What's your religion?

[FlavorOfLife]

Originally Posted by idiffer

@FlavorOFLife
well, yeah i guess. but isn't that tactic used by 90% of the population. if we don't like something, most will walk away. not that i'm any different, lol. it sounds cool coming from the "teacher". its sort of reverse psychology. if you're not forced into anything, then all the more chances you will read more and more about the religion. and imho, thats the right way to position any opinion if you want ppl to listen. (i ignore my own advice on impulse though)

The thing is when the religious figure says this directly and it gets recorded, you can't use it to promote your own agenda. You will not have your own choices being blamed as going against XYZ (where XYZ is some big religious figure).

2 big religions do the religious pressure thing regularly (including getting to visit unpleasent places when you die unless yiou obey ), so the difference gets really obvious.

If i remember it correctly, the buddha said that after a lot of people started following him, so marking it as reverse psychology would not make sense.

Originally Posted by Nightengale

So though I consider myself atheistic, I suppose I drew the most from Buddhism, because ultimately, the most important thing I believe is that we, as people, must be accountable for everything we do.

Yes but that is the reason why religions with a father figure works. You have this parental figure that excuses your mistakes. You don't need total personal responsibility, you get to shift some or all of it away. Every bad thing that happens has an unlying reason (which is always good) that will reveal itself later (and like astrology, good things that happens later gets associated as the real reason)

IMO, part of it is the way humans work. People desire closure (which personal responsibility does not provide) and not feeling bad about themselves (hence rationalisation which personal responsibility prevents)

Anyway, you might want to check wiki for humanism which is a philosphy based on humanity

[Grumbledook]

Hello I'm Jakub Tutaj and I'm a Christian Pirate Fansubber. lol

[Moczo]

Technically speaking I'm a Roman Catholic, but well... I've kinda lost my faith in organized religion over the years. So call me 'non-denominational Christian', I guess.

[JC...]

I'm really an Apatheist, people confuse me for a Christian because I am forced to still attend church and used to have Christian beliefs.

If people only follow the religious rules, hide their wrongdoings and ignore their pleasures to look good to religious peers and through fear of eternal punishment,death and a reward of immortality, then this world truly is a sorry place.

Why take time out of your life or conduct your life in a certaing why, just to please others (and your religious conciousness)?

Now don't get me wrong, I've learnt a few things from religion, but some people need to understand what religion really is. It's a way of explaining our existence before science gave us a better understanding of how the world came to be, it's also a way of shaping morals (Which can be a good thing), but it was also used to control uneducated people in the past (christianity) so a fair few traditions and teachings may be outdated.

I won't go into much detail, but either way, I don't care about religion that much. I like to debate it every so often, but I don't let it control my life or shape it (to an extent, though it has done in the past).

P.S In a somewhat related note; people should stop pretending to care about things that they don't.

[LeoXiao]

If people only follow the religious rules, hide their wrongdoings and ignore their pleasures to look good to religious peers and through fear of eternal punishment,death and a reward of immortality, then this world truly is a sorry place.

Yeah, I agree. Most religious people just do it because it's a tradition, not because they actually care from a spiritual or philosophical point of view, which I find in some ways worse than not being religious.

[LMF]

There are countless ingredients that make up the human body and mind, like all the components that make up me as an individual with my own personality. Sure, I have a face and voice to distinguish myself from others, but my thoughts and memories are unique only to me, and I carry a sense of my own destiny. Each of those things are just a small part of it. I collect information to use in my own way. All of that blends to create a mixture that forms me and gives rise to my conscience.

Life perpetuates itself through diversity, and this includes the ability to sacrifice itself when necessary. Cells repeat the process of degeneration and regeneration until one day they die, obliterating an entire set of memory and information. Only genes remain. Why continually repeat this cycle? Simply to survive by avoiding the weaknesses of an unchanging system.

Just saying...

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by LMF

There are countless ingredients that make up the human body and mind, like all the components that make up me as an individual with my own personality. Sure, I have a face and voice to distinguish myself from others, but my thoughts and memories are unique only to me, and I carry a sense of my own destiny. Each of those things are just a small part of it. I collect information to use in my own way. All of that blends to create a mixture that forms me and gives rise to my conscience.

Life perpetuates itself through diversity, and this includes the ability to sacrifice itself when necessary. Cells repeat the process of degeneration and regeneration until one day they die, obliterating an entire set of memory and information. Only genes remain. Why continually repeat this cycle? Simply to survive by avoiding the weaknesses of an unchanging system.

Just saying...

uh, what was it that you wanted to say here?
i would not ask if i was not trully interested, just in case...

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by FlavorOfLife

I like the buddha's take better "Ignore my teachings if you find them useless". Now that is the attitude

It's the most practical view out there, after all, why bother with his teachings if you won't get anything out of them?

Now for my views on religion...

