Your Religion

[peace_hawk]

I am a post-modern anabaptized fundamentalist. Fundamentalist in the fact that I believe the biblical story takes precedent over every other story with which we might organize or lives (i.e. the American story, the feminist story or the self fulfillment story etc.). Anabaptized in that it is within that stream of Christian thought that I believe the biblical story is most faithfully translated into contemporary faith and practice. Post –modern in the realization that there is little we can call common sense that is not predetermined by the story(s) we use to guide our weird little lives.

If you care to know more check out the website below

[shunyadragon]

The belief in the progressive relative nature of truth, knowledge and existence is one that may inspire some response. What is nature of our beliefs in relation to the vastness of space and time of existence as we now know of the universe?

Many people view the search for the truth, knowledge, enlightenment, salvation or whatever is their ultimate goal in life. Finding something new often does give people a fresh view of existence from another mountain, but why do the stop there? How many mountains are there?

Many search in many different directions to find something new, others cling to the drifting log of the old ways. When the Hindu becomes a Christian, Christian becomes a Moslem or the believer who suddenly awakens and declares he has found them all false, they are all proclaiming their witness to having found the truth and search no more. Who is right? Does anyone really find IT?

Others do not search for anything and languish in the ignorance and comfort of pragamtism.

I prefer the view that the realization of truth, knowledge, insights, enlightenment, salvation and all the achievements in life are by little awakenings or realizations. There is no single absolute truth in science or religion. This has been the way of the human journey for over 200,000 years. There is always something new around the corner in science and belief and I believe this newness will likely continue for another 200,000 years or more. Those that believe that they have found IT, the ultimate goal and need to look no further, brings their journey to an end and they climb on the hamster wheel of karma. The journey of existence goes on without them.

I believe the bare basics are simply that that the cycle of revelation, knowledge and change is forever. My witness is the past history of existence and humanity. Everything always changes.

To find IT is to lose it.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by peace_hawk, I am a post-modern anabaptized fundamentalist. Fundamentalist in the fact that I believe the biblical story takes precedent over every other story with which we might organize or lives (i.e. the American story, the feminist story or the self fulfillment story etc.). Anabaptized in that it is within that stream of Christian thought that I believe the biblical story is most faithfully translated into contemporary faith and practice. Post –modern in the realization that there is little we can call common sense that is not predetermined by the story(s) we use to guide our weird little lives. If you care to know more check out the website below

I'd say post-modernism is not about the powerlessness of mankind to language, but the weakness of language and the even weaker men who live by it.

[peace_hawk]

Perhaps this rural rube was presumed too much in his description of himself. I do not claim that post-modernism is about the powerness of mankind to language but the absence of some pure objective rationalism without presuppositions. We are all formed by something and that formation sometimes influences othertimes dictates what is common sense. I would argue that this is more than an illusion of the limitations of language but strikes at the root of what we believe, intuite and live by.

Perhaps the surbanite can help me understand who the heck is meant by the "men who live by language"? Do they have women? Are there people who do not use language? I would like to meet them but what would I say?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by peace_hawk, who the heck is meant by the "men who live by language"? Do they have women? Are there people who do not use language? I would like to meet them but what would I say?

Good one, hawk. Eye twinkles, smiles and hugs I guess.

[kellbing]

As a child, I believed in god simply because it was "understood" that there was one. My family didn't attend church or talk about religion. I occasionally went to church with friends. It was going to church that actually started to make me question god's existence. Some of the things they preached disturbed me.

I once asked my mother what religion we were, because I was filling out some form that asked. She said Protestant. I assume that was the religion followed by her parents. I didn't even know what the Protestant beliefs were. I still don't.

Somewhere in my late teens or early 20's I really began to question the existence of god and became Agnostic. I have over time believed less and less until sometime in the past couple of years or so I realized I had lost all doubt. I now firmly believe there is no god. There is no higher being. Nothing created us. No one answers our prayers. We exist because many events in the past eventually led to what we see when we look in the mirror.

Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Creation and religion do not. I am curious what we and the other creatures on earth will look like a few hundred million years from now (assuming we don't manage to destroy everything before then).

I am comfortable in my lack of belief. I don't need god to give my life meaning. I realize many people do and that is fine with me. What bothers me about religion is its ability to turn people into mindless drones who will do whatever they are told. Especially when that includes killing innocent people simply because they do not share their beliefs.

Paul's post about his religion being based on love was wonderful. I think perhaps the reason Giancarlo found is laughable is because so few people live by that belief system. They may claim they do, but when you aren't looking, they are reaching in your pocket for your wallet or molesting your children in the church bathroom.

Too many people follow religion without questioning it and end up doing the wrong thing because they allow someone else to lead them. They don't learn how to make their own decisions about what is right and are vulnerable to what someone else wants them to do. Religion can be very dangerous when the leaders become corrupt and the followers are too obedient.

[moondusk]

I am a born Buddhist, but now I do not practice religion. I would treat Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. I try to learn about other religions as well, but I do not like to commit to a religion. Also I am trying to understand how the religions teachings drive the social systems in certain aspects & strategies.
I think religion is a guidance and a structural base, but once a person is ready to explore and understands the good or bad such a value system is a matter or choice.
Somehow I believe in the spiritual capacity of individuals. For example mind power, love as an energy, consciousness etc. I also like the spiritual awakening explained in Celestine Prophecy (by James Redfield)

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by kellbing, I now firmly believe there is no god. There is no higher being. Nothing created us. No one answers our prayers. Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Creation and religion do not. I am curious what we and the other creatures on earth will look like a few hundred million years from now (assuming we don't manage to destroy everything before then). What bothers me about religion is its ability to turn people into mindless drones who will do whatever they are told. Especially when that includes killing innocent people simply because they do not share their beliefs. Religion can be very dangerous when the leaders become corrupt and the followers are too obedient.

Anyboy ever read Olaf Stapledon, a sci-fi writer from the thirties? His Star Maker and Last and First Men can be found in the same volume. The concepts are classic, IMO the wellspring of much later science fiction by others. He includes the idea that even the stars themselves are sentient, social beings, but with a different scale of existence and lifetimes measured in he billions of years.
Last and First Men follows humanity through 17 iterations, ending millions of years in the future. Your post reminded me of his thoughtful look at what could become of the race of man.

Your comments on the danger of religion could be said of any system that discourages people from thinking for themselves and limits accountability by leaders. My signature relays my passion--question authority...

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by moondusk, I am a born Buddhist, but now I do not practice religion. I would treat Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. I try to learn about other religions as well, but I do not like to commit to a religion. Also I am trying to understand how the religions teachings drive the social systems in certain aspects & strategies. I think religion is a guidance and a structural base, but once a person is ready to explore and understands the good or bad such a value system is a matter or choice. Somehow I believe in the spiritual capacity of individuals. For example mind power, love as an energy, consciousness etc. I also like the spiritual awakening explained in Celestine Prophecy (by James Redfield)

I am definitely not a fan of Redfield and Celestine Prophecy. It has an underlying sense of fatalism and predestination in its view of the nature of coincidence.

There are other problems with his thinking. It would make an interesting discussion topic.

[imperialprincess]

I was raised as an Eckist (member of Eckankar)and I still am but my husband and I are joining the UU church so that we can have a common religion to share with our children

[moondusk]

I am definitely not a fan of Redfield and Celestine Prophecy. It has an underlying sense of fatalism and predestination in its view of the nature of coincidence. There are other problems with his thinking. It would make an interesting discussion topic. - shunyadragon

What you say is right, his ideas run in to fatalism with the theory of coincidence. But what if you think these coincidences in a constructive manner which are giving some messages? Then these messages can be used in planing what you want to do.

Ideas like love as an energy, energy struggles, control dramas and interpersonal ethics makes sense to me, but ideas like transforming bodies in to spiritual forms does not trigger my believes.

