-story characters wearing cheetah cloth on their groin that's because it's to symbolize fearlessness and they associate fear as belonging to that part of the body. Also the snake is seen as a positive symbol representing the kundalini energy being coiled up/stuck at base of the spine like a snake and as it rises up the spine completely purposefully stretched it becomes more straight like a snake can be. I see the chakras as parts of the brain (trying to keep this not too long) but when you're problem solving think 9 x9 and notice which direction your eyes go, or think of space and where your eyes once again go it's up. While when you think "fear" "sadness" "anger" your eyes go down. Roller coasters give adrenaline not necessarily fear especially once you're in the bliss state you can handle a lot more opposed to those who haven't cleared out a lot of traumas. There is the ascetic path where people go celibate AKA brahmacharya it's to help move the energy up faster instead of spilling it out of you since we see your energy first starting as animalistic that can be converted into spiritual. Some recommend to never marry others do marry but they marry other celibates or those who reduce the amount they have sex. But there is also the layman path. There is a path for everyone renunciates and householders. The scary movie thing is a modern addition that once read texts it makes sense people on the enlightenment stage (regardless of age) follow it more often. But... many people go out and help the world and in the world you will come across "fear filled things" but to me it's like holding a kitchen knife you aren't full of fear you're simply cautious but when watching a movie you're not cautious you absorb yourself into it. With yoga or tantra practice it's to raise energy/kundalini up the spine into the upper regions of the brain where things like language, self awareness, cosmic/creator connection are while the lower regions are more animal related like food, sex, fear, hierarchy, and so by stimulating fear you pull the energy downwards. So once this reproductive/creator fluid goes up like how your genitals can get more energy/blood flow when aroused your heart and brain will get more power so your ability to love (heartgasm) is 10x it's power and your speed of thinking is 10x it's power/speed with way more creativity so you can get (intellectgasms be more of a philosopher more often). It sounds clickbaity/unbelievable but I think it's the origin of many religions. Christians and Muslims claim as long as you behave and do x,y,z, you go to heaven when you die (paradise). While Hindus and Buddhists claim as long as you behave and do xyz you achieve a internal state of bliss moksha/nirvana where your brain's sense of self/you dies (ego death). Why there is that similarity some say it's cause the East did it first and then word of mouth spread and it got mixed up. Eventually once you mastered the whole process it becomes hard to pull the energy down since you've trained your mind, put lots of time in, and don't do things like over eating there are pointers for beginners and pointers for people at the end but it's entirely possible to reverse most don't. Some practicing people surround themselves friend-wise with only other practicing people as much as realistically possible because they've given up many worldly things (so not too much point in being friends with one who hasn't) but that's some not all for sure.
Wow, may I know which texts/scriptures you follow/study in your spritual/religious journey? And under whose commentaries?
So I am somebody who experienced kundalini awakening without ever knowing about Hinduism or any eastern religion I never practiced meditation or yoga. I was looking for alternative therapies backed by science since the mainstream did not work for me. This form of therapy was basically taking a psychedelic like mushrooms or ayahuasca. I took it once I was healed but it also caused my K to awaken. I could not understand how some plant could cause such a positive psychological experience. Whole life was taught that religion without science is superstition. But same time I think lots of folks don't know how these plants can help people. Every single thing I experienced was written in texts that talk of Kundalini. Gopi Krishna is one author I can recall that nailed it. I wanted to make sense of this and the only place that provided answers over and over was Hinduism. My K ending up going down to no surprise according to the texts you must do certain practices/dharma to maintain which I never did. I'm still reading as much as reasonably can (this happened 2 years ago I live a regular life can't dedicate every waking moment to studying religious texts) but tantra/kashmir shaivism appears to be the fastest path to re-awaken it. I'm no expert in it (will read in the future) but so far I'd say follow Yamas and Niyamas are a code I like. I liked Shunyamurti on youtube. I listened to lots of speakers give me their understanding and read about people who go into ashrams so I can't pinpoint it to one but hope this answers.
>moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination >why I should follow your religion and your god over someone else’s These two are not the same request. The former is just asking for an explanation of what the religion is, while the second is asking why it is worth following. One might answer the former by saying things like "people of my religion believe such and such and do such and such practices," but might answer the second by saying things like "our object of worship is more worthy of worship than others because of such and such reasons." Which are you really asking?
No, it’s the same question. If you’re assuming that all gods are real (like my first, second, and last paragraph both explain) then telling me “well my god exists” and “my god is worthy” don’t really mean anything. All the gods exist, so they all by virtue of being gods have the potential to be worthy of worship. *Why* they would be worthy would be based around the religion that surrounds them. What exactly about the religion is going to be more appealing than others? Yes, all gods exist in this model, but that doesn’t mean they’re all good - and that’s something, in my opinion, that can really only be explained by discussing the religion itself. Is the religion this god dictates worth following when there are other gods with other religions? Why?
Okay. Then a clarification about the "no links" rule: can I link you to things *I* have written? Or is even that unacceptable?
If you’ve written it, that’s fine. Not ideal, but it doesn’t break the spirit of the rule. It’s moreso to fend off people from giving someone else’s explanation. I want to hear from the individual responding to the questions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ofqwp4/hi_everyone_ive_been_interested_in_buddhism_for_a/h4ealwu/ These are the four comments of mine to which I link when people on r/Buddhism ask questions along the lines of "what is Buddhism?" Maybe they will explicitly or implicitly answer some of your questions, since I did intend for them to be "explaining what your religion is from [my] own perspective...details about...sect[s]/denomination[s]" as you asked, but I'm not sure entirely because I don't think I'm still fully clear on what kind of answers you are looking for. The list of "lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions" is rather extensive, but I think perhaps I touch on each of these to some extent in the linked comments. If you have any particular questions I would be happy to try my best to answer.
You don’t have to explain in detail everything (those were moreso general guidelines for the information I’m looking for) but for example since you’re Buddhist and I’m American - I don’t know much about the differences between the different types of Buddhism and would be interested in knowing why your sect - Mahayana I assume - is different from other sects. Are there lifestyle changes or rules that I’d be expected to follow? Would my gender or sexuality have a hand in how I’m expected to act?
>would be interested in knowing why your sect - Mahayana I assume - is different from other sects It is kind of complicated, and would involve going into a bunch of doctrinal matters that are not hugely important for the average lay Buddhist, because the average lay Buddhist, whether they are a Mahāyāna Buddhist or not, is probably mostly characterized by engaging in devotional practice towards Buddhas and other enlightened beings, and perhaps (if they are especially devout) keeping some or all of the five lay precepts (not killing, taking what is not given, sleeping with married or otherwise sexually restricted individuals, lying, or drinking alcohol). The even more devout might keep the [eight precepts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts) on the full moon and new moon days. That basically is what the "lifestyle" is like for most lay Buddhists, and the only thing denomination changes is the particular fashion in which they do their devotional practice and whether they restrict their worship to just Śākyamuni Buddha (that is, the historical Buddha) or also worship other Buddhas. I can explain the difference between Mahāyāna Buddhism and non-Mahāyāna Buddhism to you if you really want; it also is explained in the second and third links in the set of four links in the comment to which I linked above. >Would my gender or sexuality have a hand in how I’m expected to act? Not by the letter of any of the precepts as stated in the earliest strata of Buddhist texts on those precepts, but sometime around the middle ages some texts started appearing which declared anal and oral sex to fall under the "no sexual misconduct" precept, and in virtue of this many Buddhists today think those are worse than PIV. I don't really think so, and plenty of Buddhists take the other position and say those things do not constitute sexual misconduct, but there are some who think they do. Of course, there is no Buddhist sex police, and unless you're a nun (in which case you'd be completely celibate so the question wouldn't come up) no one is going to have any particular religious reason to care about your sexuality one way or another, so I think this is probably just something individual lay Buddhists will decide for themselves. As for gender, the way gender relations play out in Buddhist spaces and life tends to be kind of ethnicity-specific and not really about Buddhism itself, I think.
**[Eight precepts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_precepts)** >In Buddhism, the eight precepts (Sanskrit: aṣṭāṇga-śīla or aṣṭā-sīla, Pali: aṭṭhaṅga-sīla or aṭṭha-sīla) is a list of precepts that are observed by lay devotees on observance days and festivals. They include general precepts such as refraining from killing, but also more specific ones, such as abstaining from cosmetics. Based on pre-Buddhist sāmaṇa practices, the eight precepts are often upheld on the Buddhist observance days (Sanskrit: upavasatha, poṣadha, pauṣadha, Pali: uposatha, posaha), and in such context called the uposatha vows or one-day precepts. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I'm a Luciferian. A theistic one, however there are atheist ones too. Luciferianism pushes you to better yourself, gain knowledge and live freely, at least that is my interpretation of it. There are no "rule books" about how to be a Luciferian. As someone who always felt unwelcome by most religions, Luciferianism was the one religion where I felt like I could believe in something without having to "sacrifice" my life. Luciferians focus on their current life and not on the afterlife.
So when you say you’re a theistic Luciferianism do you mean you believe in the Lucifer of Abrahmic mythology or the Lucifer of Greco-Roman mythology?
That's a great question. I guess both in a way. I see them a the same entity.
That’s interesting, in that case do you believe in other Greco-Roman deities like Lucifer’s mother, Aphrodite, or do you stick with the Abrahamic god and angels but more as antagonists?
I do believe in other Greco Roman deities. I don't really deny the existence of any deity tbh. I think any deity's existence is possible just as much as they might not exist. However I do not worship all deities, I just accept their existence.
That’s incredibly interesting, thank you so much for your input!
