desiring religion, but turned off by various factors

Post Reply New Topic

Given that it is apparently the same lake, most people deduce that the same conditions apply to all who go there.

The question is, how far do we split hairs between 'very good' and 'perfect'


A bit of a tangent: there has been some debate of how the word day is used in the creation story. Is it used for a literal 24 hour day or for a period of time?
Much as we might say something like "Disney World was fun but we had to stand in line all day."
It is a pretty fair deduction that you didn't stand in line, never leaving to do anything else, from midnight Friday to midnight Saturday. You used the word day to mean a period of time.

Anyway, as I see it, the overall takeaway from the creation story is that all this got here, got here by a process, there is a cause of that process, and a reason why it happened.

Last edited by kitesandtrainsandcats on 06 Sep 2017, 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ah there is surely an infinite distance between very good and perfect. An infinitude of possible improvements.

Edit: as a Christian you should be wary of utopian thinking not only is there a huge difference between very good and perfect, it's an insurmountable difference.

a difference which modern English speakers of western society assign.
That's one big wrinkle in understanding elements of what the Bible is intending to transmit - it wasn't written by and for we westerners and our way of materializing the experience of life.

I was thinking more philosophically than linguistically.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence of proof.

Faith, especially in the supernatural, is not what intelligent people use to determine reality or form an ideology with. Gnosis is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQ

“The quoted passage goes on to say that fellow disciples doubted Mary's vision, at least at first. Many others might've continued doubting.”

The story is partly one of equality of all. Gnostic Christianity has tied equality of opportunity to righteousness. That is a good moral position as compared to Christianity and Islam treating women and gays like second class citizens.

“If we look at the Bible, pick out what makes sense and what feels right, then we're still left with faith as the ultimate decider.”

Only if you ignore logic and reason. Then you would be thinking like Martin Luther and his, “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

“Maybe I'm confused on what you're both saying here: without faith, how do people decide which parts of a religious text, if any, have truth?”

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Testing for morality, which is what religions should be judged on, requires thought and discernment and those are found in our minds with logic and reason.

Compare that to the faith of fools.
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

I watched the video and have a bit better sense of what you mean.



True. Not evaluating the morality of a religion would be a blind faith. My confusion is here though: you could find many religions to be basically moral. That still doesn't bring us to truth, as in, factual truth. Inner reality, yes. Philosophical truth, yes. I don't see where factual truth comes in though. Bringing me back to faith... Or perhaps a kind of spirituality that is less concerned with absolute fact instead?



I got a taste of this communication problem when I was questioning my own faith in online discussion groups. People on both sides would communicate with me when I asked questions. They didn't always communicate well with each other, often throwing the blind faith issue up over and over. "How dare you question God," and variations on that theme, were very common.

What truth do you seek and how are you seeking it?

Regards
DL

This is a lot to think, research, and learn. Thanks everyone who has commented so far.

Absolutely profound response for me tgis thank you so much!

I've recently been going to church.
But before i started going , i wrote down what I believed in and then researched where my beliefs fitted into religion .

I was able to cross off a few religions with ease , but finding the right branch of Christianity was a little more difficult .

It took me a while to 'come out' to my family , to say I wanted to go to church and how I felt God was saying to me to go to church.

I googled ' church near me ' in google maps and saw which ones were closer.
It took me several months to decide on a church and each time I looked , I was drawn to a particular church , which I took as a sign .

Even before I decided on a church I started reading the bible and reading plans on bible apps.

I believe in the bible and how most of the stories have some scientific backing and just have blind faith in the stories that have yet to have the scientific backing

/\ COOL----I hope your experience, is a positive one!! Just remember that sometimes one has to shop-around (physically) for a church, like anything else (ie, buying a car, deciding where to live, choosing the right doctor, etc.)----churches, like most things, aren't "one size fits all"; so, I hope you don't get discouraged, if it's not what you've been looking-for.

Take care,

Cat

People hesitate to recommend a religion, because that would sound like promotion or proselytization.

...but oh well...

The fact that you were born in the West doesn't mean that you have to adopt one of the 3 Judeo-Christian, Abrahamic Western/Middle-Eastern religions.

I suggest checking out India's religions. For one thing, they seem much closer to their original intent. ...and less authoritarian, especially in some of their versions.

Religious promotion would be quite against my nature, but you did ask about religions. Though I ordinarily wouldn't bring this up, I consider myself a Vedantist and a Theist.

One thing about Theism: The Bible wasn't written by God. In fact, it has been convincingly argued that a lot of it, maybe about half of it, it wasn't even written by the authors whose names are on it. Evidently Paul's various forgers contradicted eachother a bit, for example ...and that Christ was thoroughgoingly misquoted in the Bible. ...and that, at the Council of Nicea, the Roman Emperor and the bishops extensively rewrote the Bible to suit their agenda, which, in one detail included quashing the notion of female participation and leadership in the church.

Consider the corruption, when the Catholic Church accepts money to pray people into heaven, for example.