Really, in the most basic form, every religion is the same. The most prominent "feature" in all religions is the existence of God, obviously, but also, the presence of God in all human beings. It could be a Holy Spirit, as found in Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam, Qi, as found in Confucism and Taoism, or the "great spirit" as found in Native American spirituality.

Also, another basic similarity in religions is that in purpose, goal, or basis of all religions is to become God. In Abrahamic religions, it is taught that you do good and repent sins that you will go to heaven, the realm of God, and become a spiritual part of him. In Buddhism, the goal is to become enlightened and then after death, live in Nirvana. Across the board, philosophy and religion states that people will die, in order to become like God or literally a part of God. After all, Christ means God-like and Buddha means enlightened one.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

It's the most practical view out there, after all, why bother with his teachings if you won't get anything out of them?

Now for my views on religion...

Really, in the most basic form, every religion is the same. The most prominent "feature" in all religions is the existence of God, obviously, but also, the presence of God in all human beings. It could be a Holy Spirit, as found in Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam, Qi, as found in Confucism and Taoism, or the "great spirit" as found in Native American spirituality.

Also, another basic similarity in religions is that in purpose, goal, or basis of all religions is to become God. In Abrahamic religions, it is taught that you do good and repent sins that you will go to heaven, the realm of God, and become a spiritual part of him. In Buddhism, the goal is to become enlightened and then after death, live in Nirvana. Across the board, philosophy and religion states that people will die, in order to become like God or literally a part of God. After all, Christ means God-like and Buddha means enlightened one.

Ah, but "the devil is in the details" and people kill each other over those details (or stone little girls to death for getting raped or kill a guy who sleeps with guys or burn witches or massacre the tribe next door for using green altar cups instead of red ones .... well you get the picture).

You're right in that evolutionarily speaking any religion *has* to be based on some form of "treat other people like you want to be treated" to have any sort of personal traction.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ah, but "the devil is in the details"

Indeed it is. I'm a Christian, and one of the major things that separate us from other religions has to do with the post you're responding to. Yes, God is "in" everyone in that we're made in his image, but the Christian belief goes further, saying that the ONLY way to get into heaven is by relying on Jesus. Most religions have some sort of "good deeds get rewarded" principle; Christianity says that no good deed is ever enough, since we've all sinned.

[raile]

To be honest, I've kinda detached myself from, not the idea of religion, but the practices of it. I honestly just want to live a decent human life.

[monster]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Really, in the most basic form, every religion is the same.

I would refrain from making too many generalizations.

The most prominent "feature" in all religions is the existence of God

I don't believe the same concept of God is found in all religions. There might be spirits and god-like beings. Or there might be god(s) with different meanings, purposes, and/or effects on the universe.

but also, the presence of God in all human beings.

The Bible, for instance, doesn't teach that God is in the hearts of non-believers.

After all, Christ means God-like

Actually, Christ itself just means "the annointed one."

So anyway, there are many things to say about the different religions, including many similarities. But personally, I believe there are also many differences that make it inaccurate to say that they are the same. Except maybe to say that all religions deal with spirituality of some sort and faith.

[idiffer]

how would you care for this opinion then?
that all religions are different sides of the same big thing. just that the simple human mind can't encompass all the sides, so it has to choose one and reject others. hell, i have trouble grasping even one religion beyond the basics.
some guy in india said that. didn't read his books (my aunt retold me bits of it), but i say he's pretty cool anyway. although i would say "most" instead of "all" religions. religious human sacrifices are kinda conflicting with many religions in a way that anyone can undestand.

[Vexx]

The "all religions are but facets of a crystal diamond" postulate has been around a while, though it doesn't mean they are "the same". The problem is that adherents of one facet tend to focus on the differences rather than the similarities .... its hard to avoid the feeling that basic insecurities are involved. People don't like self-critique their axioms or at best, they sandbox their analysis so they enter any 'danger zones' that might require changes of opinion.

If your religion helps you get through life, live well, and treat other people nicely then its probably sustainable. That last item seems to be the particular problem in most cases - treating other people nicely.

Small academic aside:

The Bible, for instance, doesn't teach that God is in the hearts of non-believers.

Really? Where does it actively negate the idea or is it simply silent on it? And what does that *mean* really? Does it mean that the manifestation is totally absent? That slams up against the "omni" assertion of God, for one. It is probably more supportable to assume he's there and everywhere, but simply that the person has not acknowledged him.

[idiffer]

damn, again...i learn something from an obscure indian philosopher through my aunt, while the rest of the world already knew that a long time ago. and probably from some famous guy, no?
i fail...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by idiffer

damn, again...i learn something from an obscure indian philosopher through my aunt, while the rest of the world already knew that a long time ago. and probably from some famous guy, no?
i fail...