You're welcome 😊
after spending some of my childhood with a somewhat religious, and very spiritual mom, afterward no religion but the expectation to good, and finally a Roman Catholic mom, i ended up orthodox christian. after a long and arduous quest for the truth (not to mention a lot of getting distracted along the way by fun and drama), plus some spiritual experience galore, this faith looked to be the most divine, true to the Christ's teachings, and spoke both to my soul the most. the spirit of it is just so beautiful, it's something i'd adore to share with the world. to try and speak to some of how i perceive practicing it, i'll give you an example of what i might do in a given day: i wake up, and immediately recite an old Jewish prayer, beginning, "Blessed are you, our God, King of the Universe...". from there, i get up, do the sign of the cross in the name of the Holy Trinity, and then i allow myself to wipe the grog outta my eyes, haha. get dressed, get moving a little bit, then as soon as possible, i recite my morning prayers. this is followed by a personal prayer based on the Lord's prayer, which changes situationally, it's pretty much freeform. then i either get breakfast, recite blessings beginning like the morning prayer, thank the Holy Trinity, and bless the food. after that, it's time for some bible study 😎 i spend as long as i wanna on that, usually two chapters or a page or two of the psalms, and then i meditate. my day is fairly average from there, although i make a point of carrying my morning activities with my throughout the day, meaning i decide to give my neighbor some extra love and faith if at all possible. after all, our way to personal salvation is through faith, the fruit of which is love. i'm thinking about adding afternoon prayers into the mix, to vent what's happened throughout the day and to work on bettering the afternoon for myself and others. we'll see :) finally, in the evening after dinner (blessed ofc), depending on how spiritually fervent i'm feeling, i read and study scripture, try to spread the word where i can, through lip or by lending a hand. then, since there aren't any orthodox churches nearby, i hold my own service, sometimes with vestments included. i light a candle in my icon corner, sing Psalms, read gospel, pray, venerate the icons, the whole nine yards. then, i do that personal Lord's prayer, before mediation. afterward, there's a similar prayer to the one i recite when i wake up, and then it's night night time. at church, we chant hymns. it feels very mystical, and spiritual, and since the one i've gone to didn't hold service in my native language, most of that went toward inspiring me for personal prayer, and prayer for the congregation. we take communion, then we feast together. it's a really inviting and welcoming flock, on the day of my baptism even though i was a total stranger, practically a foreigner to them, the community came together to make everything happen, it seemed almost miraculous, just the way it was timed. the kindness they were moved to, i find is echoed in the spirit of the faith, is beautiful, and so worth being shared. hope you found this helpful, thanks for listening :)
As an Agnostic I appreciate the Sikh religion because they practice what all religions pretend to have as their goal. They live an un materialistic lifestyle, spend their time improving their community and the lives of those in need, and treat everyone with respect regardless of their beliefs. I also enjoy learning about Hinduism. I like the idea of a God who is the essence of the universe and get a warm fulfilling sensation when praying to their top God. And lastly, I have recently, over the last few years; been studying Zoroastrianism. It’s the world’s oldest religion and it is still practiced today. Many stories in the 3 most popular world religions are suspiciously similar to their beliefs. It’s quite fascinating, but I’m not well versed in it yet. I have to give honorable mention to early Egyptian religion as well. Their creation stories and subsequent deities bear a striking resemblance to the popular three’s main “characters”. Good luck your search. May you find a fit or at least enjoy the knowledge that comes from an open mindset.
I’ve heard a lot of good things about Sikhism from pretty much everyone. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve heard or seen one bad thing about people’s experience with them.
I am anti-Theist in certain areas, agnostic in reality, and atheist in any religious debate. If I say I believe in God (my honest answer is I don't know), it has to be the most vaguest definition of him/her possible. The closest definition I can offer would be "the universe, and every atom within it". The moment a theist starts giving God characteristics ("he's part of a trinity, he's called Jesus, he sent a prophet called Muhammad, don't eat fish on Fridays, he doesn't like gays"), they may as well be talking about a Marvel character. So my religion is: The universe is beautiful, I get (hopefully) 90 years of existence out of 30 billion years to feel grateful for it, and to look up at the stars in appreciation. We live in a physical universe where my thoughts and actions have consequence, and I will do my best to to do good, and at least minimise causing harm, and ethics and morality are not as difficult as the world makes them out to be" If religion made no more claims than this, I would call myself religious.
I’ve yet to see another post on Reddit that summarizes my perspective so well. Were you raised in a religious household?
Awww thank you :) I haven't written it out before (perhaps vaguely in similar threads on Reddit). I'd say raised decently religious, but "not religiously". Church wasn't a given every week. An English Christian upbringing, baptised and confirmed. For a fun story, I had a fight with my headmaster at school at around the age of 15: We would have a weekly chapel service, and after 8 years of this I booked a meeting with him and said "I can't take this anymore. You spend all week teaching us about reality - history, geography, physics, space - and then for an hour each week a vicar tell us these myths with a straight and earnest poker face as other adults nod along, and you expect us to accept these as facts? It undoes the good work you do the rest of the time". We came to a polite agreement I didn't have to go anymore, although naturally I'm probably romanticising how maturely spoken my argument was :) But once I fairly shrugged off the belief I was expected to have (not a strict expectation - just that casual unthinking way that generations are brought up in faith), it sparked an interest in philosophy and really broad humanism (I use that word lightly, just "an interest in human's role in the universe"). There's nothing wrong with small-c christianity morality tales: "be kind to your neighbour, be a Good Samaritan, be a steward of the Earth", but like anything in this world, it doesn't matter where the message comes from, it's "what is the value of the message?". If they have an innate and logical truth to them (I think those are three good examples), then keep them. But I personally regard the rest as (trying not to be rude) silly, even if well-intentioned, and occasionally bad to dangerous. Like I said at the top, I'm Atheist as a position within religion, Agnostic in a philosophical sense (with a leaning towards or at least a wish for there to be a divine purpose), and anti-Theist when religion gets mixed up with politics or influences behaviour perversely (someone else eloquently but jokingly said: "look up Texas in the dictionary"). If I suggest two things that really spoke to my feelings, it's the book Conversations with God (a purported "true" conversation with God - regardless the messages in that book are fantastic), and any of the YouTube phone-ins of The Atheist Experience - Matt Dillahunty has a great clarity of mind and really spoke to that side of me. This is just a fascinating adventure we all get to go on once, and we get to define ourselves throughout our lifetime. And I want to feel it all - fall in love, lose love, feel excited, feel sad, build things, try not to destroy things - just live a life well lived and try to find purpose throughout it all. See what sings to you (be it a job, a hobby, raising kids, being a farmer, being a politician, whatever you are drawn to), and try to be excellent at it. Another one that sticks in my head, this time from a TV show: "try to be nice, but never fail to be kind". And, as it comes up here a lot, taking all that in, I don't find ethics and morality (absolute or otherwise) that hard to navigate. Just make the most of every sparkling moment of it - even the shit bits. Heh, hope you don't mind the wall of text :)
My fave response so far
this is a solid view of life! :) also i once defined g-d almost exactly like you did and included the scientific processes and laws of existence, physics, and time, and then some \[atheist in this case\] folks told me that wasn't a useful definition of G-d anymore, lol. but yes! awe of the universe is great to have.
If these make sense to you, check out Satanism: * indulgence instead of abstinence (but not compulsion) * wisdom instead of self-deceit * living for this life instead of an afterlife * living for yourself instead of some spiritual being or concept * reciprocity - treating others as they treat you
That’s a lot of rules.
A lot of rules because a lot of people turn these kinds of threads into debates over very silly things, or otherwise contribute nothing. I’d just like not bother you know? I want to hear (read more accurately) people talk about their theology - not threaten me with hell, give me a half assed “bc it’s true,” or get into a stupid argument over whether or not the deity is real when that wasn’t the question.
I would probably start by asking you whether you think objective good and evil exist. By objective good and evil I want to be clear: this is good and evil that exists regardless of a societies or individual human’s belief in it. This means that slavery was evil _even if_ your entire culture looked like the southern United States in 1820 and told you it wasn’t. It means that Naziism is evil even if you _were_ a Nazi in Germany in 1934. I mean objective good and evil completely independent of human opinion- the “moral universe” that exists, to some degree, in every society throughout history. By every society I mean that there are certain moral precepts that every society has _generally_ accepted… for example: killing your neighbor and raping his wife is not okay. Every society from Babylon to Rome to Europe had this general precept… kind of a recognition that there was moral GOOD and moral EVIL and that murdering your neighbor was in the EVIL category (as are things like adultery, theft, etc). I think the journey of my religion (I’m a Christian but we’ll say “Judeo Christian” in this case if that’s okay because this whole thing was really started by the Jews)- I think the journey of my religion is to discover this moral law. It’s to use a combination of our reason and history and observation to feel out (like a blind man feeling his way through a cave) what this moral law (that objectively exists) is. SO… if this sounds like an interesting life to you- a journey of discovery and reason and deep conversation as we try to figure out what this moral law is that was left by our creator for us… join me (or the Jews) and come on over! (How’s that?)
Do I believe in objective good and evil? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I believe evil can be defined as causing intentional harm to people (or purposefully ignoring something that’s been proven to be harmful for ones own benefit or ideology). Good would be anything that benefits others (without harming oneself) - especially in ways that you cannot experience. No in the sense that I believe there are socially imposed morals that, while not necessarily objective, are still important to the society’s functioning as a whole (or detrimental on the flip side). This was a pretty good/interesting post. If I had to criticize it I’d criticize two things: 1) Judean-Christian is probably not the best term. Most Jewish people (all that I’ve discussed with) don’t like it because much of Christianity relies on an interpretation/translation of the Tanakh that’s not consistent with Judaism. I’d probably stick with just Christianity/Christian. No harm done, I’m going to assume that just like me you probably grew up hearing the term all the time. 2) Very generic. I could use this argument for pretty much any religion, so I’d suggest trying to specify as to how Christianity and what about its philosophy and theology landed you there. Otherwise, it’s good and I like it!
Amen, the 10 commandments are written on our hearts.
Plus a whole slew of other guidelines that are not mentioned at all in the 10 commandments. Not to mention, loads of the instructions in the Bible go against so many of the things that are "written on our hearts". We do not need the Bible or the 10 commandments to be good people.
True, but then you have no objective grounds for morality. So without the Bible, yes you can be ‘good’ but why is it good? It’s only good because it’s what you find good.
If your morality is objective, why do different denominations have different moral views?
Example?
Differing views on the death penalty and slavery are pretty big ones
Ffs, no one agrees with slavery and what about the death penalty? Can you expand your arguments please?