For information about some of those matters, try googling "Forged: Writing for God". (There's a book by that name, and it argues that the Bible contains lots of forgery.) ...and various questions like "Did the Bible misquote Christ?"

Being a Theist definitely doesn't mean that you have to accept the Bible as the world of God, or join any official or traditional denomination.

I'll return to the topic of Theism later in this post. For now, I'll just say that I don't find it at all in contradiction with Vedanta, the philosophical Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism is remarkably inclusive in its acceptance.

Of course the main Indian religions are Buddhism (which originated in India) and Hinduism, of which Vedanta maybe could be called its philosophical approach.

I'll admit that I don't understand Buddhism, or what the Buddhists are saying. That isn't a criticism, but I just haven't found it personally helpful.

As for Vedanta, the ancient Indians were really thorough and conscientious about everything that they wrote about....and, for the most part, remarkably well-informed.

I'm no authority on this, but I seem to have read that India's Vedas scripture goes far back into the B.C. years, maybe at least 1000 B.C., with a pre-written tradition even older . ...and that Vedanta, consisting of later Vedic commentary and philosopy, has a scripture, the Upanishads, that goes back to around 700 B.C. ...again, likely with considerably older pre-written tradition.

Vedanta, as part of Hinduism, has much to say about purposes and goals in this life, and I consider it valid and helpful. Google "Purusharthas" for that topic.

It isn't necessary for life to have a "purpose. It's said that life is really just for Play, exploration, free living, just for its own sake, referred to as "Lila".

But of course people need to get by somehow. And also of course it's best to act ethically and conscientiously and live right. All of those things are among the much-discussed Purusharthas. The general message is that a life shouldn't be deficient in any of those aspects.

I consider what Hinduism says about the Purusharthas to be a relevant and useful guide.

Vedanta has various versions, with different approaches and different metaphysicses. Different approaches can sometimes appeal to and work for different people.

Of course every religion has a metaphysics. Distinguishing by metaphysics, there are 3 main versions of Vedanta. The most popular one is Advaita. Though a Vedantist, I'm not an Advaitist. In fact, I don't agree with the details of any of the 3 main Vedanta metaphysicses.

I strongly advise against Neo-Advaita. That word isn't used by Neo-Advaitists themselves, but is used by people critical of it. It's the popular modern Western revision of Vedanta, a sort of drive-through Vedanta suited to the demands of people who want, and think they can have, instant Enlightenment.

As for myself, I don't even know what Enlightenment (Moksha) is, and I don't worry about it. It's clear from older texts that (contrary to what Neo-Advaita claims and offers) it's something that most of us aren't going to encounter during this lifetime. If one is interested in Vedanta, it might be a good idea to google "Neo Advaita", just to be able to recognize it avoid its scammers.

Anyway, I propose a metaphysics at the "Physics & Reality" thread at this Politics, Philosophy & Religion forum, and I consider my metaphysics to be a version of Vedanta metaphysics, agreeing with it in the conclusions.

Now, I said that I was going to return to the subject of Theism:

First, it doesn't conflict with Vedanta, because it's about a different matter.

I don't know if I already said this above, but one way in which I differ from traditional official Theism is that I don't believe that God is an element of metaphysics, as the traditional Judeo-Christian, Western/Middle-Eastern denominations seem to imply.

Metaphysics is the study and discussion of what is. One thing that seems evident, and is expressed by Vedanta, is that "what is" is remarkably good.

Let me quote from a song by the Byrds, called "5D":

"I opened my heart to the whole universe, and found it was loving."

(Of course, when they said "universe", they didn't mean this physical universe. They mean the whole of what is. ...all of Reality)

Without joining any denomination of Theism, without believing any person or book who/that claims to speak for God, a lot of people just feel gratitude for how good "what is" is.

It's as if there's a good intent behind how good "what is" is.

I think that's what the Byrds were expressing.

That's what I mean Theism.

Michael829

Make your own religion. It's what a lot of people do anyway. They take the framework of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, whatever it may be - and then build upon it with their own ideas and perceptions. If no framework is acceptable to you, just invent a brand new religion from the ground up. I spent much of my Catholic childhood dreaming up different, more fun religions in my head.

I was brought up RC, quit at age 15, was astonished to find the sun shining the next day and myself not struck by lightning. Then when I was 35 I wanted to pray. So I tried all the churches I could find and none of them were right. I sat in a Catholic church and felt at peace. It might just be a "Pavlov's dog" reaction. All Catholic churches have my mother inside. Just an ideation. But I feel safe and quiet. I haven't been for a while; I can't make up my mind.

One thing about the RC is that the world stays outside. Many other Christian churches have services that amount to hootenannies.

I threw out the Catechism, which you can get at a bookstore. It's nonsense.

My position is that the building I pray in does not determine what I believe.

Why did you choose a Christian denomination?

You are aware that Yahweh is a genocidal God. No?

What kind of moral teaching do you expect from a genocidal God?

Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity? Unlike the homophobic and misogynous Christian Churches, they have a moral ideology.

Regards
DL