No, no.... you knew the jist of the idea, it doesn't matter where you got it I first heard that idea from a friend who was a Christian fundamentalist when I was a young teen. Its a core piece of any interfaith activities. Anyone who studies more than one religion usually comes to realize the core practice of any sustainable religion has to derive from the Golden Rule. The rest depends on a constructed worldview based on what a social group comprehends and hopes for.

[idiffer]

The Corruption Of Reality A unified Theory Of Religion Hypnosis And Psychopathology
this book (its somewhere in tthe middle) may change your view on religion in general. i thought i had to post this. if dl links are a no-no, then sorry.
anyway, IF you're not afraid of your beliefs being shattered to pieces, then i urge you to read it. its not that stupid bullshit that u are used to when ppl say that there is no proof that god exists in books. the author presents an idea that the need for religion is tied to a certain psychological aspect and that religion fulfills a role other than what most ppl think. he doesn't outright say that religion is a bunch of fairy tails. his theory is supplied by some hardcore evidence too. i'm beginning to sound like a salesman who's trying to force u into buying an expensive car...

[LeoXiao]

the author presents an idea that the need for religion is tied to a certain psychological aspect and that religion fulfills a role other than what most ppl think

religion/faith in general is, then, part of what makes us human; it's something of a confession of what we are. Even if you aren't religious, how can what one person (or even more) sees, feels, or even logically deduces be the truth? Human beings are simply limited in their perception of the universal extremes; there are things that we cannot comprehend simply because they are outside our senses and conceptualization, yet they may very well determine our "fates." From some grand, cosmic perspective (or one that is infinitely small), what people feel, sense, and care about are things that merely lie at the surface, despite having incredibly complex roots that you or I will never be able to see.
Yet for those roots to exist, for anything to exist, there must be order. People are forever striving after understanding this order, but in acknowledging the apparent futility therein, must think of religions and spiritual faith in higher manifestations beyond our intellectual grasp. Only then, would I say, that people know their place and can actually make progress.

I don't know what that book says, and never will since I can't find the torrent link and wouldn't D/L it anyway since Germany has strict laws against that kind of thing. But I can guess that it probably says that religion is just formed in the mind, it's something to be ignored, or some other things, and I might accept the science behind it, but IMO you can't have such limited conclusions when it comes to faith, as humans literally live upon it.

Note: I apologize for any incoherences and difficulties in understanding my post. It's a complex subject that I think you can't really just explain to someone for them to get. Also, I'm not thinking too well right now.

[Gamer_2k4]

Just so you know, if I seem vague or obtuse in my response, it's because I'm severely paraphrasing my core beliefs in the interests of both answering your question and avoiding sounding preachy.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Small academic aside:
Really? Where does it actively negate the idea or is it simply silent on it? And what does that *mean* really? Does it mean that the manifestation is totally absent? That slams up against the "omni" assertion of God, for one. It is probably more supportable to assume he's there and everywhere, but simply that the person has not acknowledged him.

Are you familiar with the concept of the Trinity? The Christian belief is that God has three aspects: the Father, the one who knows all, sees all, created everything, etc.; the Son, the one who became human in order to pay for mankind's sins; and the Holy Spirit, the one who is in all born again believers, guiding their actions and manifesting God's power and love. Being a Christian means losing your human desires and fulfilling God's.

The Bible is pretty clear that only those who have been born again (those who have accepted that they're sinners and that salvation only comes through Jesus) become filled with the Holy Spirit. In that sense, God is absent in non-believers; they don't have a personal connection with him. However, he is still ever-present and very capable of working within both believers and non-believers alike.

If this sounds strange, think of it this way. Christianity is unique in that it teaches that people can have a personal relationship with God. Humans sinned, separating them from God (most notably God the Father). Jesus (the Son) came, acting as a bridge or an interface between the God and humans. Because of that bridge, God can exist within those who let him (as the Holy Spirit).

Clear as mud?

[monster]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Small academic aside:
Really? Where does it actively negate the idea or is it simply silent on it?

Isaiah 29:13
"The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.' "

Revelation 3:20
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with me."


The above Bible verses do not explicitly say it. But they do imply that God is not in the hearts of all human beings, and that God comes in when someone "opens the door" for Him, so to speak.

And what does that *mean* really? Does it mean that the manifestation is totally absent? That slams up against the "omni" assertion of God, for one. It is probably more supportable to assume he's there and everywhere, but simply that the person has not acknowledged him.

Like Gamer_2k4 mentioned, I believe that God is always present and capable of interacting with all human beings, and even all of creations. But I don't believe God's omnipresence negates God's sovereignty. So God can be anywhere and everywhere God wants to be at any time and even at the same time. But the key there is where God wants to be. Of course, just because God is not in someone's heart, it doesn't mean that God doesn't know what's in that person's heart (omniscience) or that God can't affect that person's heart (omnipotence).