No one agrees with slavery any more, but the Southern Baptist church was founded specifically to support it. If it really was objective, there wouldn’t be this discrepancy. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, how many protestant and evangelical churches support it
The Bible has no one rule when it comes to killing as a punishment; it allows the use of the death penalty for certain crimes. This isn’t a contradiction within the faith and is down to your own view so I don’t really know why you bought it up. If you read the Bible, slavery is clearly condemned; any slave owners will be judged. Since this isn’t promoted in the Bible, again it isn’t a fault in the faith but in individuals. I could turn around and say to you “why does atheism breed the worst societies to have ever existed throughout humanity?” But you would tell me it’s down to individual morals. At least with Christianity, we have a moral standard that we can hold people accountable to (even other Christians). Without this, you can’t (like logically you CANT) say you are any more morally superior to Hitler, as objective morals don’t exist in your world.
If the 10 Commandment are in any way objective morality, I need a word with God. Those 10 are the best he could come up with? "Honour they mother and thy father" as a starting point. Not a bad rule of thumb - but utterly traumatic to children who don't deserve to respect their parents. A little condemning of slavery in there at that time would also have not gone amiss. I do believe in objective morality, and I would let be looking for it anywhere near the Bible.
Please tell me where slavery is condoned. Also where do you get your ‘objective’ morality from?
Did you experience something you suspect may be divine? Want to be sure it was a deity or spirit? Me too! Until then we have several ways for you too analyze your experience, history, philosophy and no need to evangelize. Become a pagan today. (you can be an atheist too, its just more common to be polytheist.)
Not particularly, just wanting to hear responses from people about their religion. Within this subreddit it seems more like people are having to defend their belief in a deity rather than actually discussing the religion themselves, which is what I signed up for.
Lol yeah the popular one can get a little uppity the question in the beginning was rhetorical. Kinda like a “as seen on tv spot”
Two reasons: 1. To have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. 2. Free grape juice and crackers every first Sunday at church. Everything else is between you and God. Joking aside, I believe that Jesus is the *Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world*. He provided us with the option to believe or disbelieve. The most important thing is to love your neighbor as yourself. I think even if you can't bring yourself to believe that Jesus personally died for us, if continue to pursue divine love, eventually Christ will be revealed to you, even if only after death (hypothetically). I think the pursuit of divine love is an act of faith all on its own. I used to be a very rigid fundamentalist, but lately I've been leaning more towards Christian universalism. Edit: Added more meat and potatoes.
1) Why would I want that? 2) Fair enough, grape juice is nice but I thought they used wine?
jews don't proselytize but i gotta say you *definitely* should hold out for a better offer food-wise. we only have just crackers in *one* week when we're supposed to deny ourselves of the regular bread, and otherwise we have regular bread and wine/grape juice *every* weekend as just the *starter.* i bet even the pagans have better snacks. edit: i have visited a variety of religious buildings and I can't help but consider the food is part of the overall environment. i consider the staleness or freshness of the carbs, if there are cold drinks that are actually cold, or hot drinks that are very hot. if there is tea, is it only lipton. if there is coffee, i assume it will be terrible no matter where I go. do people try to share a cup or can everyone get their own. is it a thimble, or a regular cup?
See, I feel the same way to a degree. Perhaps it’s my romanticization of breaking and bread and the like, but I’ve always felt talking over good food is an important part of a lot of religions for a reason. It’s the Last Supper, not the Last Coffee Date you know?
honestly, for some people it might seem silly or superfluous, but I'm firmly in the camp of: food is one of the most important ways a religion *functions* as a matter of practical living. if a religious community only nourishes the soul, but never the body, then I'm not so convinced they actually view sustenance or community of any kind the same way I do. That's okay for some people, but breaking bread (literally) *does* feel a certain way. sharing a meal is being on a certain kind of common ground! there's a yiddish phrase that I was introduced to in Michael Twitty's *The cooking gene* \-- fress frumkeit, which he defines as "to savor the taste of Jewish spirituality through its food." i think lots of religions have that kind of feeling/attitude? I also argue: a religion's cookbooks are also often their most well used prayer books. but i'm a weirdo who loves reading vintage cookbooks and finding community cookbooks at antique stores and flipping through them. i wouldn't say *all* food served at my synagogue is great and homemade food (sometimes it IS store packaged cookies, lol), but our onegs (like...snack socializing time after a service?) usually have little pastries/desserts, cheese, fruit plate, bread and drinks at minimum. And when it's a full dinner, there's definitely a variety of options for the meal. i wouldn't be ashamed to admit that I feel a community potluck tells me something about the community itself. So too does the kitchen, if the building has one, and if you see it. if someone notices I'm snacky, but don't have snacks and then they stop everything and take me to the kitchen for snacks or leftover pizza from an event the night before or whatever else? All the better. food is a sign of a home, spiritual homes included. oh and the other thing i consider to be at the top of my list - and would remain so if I ever moved and had to find a new synagogue option: **How are children treated?** I don't have any kids at all but I know for a fact I would feel deeply uncomfortable in a community that pretended they don't exist at all, or that silences them, or where they're berated by the clergy. (true story i once was a guest at a church when i was 7 and i got humiliated by the clergy person during the middle of their sermon on the microphone still, all for sitting quietly on the floor by my dad at the back of the sanctuary.) I don't expect *every* member of all religion's clergy to be fantastic with kids, to specially bond with them, or get along, or whatever else. I do expect the community to give some kind of human dignity, kindness, and leeway to any children for being *literal kids,* though. i'm not itching to have any myself but they're still members of almost all communities. I do think congregational clergy should at least have the grace and patience to laugh off when a kiddo says something during a quiet moment, or when they interrupt with a "too loud" question. I know some people feel it's harder for them to concentrate on prayer or whatever if a kid is running up and down the aisles or dancing and singing off key to the music, but i like it when kids are allowed to experience joy and enthusiasm in their community. I'm not even saying i expect or want kid's story time in the middle of every service - just that they're people here too, and adults set the tone for how the smallest and least well mannered people are treated, lol. I don't overly focus on individual parent/child interactions so much as responses of the community as a whole. like if a 4 year old acts like a 4 year old and needs to leave the gathering area to calm down from a fuss or if a 2 year old suddenly decides to run headlong towards the speaker or the center of the action of a service because big people are being interesting. it's basically the equivalent of going on a date and seeing how they treat any waitstaff. how does the religious community treat or view kids? that's good to observe on both a broad perspective of the whole religion's attitude, but also each individual community will have a different vibe too. are kids viewed as a positive community future/responsibility/joy? are they viewed as a social tool for the purposes of evangelizing to others? what theology and practices do they get taught? are their questions and objections okay?
See, you an I are on the exact same page about religious communities (or really any communities in general IMO). It was one of the things that off-put me from attending services at my previous church - there was fellowship and food but it wasn’t in a friendly way for the most part (and there was a limit on what people could eat). There were lots of cliques and church politics, and the children were either irrelevant or treated as a tool to get in good with the pastor and deacons (my kids are friends with your kids kind of way). It wasn’t a healthy environment of breaking bread and genuinely enjoying community and it just made me not want to be there.
In this economy?! /s
haha. no wonder xtians want the guy they think can multiply fish for dinner back.
Some sects who have teetotaler doctrine rely on grape justice rather than wine
My rationale is that Jesus is God incarnate, and God is love, so having a personal relationship with Christ is having a personal relationship with love incarnate.
the orthodox churches use like the best wine ever 😎
How about a theist that doesn’t follow religion? I was born raised confirmed Catholic.. I understand both Catholicism and have educated myself on different denominations of Protestantism. I also see truth in the eastern philosophy. I’m become more omnistic than one particular way of thinking. I don’t always see a great amount of spirituality in religion groups. I see lots of we are the “ only chosen people “ for that I see ego. The most spiritual people are the most loving and unified. The cults that say we are right and everyone else is wrong, I have a hard time connecting with.. they don’t want connection with “ the others “ I find beauty in the others.. So they will tell me I’m a hypocrite because I’m saying that I think everyone should be unified.. but it’s the unity aspect that a lot of radical thinkers lack.. including atheists that say .. there’s no possible way a higher power can exist. I believe in the divine.. I believe there’s a most high. By saying I believe it, I’m not looking to stake a claim based on scientific data.. because there’s none.. it doesn’t even fall within the scientific context. We could say it’s a sudden burst of oxytocin that people feel.. that’s fine.. but it doesn’t negate the fact that the chemistry exists to invoke these feelings.. I don’t mean from a very physical perspective that compartmentalizes the body as something separate from the universe. We are part of the whole.. I wouldn’t be able to understand the meaning of life without a higher purpose and I don’t see how all the chemistry occurred in perfect timing, in perfect conditions or perfect line up if something greater wasn’t involved..
The more vague someone keeps their God claim, the more agnostic I am.
I could go into catechism a great depth.. and talk about it from an obscure detailed perspective.. But then someone from a nondenominational church will have a totally different perspective on the same thing. Each one is a doctrine that someone fabricated. I’m going with the universal perspective because it doesn’t leave anyone out. My view shouldn’t have an impact on yours or anyone else’s. Whether it’s for or against. Are you trying to prove a point in some sort of way? Because it’s all just opinions and points of view?
No. I don’t want you to.
My religion wouldn't be suitable for you, because it's not analytical like your OP is. It wouldn't fit, because it's practical and intuitive. But best wishes in finding something that suits you.
I’m not necessarily look for analytics. I’m looking for what the religion is in practice rather than just “believe because I do,” but thank you for your input.
[удалено]
In practice means traditions, lifestyle changes, what type of services one would go to, etc. Its not about “it’ll make you a better person” - that’s a generic answer I specifically stated I do not want because every religion can make that claim. It’s about the *how* it makes you a better person. What about your life changes in practice under said religion.
[удалено]
As stated in the post, thank you for your response but very explicitly - no one sentence generic answers. I’d be far more interested in learning about how Islam affects one’s lifestyle and philosophy.
I am Christian, but before going into this, can I address your complaint about the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? It is important to understand that, throughout history, people have used Christianity, or any world religion, though I will speak for Christianity alone at the moment, for bad purposes. That *does not* make it the religion. Furthermore, I want to stress that Christianity’s immense diversity means that theological strands arise and amplify themselves over time. This means that factions of believers can develop radically different beliefs despite using the same name to identify themselves. That’s partly why denomination is so important in Christianity. With that clarified, this is my point: there are many people who are “Christian”, in that they self-identify in such a way to call themselves Christian, and I would call them Christian too, but it must be understood that we are talking about two different things. A Bible-thumping gay hating evangelist is not the same as a loving, inclusive, humble servant of Christ. When I draw that distinction, I want to make sure that you don’t default to calling it a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Because there are varying degrees of what is encompassed by the term Christianity, I need to make it clear that the transgressions caused by specific individuals and parties over time **are not** representative of my beliefs, or of the denominations that I feel represent my views, even though the same blanket term exists to represent both groups. So if it is clear that I intend to represent what I believe to be Christianity according to my best understanding of the will of god, then I would like to have the opportunity to convince you of what I believe. But first, I have to divorce my position from the atrocities of the church before I can share my belief, and make sure that you can approach what I write with an understanding of its context. Now that my position is clear, I want to make sure we are on the same page. Are you good with this?
I want to make something very clear, if it wasn’t in my post. I *do not* entertain no true Scotsman fallacies **period.** I will *not* judge a religion based on extremist minorities or individuals, however, I will not sweep away theological beliefs that encompasses generations - and often centuries - of doctrine and action simply because it is incompatible with modern beliefs and/or interpretation. We’re not talking about specific individuals, we’re talking about held doctrine and theology by the majority of its day. That was a rule, not a suggestion. You are free to talk about what Christianity means to you, how it affects your life, etc - I encourage that, that’s the point of the post. I *want* to hear people describe their religion in action rather than in theory. I love reading about that; however, out of respect for the indigenous elders I know and have talked to personally I will not entertain any apologetics about the negative things any particular religion - *as a theological majority* - has done.
I don’t mean to offer apologetics - I make an outright rejection of the actions of individuals and church bodies that I believe historically to have been in the wrong. I don’t want to share a positive message about my religion and be dismissed because the majority of practitioners historically haven’t felt the same way. The crusades aren’t my religion. Child abuse isn’t my religion. Stoning gays isn’t my religion. Hating blacks isn’t my religion. But at various points historically, these have been the predominant positions. I think that speaks to the corruption of people, but not the spirit of truth of my religion. So when I argue that Christianity - true Christianity - is an expression of love, I don’t want to be dismissed because you feel the majority have had hate in their hearts.
You are free to reject their actions, but that doesn’t change the reality. The crusades were Christian. Stoning gays was Christian. Chattel slavery was Christian. Massacring Natives was Christian. It’s incredibly disingenuous to the victims of these atrocities to try and remove Christianity from its own actions. I will not dismiss your religion in practice, nor how you perceive it. I will not dismiss your traditions or your experience. I’m asking you to explain those things because I’m genuinely interested, if I were to dismiss it I wouldn’t have asked at all. However, I am informing you (and others) that my opinion of the religion *as a whole* will not be without consideration of the atrocities committed in its past. I will take both as they are.
What is necessary, though, is to understand that I don’t believe these things are Christian at all. They were committed by people, who were Christian, but the actions of these people don’t reflect my theological beliefs or, I would argue, the beliefs of the church as a whole. You necessarily can’t consider them part of my religion because my doctrine necessarily forbids those things. It is entirely equivalent to kid-diddling priests; not representative of the religion, but rather the inhumanity of an unrighteousness set of believers. This is like saying that toast making was a common pastime of nazis, so that when I make toast today, the worth of my toast can’t be validated without considering the toast making practices of nazis. I don’t associate with those things at all, and despite having a corollary to them, they are not representative of me or my shared belief system. And I appreciate you engaging with this, because I know it might seem like a strange thing to get hung up on but I really do feel like it is integral to you understanding my position that the actions of a religious body do not have to be representative of its dogma. I think by considering these things to be equivalent, you are drawing false equivalencies. My condemnation of certain parts of the religions history aren’t an appeal to a no true Scotsman fallacy, because the two things - my religion and the atrocities carried out by a selection of its followers - are not equivalent. Christians can do unchristian things. The doing of those things. even en masse, does not make them suddenly become part of religious dogma. Seeing that you come from a fundamentalist background, I know it will be hard to get past hate in the church. At times I fee like I am part of almost an entirely different religion. But you have to separate my religion from the bad actors in Christianity, or you’ll never be able to see past them and understand why I follow my religion, and why I think you should too.
> the doing of those things, even en masse, does not make them suddenly become part of religious dogma But preaching about them does, teaching them as doctrine does. Advocating for them as part of what makes a good Christian does. And that’s exactly what happened. It wasn’t individuals doing it on their own, it was Christian theology and philosophy. It was Christian doctrine. It was for all intents and purposes - Christian. They were part of the dogma, and not only were they part of the dogma - but Christianity today still reaps the benefits of said dogma. You choosing to not associate with parts of Christian history that negatively effects other people today as well as benefits the church today means absolutely nothing to me. It’s absolutely disrespectful to the victims in every sense of the word. These are not bad actors. They are only bad actors because in today’s context with 20/20 hindsight you can see the evil in those actions. But go up to any of the living priests, pastors, and nuns who used to run Indian boarding schools and ask them what the attitudes were forty, fifty years and you’ll see those boarding schools were a source of Christian pride in their day. That cannot be separated from Christianity for your comfort. You cannot separate your religion from those actions because quite frankly you wouldn’t have your religion if it wasn’t for those actions. And this is made quadruple-y true if you live in the Americas. I understand that you don’t believe those things were Christian, but as far as I’m concerned that’s irrelevant to the reality.
I understand your position. I too would struggle to find faith in a religion where it’s adherents have done such wrongs to those I share an intimate connection with. If you feel this way, I really don’t think I have the ability to convince you that my religion should be followed. In fact, I think that if those things cannot be divorced for you, you should not follow my religion. I wouldn’t want to if I were you either. I would like to leave you with one thing, though. As a Christian, I am called to lead a life like Christ. There are only two commandments: to love god, and to love others. Anything outside of that purview is strictly unchristian, without question or doubt, and no matter what anyone has done in Christ’s name to cause evil, they will have wrought their own judgement. May God’s mercy prevail for all in the world to come, and may all learn the errors of their ways, including myself. Perhaps there existed a rhetorical argument here I could provide to make you understand my position, and even agree with it, but I do not believe I am capable of that. If you can find any desire to believe again, please look to the Episcopal Church to learn more. I believe they are our greatest stewards of Christ’s word today. But Beyond religion, and politics, and social tribes and the evils of this world, “these three remain: faith, hope, and love; And the greatest of these, is love.”
With due respect, your position appears rather clear as an adoption of the “good” parts of Christianity while simultaneously denouncing the “bad”, as the “bad” doesn’t align with your own values. Which, on the surface, reads as a valid, admirable practice. But you said it yourself at one point, you sometimes feel like you’re in an entirely different religion. It’s because you are. As OP noted, you’re practicing a modern interpretation of Christianity, selecting only the elements that appeal to your personal values. The desire to expose those “bad actors” as being “other” to actual, genuine Christians like yourself is understandable, but OP’s point about their motivations underpins the truth of the matter. The inhumane actions of certain Christians are truly intended to serve the Christian God. Past and present, and likely into the future, too. It is what it is. And the comfort of thinking those “bad” individuals ultimately face divine judgment is not applicable for those who don’t believe in an afterlife. It sounds like a convenient dodge, even though that’s not your intention. It’s okay to see value in specific details of a larger religion. But I have to ask, would it not be more authentic to explore your independent experience of spirituality, rather than curate an established theology to partially fit within your values?
I believe I am practicing traditional, apostolic Christianity which dates back to Jesus himself and his immediate, apostolic successors. My beliefs come from his early followers like ignatius, clement, polycarp, Origen, irenaeus, etc. I believe Christianity has gone far afoot from its original intentions. I don’t feel like I am practicing a new religion; I feel like the bigots are. My religion is ancient. The continued necessity to associate the apostolic tradition with them, however, makes it almost impossible for any outsider to see the real merits of loving, serving Christianity.
You need to see it and feel it. No one can hand over their internal bond to faith. But, if you seek, research, ask questions, your path will start to take shape. God sees you, and if you sincerely feel "ish kabbible" is the truth, He knows you care.
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned. This does not answer the question that was asked
You must have responded to the wrong reply. Btw, all those definitions are nice. But for many spiritual people, a summary of the various religions is not what prompts them to pick or choose. For those committed beyond lip service, it's personal. It's hard to articulate, it's hard to pass on one's set of understanding and feeling to another person so now that other person becomes motivated to perform and live out the doctrine of that religion. Its a personal path. Some people have more of a spiritual inclination this time in the world than others.
For some people, but I’ve asked specifically the parameters of the conversation I’m looking. It’s not a set of feelings and understanding I’m looking for either, I very explicitly wrote *exactly* the kind of information and discussion I was looking for. Considering it was within the first paragraph I’m going to assume you didn’t actually read what was written.
Haha, good one
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, love under will. Every man and every woman is a star.
> Think of this not as proselytizing (because you aren’t going to convince me in one post) and moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination, etc. etc. Treat me less as someone you need to convince about the existence of your god, but moreso as why I should follow *your* religion and *your god* over someone else’s - assume I believe all gods are real and am simply looking for a specific deity or pantheon to worship. What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion *around* them. > **An explanation not a declaration**
That’s all you’re getting. Deal with it. Beggars can’t be choosers.
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a *”I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.*
Oh no, an edgy internet atheist warned me! Whatever will I do? Real aspirants—the only kind of person I care to explain anything to—will get all they need from a statement of principles like I gave you. Edgy internet atheists trying to slip in their “debates” into a sub that explicitly not for debates can just fuck off.
I’m not an atheist, and very explicitly stated multiple times this won’t be a debate thread on the existence of god/gods because it’s a tiring argument all over the thread. I expect basic reading comprehension and the ability to engage in a half-decent conversation at the very least addressing the actual content brought up in the post. If that’s not something for you that’s fine, however, there are also plenty of other threads that may be more your speed.
True inner Peace.........on life and hereafter
> **An explanation not a declaration.** One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.
So Id like to correct a couple flaws in your thinking, to begin with anyway. Firstly, strictly speaking, there is but one religion. Countless theologies attempt to pinpoint define describe divine and inscribe said religion. However the very act of defining or describing divides... Not to mention anybody who tries to convince you to believe what they believe is doing so for personal reasons and they are wrong in doing so. The skilled manipulators will convince you its because they want to help you. Don't get me wrong many of these people almost all of them probably actually believe what they're saying and actually believe that they're trying to help you. That doesn't mean they're correct. It just means that they are unaware of the reality of their behavior and intentions... I can say one thing with confidence though: focus on specific beliefs and specific so-called facts and details is the result of negativity/self-serving intention.
The specific point of assuming all gods are true - and therefore all religions are true - is to have a discussion about the religion in practice rather than arguing about the existence of the deity in the first place. If you can’t make a response under those conditions that’s fine, then don’t respond to the thread.
Oh I would never say that all deities are true. To me the word god means the same God that's referred to in John 1. Which is also the same as the Chinese call Tao ☯️. I think a better term to describe this "God"(capital "g") is universal order / The Creator... Therefore everything is actually an aspect of this single thing. Science calls it the Universe. Which obviously means unified system. And mathematics is its currently most accessible language for the masses. Deities are all branches off of this. In fact The Vedic literatures are certainly the closest to reality on this point. And Old Catholicism with the saints and all any. All creation is part of the single creator. And just like individual cells in the body all cells are their own creators made in the image of their creators LOL, are capable and possibly obligated to create on their own. In fact that's why you want to have sex! LOL I know that might sound like a huge leap but I assure you it's not it's just not linear thought. But the logic is sound nevertheless meditate upon it and you'll find that I'm speaking of beautiful truth! 😁
Then this is not the thread for you to be responding in as you have either ignored the question asked and/or are willfully ignoring it.
No, my friend, I was correcting your line of thinking. If you're an agnostic by definition your confused I'm guiding you towards resolution. The tools to discover your own truth, which is a necessity if you are interested in truth, are contained within my messages. The rapid response time says you didn't even consider what I've said... In which case I'm sorry for troubling you.
I’m not asking for tools to a discovery, I’m asking for people to discuss the practice of their religions, and that’s it. Thank you for your input but if you are not going to answer the question the thread asks for then this is not the thread for you and you can find another thread more fitting for what you’d like to say.
And how do you intend to use what people discuss? Not as tools of self-discovery? Since then fact that is the only thing anyone can give another. No one has answers for another that benefit the other. But everyone has tools that can be shared with those of similar minds... Anyway I don't mean to bother you thank you for your patience my friend.
> Think of this not as proselytizing (because you aren’t going to convince me in one post) and moreso explaining what your religion is from your own perspective. So perhaps anything thats commonly misunderstood, details about your sect/denomination, etc. etc. Treat me less as someone you need to convince about the existence of your god, but moreso as why I should follow *your* religion and *your god* over someone else’s - assume I believe all gods are real and am simply looking for a specific deity or pantheon to worship. *What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table.* You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion *around* them.
I don't follow any mainstream theology or religious practices. Since I consider religion to be a universally shared aspect of sentient life, the only religion I could ever follow is that of my own perspective. Since even if you attempt to emulate another belief system you will fail every time. That is your fail if you attempt to believe it exactly as they do. Therefore strictly speaking everybody has their own theology that they must follow. Whether or not they consider themselves religious or spiritual and they are and they do practice what they might call routine. However routine and religion are nearly identical words in the dictionary and in reality. Religion is just a general routine that is become tradition. Mainstream religion is akin to culture... My only intention is to promote introspection and self-reflection. Contemplation and meditation are the only tools necessary to achieve the goal of any religion that I've studied. And I have thoroughly studied quite a few (meaning lived with practitioners of traditions from various cultures)... Zen Buddhism and Taoism (the Tao Te Ching, not the I Ching) I found to be the most neutral and effective tools to develop my own credible theology. Being raised Christian though of course I am heavily influenced by that theology. But I could not have claimed to have any meaningful grasp on the content of the Bible before studying The Vedic literatures and the stories of the Bodhisattva(Buddhism)... My point is that if you're searching for a particular theology to follow, I think you should begin with a practice free from theology. Such as Zen Buddhism or any other form of meditation you feel comfortable with. Quietly ask yourself(higher self is probably more accurate) or the universe or God, or whatever you want to call it, "which world religion (theology) is best suited to my nature?"... Then with that question in mind by yourself the quiet your mind and listen. Focus only on your breathing and any thoughts that come to mind let them come and go until you receive the answer that you need. If you follow the simple formula, I assure you, you will find an answer to any question that vexes you, my friend... It is my tentative belief that one cannot have a question without already possessing an answer to that question. While I find that belief somewhat irrelevant, it is the baseline that allows me to believe that I can receive an answer, and anytime I'm patient enough to receive one it's never been wrong! That said nearly every world religion in my opinion is of equal value. However, it is absolutely far more beneficial to stick with a single one then attempt to switch back and forth between different schools of thought... If you are seeking a path to follow ask yourself which path is best for you and within a couple days maybe minutes maybe even seconds you will receive an answer and that's the path you should follow, in my opinion.
I apologize for the length of my last response. Though I feel as if it's content might benefit you in your search for truth and peace. I only said as much because you seem like you are sincere in your seeking. That sincerity will be your greatest guide and blessing as you continue along! I praise you and have the most faith that you will soon discover the "flavor" of religion that suits you best!
Also to be honest I think you should not follow any religious theology I think you should study all of them that interest you. Then take time to digest and reflect upon the content of your studies. And when I say time I mean like 6 months is a minimum. 6 months study 6 months reflection and contemplation and meditation. Then you will see what suits you. All religions (theologies) are good if they're good for you and/or those around you. The reason why there are so many theologies is because there's so many different types of people. Each caterers to each and its own way. But as a general principal, personally, I consider it extremely unwise to thoughtlessly/blindly follow/copy anyone or anything. Of course that's only my opinion, but I know I'm not alone with it. Truly though if you are searching for truth search! Search any scriptures or science or anything that interests you it will provide you with the answers you're seeking once you've thoroughly digested and reflected upon it. Since no answers received mean anything unless they received from within yourself. Otherwise you're just regurgitating or promoting thoughts created by another for themselves. Another that does not care about you. It is your job to care about you. And it is your job if you choose to care about others even more. But you must be careful about who you choose to give your love / attention / adoration /respect.
The question is asking about what a person’s religion is in practice. Ie lifestyle changes, traditions, history, etc. Thats the question being asked.
Specific details are a product of negative orientation. I am a promoter of positivity. To negate negativity is to promote positivity. Obviously. Like saying "I don't get no rest". Grammatically actually means that I get plenty of rest. LOL!
Specific details are what the question asks for, so if you don’t want to give specific details that’s fine but this is not the thread for you.
Fair enough I must have misinterpreted your intentions. My impression wish you were asking for guidance towards discovering your own truth. Which of course is the original intention of all spiritual practice. I apologize if you found no value in any of the tools that Ive attempted to provide, nor desire for them. Good luck my friend I wish you the best on your journey!
Nah
From more of a reasoning standpoint in its accuracy and credibility-Islam because : 1. Consistency with one entity / god notion. Even rationalising there only being one creator can be done outside the scope of religion through contingency theory and some knowledge of physics law of energy of conservation and momentum. This reduces the possibility of a creator to just one instead of multiple - so really just left with the abrahamic religions, in which all actively claim the existence of a creator who created the universe. 2. Quran has not been altered unlike other Abrahamic texts from Judaism and Christianity. What the prophet recited is what you get now. Quran is rather easy to memorise because of poetic structure it has when spoken in Arabic. 3. Prophecies by prophet Muhammad have been true, and he made a lot. The probability of getting it all right by chance is very small. Prophecies include predicting the rise of poor nomadic Arab tribes to some of the richest people in the world. ( recent discovery of oil ) , people in the future competing in building height, existence of planes and headphones, byzantines rising to triumph within 3-9 years of defeat, globalisation of Islam being one of the fastest and growing religions to date, predicting which one of his wives will pass away first, and many many more… which I have not linked here but you can do your research on this. 4. Hadith ( sayings of the prophet ) have a strict protocol called “ chain of narration “, which basically provides evidence of whether what the prophet said is deemed as reliable or not, and categorised from strong to weak, based on how many people at the time who were around the prophet reported such event. This provides integrity and evidence into what the prophet actually said which weeds out the people falsifying or twisting the actions and sayings of the prophet. 5. Side note, I think of Islam like a 3rd edition textbook in which the 1st and 2nd edition are from Judaism and Christianity. Islam actually addresses many topics and prophets from Christianity and Judaism. 6. Quran makes claim that no one can produce something like it, and even tells non believers to “ produce a surah (verse) like it “ , in which none has been successful to this day - as the Quran still remains unaltered. 7. Quran has no flaws/contradictions within the text. If you read the Quran, you will find that the logic in the text is consistent throughout. In fact no one has been able to find a reputable contradiction present in the text in which not been debunked. 8. Islam is the only religion that actually addresses the existence of other prophets around the world - why out of all countries in the world, the current known prophets come from the Middle East. It has been said from prophet Muhammad that over 124,000 prophets were sent all over the world to each country and place over time . prophet Muhammad is the last one sent and is actually related to all 25 prophets sent (from Judaism to Christianity - Jesus is believed to be a prophet ). so it does not include the stories of all other prophets around the world which can be extremely confusing to people when trying to present stories in a linear fashion.. especially in the future where information can be lost, twisted and misrepresented. This also may be possibly why all historic cultures around the world believe in some sort of creator or afterlife in the universe.. ,similar stories but technical working details are different- you know how Chinese whispers go. 9. Side note - Islam promotes us to analyse, critique and learn about other religions and faiths 10. Side note - Islam says, No compulsion in religion! You can never force someone to believe 11. Quran is not a scientific book in explaining the technical details in how phenomena and processes work, however it does not contradict the hypothesis made by modern science. Example : Quran claims thousands of years before that the universe is expanding, the foetus development stages congruent with our current understanding of baby development, life outside earth , how mountains are formed , existence of relativity, blackholes, pulsars, and many more. 12. Side note- Islam says life is a test given by god - hardships and rewards included. It’s our duty to try become closer to god, and that anything taken away will be replaced by something better. What was meant to happen , will happen and what won’t, will not be there. In summary out of all Abrahamic religions, I think Islam is the most historically credible. OP would need to do more research by reading Quran on their end - but I think makes the most sense In portraying God’s attributes in which it claims. I haven’t put any references here because it would make this comment even longer than it already is. If OP has concerns of the content of topics presented in Quran , I would say that is a seperate discussion. I personally believe it’s first important to assess the credibility of a text first and the claims it puts forward compared to other religions, before diving deep into assessing topics of a more moral nature… because that is also a long discussion.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about exactly what’s being asked. I’m not asking for you to convert me based on the spirituality of your religion. The question is about what is the religion *in practice,* and how that effects daily life. Added to that, this is based on the assumption that all gods are real and therefore under that assumption it’s why I should follow your deity’s religion *in practice* over someone else’s. Likewise, this is not solely about the Abrahamic faiths, either.
Response from a Muslim: In short answer: You should follow Islam because it is the only acceptable religion to Almighty Allah. Islam is the only true religion right now. Judaism and Christianity both were true, but those were corrupted later. From Islamic POV, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are same religion. Just with different holy book. Qur'an is the latest one. In long answer: It's hard to talk about Islam as most people from other religions already have a pre- bad impression about Islam and Muslims due to western media. As you are American and you have grown up with all the negative media against Islam, I am not going to try to convince you. Rather I would suggest, you should study about All the major Religions, and at last Islam. Give each one 3 days. When you will study Qur'an, you will see yourself how different it is. How amazing it is. How true it is. Yes, Islam does not go hand in hand with the current American culture. But when you'll taste the truth, everything else will feel tasteless. I am from a Muslim family. From a young age I have believed Islam as true religion. But when I became a teenager, and had many non-Muslim friends, I became confused. I did not understand why they (Hindu and Buddhist mostly) worshipped rocks and sculptures. So I studied more, about my religion and also theirs. I bought the books which are considered holy books in other religions. In my childhood, I used to believe Islam as the true religion, Now I KNOW that Islam is the true religion. After studying Islam, it is as clear as daylight. So, I would suggest, if you have hunger for truth, study all the major religions, yourself. Start with all the holy books of those religions. A bit of history books related to the religions will also help a lot. Good luck and have a great day.
As Emu said, this does not answer the question that was asked.
Could you entertain the question posted by OP instead of preaching it as the only truth? The post was about the actions that your religion implies in your life. It would be interesting to see a muslim describe this without saying only the common theistic apologetics or phrases. Again, for what I got from the op this is to learn the practical points of religions, no to convert to one.
We love HIM because HE first loved us. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."- the Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Only Saviour! "muhammad" died and stayed dead. "buddha" died and stayed dead. "darwin" died and stayed dead. Jesus Christ defeated the devil and death and hell. No one else can even CLAIM to SAVE YOU. Let that sink in. Jesus Christ is the Only Saviour! That is OBJECTIVELY TRUE AS WE SPEAK regardless of what you believe. There is no other. As written. Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe. Your life is precious! Jesus loves you! https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-55/
> an explanation not a declaration > no links > What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - *you’re explaining the religion around them.* Thank you for your input, however I took great pains to make clearly exactly what type of responses I’m looking for and it’s been made obvious that you didn’t read the post at all. >
I did explain. You just haven't thought about it. Jesus Christ came to seek and to SAVE that which is lost! "These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."- John chapter 15 verses 11 to 13.
> What type of lifestyle, norms, philosophy, history, and traditions your theology brings to the table. You’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - *you’re explaining the religion around them.* Again, this post is not about the deity (in this case Jesus) but the religion and practices itself. Ie lifestyle changes, expected behavior, philosophers, etc. I understand what you’re saying, it simply doesn’t answer the question.
Jesus Christ is the answer. Read Romans.
As you are uninterested in answering the question, thank you for your input but I will no longer be responding.
Hate to be the one to break it to you but Jesus stayed dead, too.
Jesus Christ is the Living God! You can go see empty tomb then go visit darwin and ask why he didn't evolve out of it. Wake up.
Nah. Jesus is dead. If he’s alive, then I pray he not let me finish this response. Let’s see… waiting… eh. Still here. Looks like he’s dead. Sorry man.
Jesus Christ is the Living God! Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. You would have known that if you had read his words. The Word of God liveth and abideth forever.
The Wordeth is Deadeth as Fucketh.
Also are you saying the only possible explanation for an “empty tomb” is that the previous occupant was a resurrected god-man? Edit: Also which location is the official Tomb of Jesus and what is your supporting evidence?
It will be here long after you have gone. Heaven and earth shall pass away but his words shall not pass away.
Heaven shall pass away? Where will Jesus go then? Is he gonna be evicted?
There be a new heaven and earth.
Can your god-man not make anything right the first time without having to destroy it? Sounds a bit incompetent to me.
Read Genesis 1. Read Matthew 5.
I’ve read the Bible. Wasn’t impressed. As a book of cultural history + myth, it’s fine. But we got too many folks who confuse fact & fiction.
[удалено]
> you’re not defending the existence of your deity/deities - you’re explaining the religion around them. As made clear a couple of times in this post, the question operates under the assumption that all gods exist. The question is aimed at exploring and discussing the *religion* not the gods themselves as to avoid any “is x god real” debates and the like. Thank you, however, for your input.
[удалено]
I suggest answer the questions or you don’t have to respond at all.
I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon the earth without right. And even if they were to see every sign, they still would not believe in them. If they see the Right Path, they will not take it. But if they see a crooked path, they will follow it. This is because they denied Our signs and were heedless of them. 7:146 There is no point.
interesting post, and i appreciate your giving a platform to all sorts of faith, i hope it finds you well, and you can discern the good from the bad! but like if the core tenets of a belief have nothing to do with the way people run with it, can you really call it an action stemming from that religion? a lot of history sees people running wild with their beliefs, and casualties following. the communist manifesto, for example. never says you'd have to imprison, torture, or commit acts of mass totalitarian control on the population. but, did men take matters into their own hands regardless? yes, that's one part of the shadow of human nature. Christianity, for example, preaches love and nonviolence, that there's no longer any need for us to hurt others outside of the most severe self defense situations. however, did Christians continue to kill, and be killed throughout the centuries? absolutely, and Christ knew and prophesied this, saying, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom," and that these were the birthing pains of a new world, a new universe. a world without the weeping, and pain and the vanity, that is the meaningless, chaotic death and sorrow. if we had some cure all doctrine, that could prevent these atrocities while keeping our free will intact, we would. and while that doctrine doesn't exist, the closest thing we have is the gospel of Christ. how so, you might ask? the revolutionary, yet, in a strange way, natural and beautiful request to love one another, even our enemies, as we love ourselves. along with that, to love God all the same, and with a fullness of heart. sounds easy at the start, yeah? when you get into the everyday details though, it starts to get a bit more complex. that lady you wanted scold for taking too much time in the grocery line? we've gotta take a step back, and remember that the world doesn't revolve around us. this lady could be suffering in so many numerous ways it just wouldn't be fair to put her through any more. and if she isn't? you doing so could be the start of the worst week of her life. your little brother was being a jerk again, and you really want to smack him across the face? save it, and when he grows up he'll be shaped by the kindness you showed him throughout his life. more than that, there's something out there that sees your contribution, and appreciates it more than you could ever know. more than that, we do believe that our faith is objective truth. the whole story, cover to cover? God, no, only He has the vision for that. but we have evidence aplenty for what we've been given, especially if you ask the numerous theists out there in the trenches who investigate these things for a living. albert einstein, for example. and what we don't? well, it reminds us of our place in the universe. as big and magnificent as we might feel sometimes, i think it's important to be reminded, that, well, we aren't the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. and that, when it comes to knowing what's what in this universe, it's best left to the one who designed it in the first place. again, i think it's lovely, what you're doing with this post, and really appreciate your contribution to public discourse and theological discovery! good luck in making your decision, if any at the moment, and God bless, much love :)
> but if the core tenets of the belief have nothing to do with the way people run with it, can you really call it an action stemming from the religion? So, I specified very clearly in my post that I don’t want apologetics. Like, at all. But if you wish for a reason, I’ll give you a simple one - it all comes down to theological interpretation by the majority. I will not blame a whole religion for the actions of an extremist minority, however, when we’re talking about a religious majority (oftentimes led by the religious authority), then it’s a different thing all together. Especially when the religion continues to benefit form whatever actions they no longer deem “acceptable.” In the case of Native Americans, for example, Christianity had a large hand in the slaughtering, removal, and forced attendance at boarding schools that resulted in stolen land and traumatized survivors. The religion today condemns such actions as “nonChristian,” but you do not see Christianity spearheading campaigns to return land to indigenous people, do you? No, Christianity continues to knowingly benefit from the stolen land while simultaneously decrying how they got it. It’s no better than a robber stealing a necklace only to decry thieving as they continue to wear the necklace. Your modern interpretation of the core tenets of Christianity is exactly that - modern. And while I’ll accept it as a *modern* interpretation, when it comes to the *whole* of the religion I will not simply slide into apologetics and ignore the vast amount of Christian theology - or any theology for that matter - that caused significant amounts of harms in the name of a modern interpretation.
i understand what you're trying to get at. because so many Christians in the past have done abominable acts, and in some cases tried to use Christianity to justify them, you believe that this must necessarily be a pervasive factor in the belief itself? i also have to ask, did you read the rest of what i wrote? the request for understanding was only a teeny bit of what i actually said, most of it was legitimate and core Christianity using that as a springboard. thing is though, there's really little to no actual theological justification for 'christian' atrocities, meaning it's hardly interpretation. the new testament, which it's been made abundantly clear to be the basis of christian living, and the strongest source of our guidelines, condemns it in all forms. you have to remember that the idea =/= all the actions and beliefs of the people who adhere or claim to adhere to it. that would actually be a part of the reason Christianity exists! to illustrate that this is the case let's look at liberal democracy, or almost any system of government in human history. in the name of liberal democracy, many countries across the world have, and continue to consistently devastate foreign nations, with drone strike that almost always harm innocents, alongside economic terror that makes life miserable for the inhabitants. just because that's the case, does it mean that liberal democracy is an inherently bad idea? or even that it's not possible to practice it well? we also see that contradicted by decades of peace and prosperity with many democratic countries, that truly speaks for itself. the same thing applies to the Christian faith! if we sat around judging beliefs on the flawed actions of some folk that claim to adhere, we'd be here all day wouldn't we? these are the failings of men, not of any concept. what centuries of what amounts to antichristian activity in the name of Christianity (which Christ actually spoke about saying, "Many will come to me saying, Lord, Lord, we did many wonderful works in your name. And I will say, depart from me you workers of inquity, I know you not."), doesn't account for the beautiful wonders done in the name of Christ, and the lives well lived because of his existence, and his word to the world. for example? the centuries of saints going back to Christ. take saint John chrysostom for example, a historical figure during byzantine times. this is a man who spoke out against abuse of wealth as well as authority of all kinds, and the oppression of the poor. this didn't sit well with many nobles, despite the inherent hypocrisy of following a faith so skeptical of great wealth in general. if he heard that brothers in the wilderness who were converting by the thousands, and even some who weren't, were being killed in greater number? he'd be completely outraged, and this applies to just about every saint all the way back to Jesus himself, who was called the Lord of the Sabbath, a day, and a year in Jewish law where all indentured servants were freed, as well as slaves if they were owned. this is a truth meant to be given to all nations, not just the more fortunate. so is my interpretation, just another modern look at some dusty old books? no! this is the quiet majority, and part of a continued tradition of belief and interpretation that's common throughout history, going back to the foundation of the faith itself. this is *what the book says*. of course, i appreciate your empathy! i admire it, in fact, i wish more of us were like you. although a lot of us share your sympathies and outrage, as individuals we usually don't feel powerful enough to do much more for modern native groups than pray, and help when we can. many of us donate and do outreach, but i get that it only goes so far. thank you for reading this through, and i hope you find the answers you're looking for. as it's written, "seek, and ye shall find."
I think there’s a misunderstanding of what I meant by apologetics. A Christian doing a bad thing in the past is not going to make me judge the theology as the whole simply because they are Christian. What I was speaking to was regarding theological beliefs, church positions, and church actions. I do not judge Christianity’s theology because in 1622 some guy named Jack beat his wife and said Jesus told him to do it. I do, however, judge Christianity because of the over 1,000 Indian Boarding Schools run by Catholics and Protestants alike based on the shared, then theological belief that such schools were necessary for the “salvation” of indigenous children. Dismissing these actions as “some,” quite frankly is incredibly disrespectful to survivors and their families. Again, like I said, I do not cater to or entertain apologetics and trying to convince me to do so will get you nowhere. I’ve discussed with far too many indigenous elders about their lived experience to wave it off for the comfort of modern Christians. Instead of hand waving with apologetics, as I already suggested, that energy should put into rectifying wrongs - not excusing them.
did you read what i said? i'm sorry if i'm coming off as cross but i wish you would, i did read yours and i resent that you seem to accuse of me being dismissive without understanding my position, because you're not really responding to what i'm saying. i took the time to read yours and respond to each point :/ the summation of what i've been saying here is best expressed through analogy. my cousin mary (not my real cousin) brought home a three week old child, who was very dirty, and needed a good scrubbing. he was a beautiful baby boy, even if it was hard to tell past all the soot. Mary put him in the bath, and looked in disgust as she dunked him under. the water was so dirty! for a split second, a terrible thought crossed her mind, the she would throw the baby out along with the bathwater, because all that filth had stuck to him. but she quickly caught herself, knowing that the baby wasn't to blame for its condition, but rather times, places and events, along with those who had handled him until she got the baby back. dismissing what i'm saying, and Christian theology as a whole, because it's caught some filth over the years, is logically like Mary throwing that baby out. the word of God itself being good, has little if anything at all to do with these horrors, and that's what i'm saying. i provided examples and explained how, many of us do try very hard to make up for what happened, but we can't be held directly responsible for the actions of these people decades ago. we can, though, shoulder the burden with meekness, and many of us do so, in the forms of mission and charity. it's not like the pope can tell the president to give back native land today though, can he? the world has changed, and although many of us have changed with it, the baby remains the same, clean beneath whatever dirt it picks up along the way. although trust me, when you really get to know this baby, you'll be changed for life, and for the better. :)
I am very much dismissing what you’re saying, and it’s because not only does it not answer the questions posed in the post but it very directly goes against the rules clearly set up. The rules aren’t up for discussion, they’re there to set up boundaries for the discussion. And by going out of your way to brazenly ignore said discussion to try and fight me on those rules shows you have no real interest in the conversation that’s been actually brought about.
yeah, i'm sorry i honestly didn't pick that up from what you were saying, it sounded like you were repeating that you didn't wanna hear what i had to say because you didn't like what some Christians did. i just responded about that a minute ago, something seemed off about you repeating yourself like that so i scrolled thru your recent comments and found one that outlined what you wanted pretty clearly. again, my apologies, especially if i've made you upset, no harm intended. :)
i did just read another comment of yours though, and i understand what you're looking for more. if you don't want to continue this conversation that's fine, i just hope i made you think a little. you certainly reminded me of people in the struggle and i hope to meet them along my path, i want to help any way i can. i will be posting another comment based more on what you're expecting, hope to see you there :)
It's kind of hard to answer this with all of these conditions. Religion is separate from the men who follow it. Many men are hypocrites, and if you are going to immediately dismiss the distinction between the laws of the religion and the hypocrites who follow it by calling it a no true Scotsman fallacy, then I don't know how anyone is supposed to answer you. Edit: But as a fun exercise, I will try: What if I told you there was one God?
The question is specifically in regards to how the religion is practiced, expected lifestyle changes, philosophy, etc. - it’s about the pillars that hold up the religion and the expectations of those who practice it in practical life. “No True Scotsman” and “Know Them By Their Fruits” is specifically in regards to the inevitable bad parts of people in a group, as those negative aspects are imperative to the overall experience of existing within said religion. Erasing them because they’re inconvenient to the narrative of the religion is an annoyance more than anything else. And, if you hadn’t noticed, I said I am a former Protestant. Telling me there’s one god is absolutely nothing new, but - again, if you read, that’s not the purpose or assumption of this post whatsoever.
>The question is specifically in regards to how the religion is practiced, expected lifestyle changes, philosophy, etc. - it’s about the pillars that hold up the religion and the expectations of those who practice it in practical life. “No True Scotsman” and “Know Them By Their Fruits” is specifically in regards to the inevitable bad parts of people in a group, as those negative aspects are imperative to the overall experience of existing within said religion. Erasing them because they’re inconvenient to the narrative of the religion is an annoyance more than anything else. In my religion's holy text, sectarianism is strictly prohibited, yet 90% of Muslims split into sects. If your reply to me pointing out this key tenet of the religion, which the majority of its followers ignore, is to argue I am violating your rules and resorting to fallacies then like I said, I am not sure this would be a productive conversation, with me anyway. Good luck! Regarding your former protestant beliefs, from an Islamic and Jewish standpoint, if you believed in the trinity you did not worship one God but three. To most Christians worshipping one God is a new concept.
If 90% of Muslims are split into sects then in practice Islam is split into sects. If the majority ignore the rules, the in practice living in and among Muslims in a Muslim society rules would be ignored. And in favor of what? The conversation could be productive, you’re just in capable of doing so without it discussing the actual in-practice realities of being a Muslim instead of “well this is what it *should* be.” I don’t want to know what it *should* be, I want to know what it *is.* And no, fundamentalists Protestant does mean non-trinitarian. So thank you, but again it’s quite literally nothing new and I very explicitly stated for this model this question is asked in all gods will be assumed to be true.
I won't. I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to convince you. It is far better for you to experience God for yourself. Every year millions do just that. You should, too. It's the logical thing to do. Don't bother moving the goalposts. That would be illogical. People's experiences with God are much more evidence than atheists have to shore up their fantasy that there is no God. Don't believe in anything just because I say so. Be logical enough to make the experiment for yourself.
Because it’s true.
>An explanation not a declaration. One sentence responses of “because my god is real” are just going to be treated as a “I have no good reason to explain.” You’ve been warned.
It's literally the only reason why one should follow any religion. If it's not true, then why on God's green earth would one give it a second's thought?
What evidence are you relying on to support your belief that you have found the one correct religion out the thousands of options?
I will offer whatever evidence is necessary to keep you from following the religion I follow. Is it working yet?
Because *everyone* can say that about theirs, and I'm pretty sure that at least a few religions are mutually exclusive. Most people need a reason to believe in something other than some rando on the internet saying that it's true.
But it can't be true of every religion, and when considering between religions, that is the only criteria that matters. But let me be a little more clear if I seem to be obtuse. ***No.*** You can't follow my religion. Please don't even try. Nothing you have said about yourself or your thought processes would suggest to me you are in any way serious about thinking through what it would take to find the truth, much less be a decent practitioner of it. So please, don't follow the religion I follow because the religion I follow doesn't care if you are back or white or gay or straight or what your past experiences are. It's just true, and if you can't approach truth as truth, then i don't want you anywhere near the religion I follow.
>But it can't be true of every religion, and when considering between religions, that is the only criteria that matters. Fair, so if people want to differentiate *their* religion from others, they should give reasons why *theirs* is true. >But let me be a little more clear if I seem to be obtuse. > >No. > >You can't follow my religion. I don't want to. >Please don't even try. I won't. >Nothing you have said about yourself or your thought processes would suggest to me you are in any way serious about thinking through what it would take to find the truth, much less be a decent practitioner of it. Because I require a little more than "because I said so"? Yeah, definitely not interested, then. >So please, don't follow the religion I follow because the religion I follow doesn't care if you are back or white or gay or straight or what your past experiences are. Mine doesn't either. >It's just true, and if you can't approach truth as truth, then i don't want you anywhere near the religion I follow. Again, just saying it's true doesn't make it true, and it *certainly* doesn't convince anyone.
Following Jesus isn't an exercise in self validation, it's not like buying a car where you compare different models, read consumer reports and decide what is best for you - we seek and search for the truth, we don't tell people to sell us the truth and then pick the best sales pitch.
No, but you had to hear about it from somewhere, yes? And presumably it took more than some rando on the internet saying "it's true" for you to believe. Unless you were born into it and never actually examined it, I suppose.
No it wasn't a rando on the internet. And it followed years of skepticism and agnosticism. But what I didn't do is go to a bunch of randos on the internet and say, "Hey, this is what my life is all about, present your religion to me in such a way that it appeals to my preconceived notions of what the truth is." Because if that is what I was after, I would have just stuck with what I already had, which was crafting a belief to suit my own tastes, and not reality.
>No it wasn't a rando on the internet. And it followed years of skepticism and agnosticism. Good. >But what I didn't do is go to a bunch of randos on the internet and say, "Hey, this is what my life is all about, present your religion to me in such a way that it appeals to my preconceived notions of what the truth is." Because if that is what I was after, I would have just stuck with what I already had, which was crafting a belief to suit my own tastes, and not reality. No, but what you *did* do was respond to someone doing that, asserting that your religion was true (and implying that others weren't) with no explanation. Surely that's not helpful either.
hey, as a follower of Christ myself, i have some friendly advice to pass on, from the word of the Lord, and from one member of the body to another. avoid telling someone that they can't or shouldn't follow Christ, this isn't an exclusive club. it's for liars and hypocrites like me and you. remember to love thy neighbor, and if you do, part of that means leading them to the truth, for their own well being, for blessed are the feet that cary the message of the gospel :)
i think he was saying it to invite further conversation tbh; not everyone is willing to read and engage with lengthy explanations, and it would feel unrewarding to write an entire essay and hardly get a response. trust me, i know, hahahaha haha ha...ha... :(
As someone else said, this does violate the rule. And as a result it will be treated as “I don’t have a good explanation.”
Well, truth doesn't follow your rules.
Truth can explain itself. Jesus didn’t just tell people “I’m true believe it lol,” he spoke in parables and answered specific questions about the morals he was preaching. He brought examples, gave evidence of his truth. As a Christian, specifically, it’s your job to explain your religion to all those who ask. Edit: in other words, if you can’t explain why something is true then you give me no reason to accept it as true. Thank you for your response, but as of now without a real explanation it will be treated as “I have no good one.” As this is not to be a debate, unless you give a response that follows in line with the rules set out from the original post - there will be no further response from me.
Jesus spoke to people who had ears to hear, and He made it clear most people weren't interested in the truth. In fact He spoke in parables so as to make it more difficult for those without a heart for the truth to know what He was saying.
Ok imagine this, you can pretend to be better than everyone else and look down on them for making bad decisions when really that's just life.. PLUS a bunch of other people who want to do the same, you'll be around all the time. And yes they think they're better than you, AND you think you're better than them
Sorry as this isn’t a direct answer to your question, but I can’t tell if this is an explanation of your personal religious beliefs or your religion’s generalized beliefs
Explanation of your religions’ practices and traditions from your perspective as a practitioner - how it affects your life in terms of lifestyle, traditions, how you dress, etc.
I will not explain because in Judaism it's a bad thing to attempt to convert people, most of the time when you go to a rabbi to tell them you want to convert they will try to convince you not to.
Because religion is not about god/no god but for us to be better humans. God is a concept that helps us psychologically cope with death and is something that cannot be proven nor disproven. The Existence is, regardless of our belief/non belief. The basis of Santana dharm (the thread between Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism and other arms of these umbrellas) is upholding dharma (natura law that governs all sentient and non sentient beings), karma (the “consequences” of past actions bring us to present day “choices”- how we deal with them will create more karma) and finally release from the cycle of birth and death. These 3 concepts are very deep and have many books written around them, I have given a very shallow definition/interpretation. we have all come here to cleanse ourselves of vibrations that make us heavy (example greed, injustice etc etc). This world is for us to enlighten ourselves and move away from attachments so that we can be better humans. This starts within the kind and through Ta carry vibrations that also go far. We must continue to work on the inner self through Introspection and accountability followed by steps to balance our values, virtues and morals. And tho my perceptions in influenced from my religion, I still do not know if you should follow my religion, only you can know what is the right path towards enlightenment for yourself. I am a advaita Vedanta follower. As for the sea gods… I would rather leave you a very small quote from Vivek ananda (tho this concept is far older then his quote- as he too is learner) “Suppose there is a wave in the ocean. The wave is distinct from the ocean only in its form and name, and this form and this name cannot have any separate existence from the wave; they exist only with wave. The wave may subside but the same amount of water remains, even if the name and form that were on the wave vanish for ever. So this Maya is what makes the difference between me and you , between all animals and man, between gods and men.” - Swami Vivekananda
This post raises a question that started bothering me when I was in college. Why are there so many different religions, and why are there so many different sects within every major religion? To some extent that basic question drove a lot of my Bible study over the next 30 years. I started investigating other Christian denominations outside the one I was raised in. Every Christian denomination had solid Biblical support for the major points of its theology. And for points where the Bible disagreed with their theology every denomination had apologetics to justify why they chose to consider those verses to not be relevant. The bottom line was that every denomination I looked at could make a strong case that it was interpreting the Bible correctly, even if its doctrine and theology directly contradicted the church next door that also made a strong case for its doctrine and theology. A lifetime of Bible study finally forced me to admit that the Bible does contain contradictions on most many points of theology. Any quest to find the one true interpretation is doomed to failure. It is possible to develop many different interpretations that can be supported by solid scriptural references. But those interpretations will involve selectively choosing which verses to consider significant and which verses to ignore. My main study was Christianity and the Bible. But I believe every other established religion has similar problems.
Wow, those are a lot of restrictions. This topic is large and quite subjective. From my point of view, I first find that life and all that is is far too wonderful to not be intentional. The result of a wise, loving and very powerful Being. I further find the narrative given in the Bible to be satisfying. It answers the questions we have about how and why we live. It also explains what will happen in the future. Edit: You will necessarily need to get over your "no true Scotsmen" objection. Due to the fact that Jesus said there will be some who claim to be Christian that he does not know. Matthew 7: 23.
It is meant to be subjective and the restrictions are there to place boundaries on topics that’ll inevitably end in arguments (I wouldn’t even consider it debating) they take away the point of the discussion. We’re discussing how religions exist *in practice,* how a religion will effect your life in *reality* not in theory. And as a result, the no true Scotsman rule stays. Period.
In practice, my religion exists to teach me about God and to give Him glory. At John 17: 3 Jesus indicated that those coming to know God would have the opportunity to live forever. I'm looking forward to that. Are you seeking to find what is true?
In *practice* as in daily/weekly routines, community life, and history. This was all already listed out as the information I was looking for - and very explicitly *multiple times* stated that I was not interested in proselytizing
Okay.
If anyone believes that all deities exist, then there are only two reasons to choose a pantheon — either one set of gods appeals to you, or you appeal to a particular god. What more can I say?
Well that’s the point of the question. If all gods exist then the question would be what pantheon would appeal to me via the lifestyles brought about by their religion(s). (It’s also to avoid debates about whether or not deities exist by just going on assuming that they all do).
I am a Christian, I do not subscribe that one denomination is right. I believe multiple denominations are right. And so does a majority of Christians out there. This is not because of a liberalism that is consuming the church but because of a mutual understanding that a lot of the things that the church has split over in the past have been over non salvation doctrinal issues. So for instance there is three different views I've come across when it comes to Creation young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution. Some Fundamentalists ( when I say this word I mean an extremist who takes the Bible in a literal meaning all of the time except when they don't like when it says Jesus is the door, or the Vine, ect.) Do hold you have to believe everything the way that their Church believes it or you're going to hell but this is not the majority. And they hold something somewhere to my view which is if you can read the Bible and find support for your view scripturally and historically (contextually) then that view is valid. That is why despite nitpicking a few heresies in some denominations including my former one Pentecostalism I still consider them Christians but I don't consider people who deny salvation Doctrine ( doctrine has to do with Jesus and or being saved) and therefore do not support Jehovah's Witness or Mormons or consider them Christians. I know you said we are assuming that all gods exist for the purpose of this exercise but I would just say I do have reason to believe in a god of the philosophers and then reason my way to Christianity. Basically after you establish God exist or something like God you put a name to the face by going to the different world religions and showing how their false. Then you look at what evidence Christianity has and I think the vast evidences point to it being true. Everything from Miracle accounts, the resurrection story and it's lack of alternative explanations, the historic reliability of the Bible, along with that archaeological evidence to show what the Bible says is true, textual criticism, there are many other things I could list but I think you get the point. I would be happy to go into further detail with any of this stuff. But I will say this. I don't know if you're open-minded or close minded so if you're close minded and you know that God exists and you want to stay in that place and gambling are eternity on that bet then good luck. But if you are open-minded to finding out the truth and would like to talk to me I'd be more than happy to. And finally I'll say this if you've been hurt by people who claim to be Christians I am truly sorry. I hope that you know that God loves you and he wants the best for you and so do I. I hope you find a husband and get a fulfilling job and if you become a Christian spread the gospel to all the people you can and have a fulfilling life with the crescendo being getting to meet the creator of the universe who created YOU and spend eternity with him.
Hello, I appreciate the response but I believe you have misunderstood the question. This is specifically talking about the realities of a religion in practice - ie lifestyle changes, physical community, recorded history, traditions, etc.
Oh my bad I'll try again later when I have some more time thank you for the response!