If someone is interested here is the site of Celestine Vision.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by moondusk, I am definitely not a fan of Redfield and Celestine Prophecy. It has an underlying sense of fatalism and predestination in its view of the nature of coincidence. There are other problems with his thinking. It would make an interesting discussion topic. - shunyadragon What you say is right, his ideas run in to fatalism with the theory of coincidence. But what if you think these coincidences in a constructive manner which are giving some messages? Then these messages can be used in planing what you want to do. Ideas like love as an energy, energy struggles, control dramas and interpersonal ethics makes sense to me, but ideas like transforming bodies in to spiritual forms does not trigger my believes. If someone is interested here is the site of Celestine Vision.

The problem is the interpretation of messages and 'revelations' from what was called coincidences. Planning what you want to do did not seem to be the theme of Celestine Prophicies. The message was more like 'It was meant to be'.

[Mozart1220]

I am a "Frisbeeterian". We believe that when you die your soul goes on the roof and you can't get it down.


seriously, I'm closest to an agnostic.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Mozart1220, I am a "Frisbeeterian". We believe that when you die your soul goes on the roof and you can't get it down. seriously, I'm closest to an agnostic.

Not everyone ends up on the roof. Some end up in the trees, some are saved and born again, some go to the dogs and the worst, shudder, end up on the freeway.

[Mozart1220]

Originally posted by shunyadragon,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shunyadragon,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mozart1220, I am a "Frisbeeterian". We believe that when you die your soul goes on the roof and you can't get it down.  seriously, I'm closest to an agnostic.

Not everyone ends up on the roof. Some end up in the trees, some are saved and born again, some go to the dogs and the worst, shudder, end up on the freeway.[/b][/quote]

Damned "reformed" Frisbeeterians!

i would say i'm an agnostic of sorts. i have examined collective consciousness and the living energy that pulses through all things. fate, determinism, the fractal of time, and free will. i have spoken to god and felt god work in the world. i have practiced magick and cast spells with energy from my own body and held a ball of energy in my hands. i know of human spiritual ability. i have made rituals of the full moon. i have divined from tarot and other methods. i have experienced ESP and witnessed my 3 direct past lives, though in some ways i am all humans and all humans are myself.

in some ways i am a wizard, a buddhist, a wiccan, a hindu, a deist, a taoist. i am studying the world and the eye of god. i am not satisfied to limit my understanding or studying by settling for calling myself of a formal forceful religion. some religions are dead and will never find anything new until god reveals itself totally to all. some religions or religious individuals seek god in new ways constantly.

[damnrad]

Originally posted by dotComa, Hey, I'm new to the forums, and I think a good way to get things rolling here would be to ask something personal about you. What is your religious affiliation, why, and what conclusions have you come to about your own religion. Do you accept other ones? If not why... I myself was baptized catholic, but I find myself in a state of disbelief. I tend to keep an open mind, and believe that I do not know enough about my surroundings to judge them yet. I hold an attitude of "if there's a God I've been a good guy, but I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aide" if you get my drift. so...how about you?

No current affiliation. I'm an agnostic who was until recently a Unitarian-Universalist; and I may be again if I move to a place where I can fit with a local UU church or fellowship. I grew up a Catholic and remained one until my early 20s. In between I was an atheist, but lost that faith, too. ;-)

[damnrad]

Originally posted by oXiSfAa, I don't identify myself as a theist, atheist, or agnostic. Essentially, I don't absolutely believe or disbelieve in anything, so I don't wish to be tagged with a name to represent me.

Hmm, we've got to come up with a name for that. ;-)

[damnrad]

Originally posted by Sodfather, Uh, I'm sad to say I'm Catholic. Not really sad, but, well, you'll see... It's quite difficult to keep your faith when the figures that are supposed to represent God here on Earth are having sex with eight-year-old boys. :( What is that shit about? I'm supposed to brush that off? That's a real problem for me, religious leaders that I used to have great reverence for now get almost no respect from me. Recently I've kind of accepted the fact that religion was simply created to ease the fear of the unknown. I went to Catholic gradeschool and am now at a Jesuit college preparatory school, and it's kind of funny because in one class you are being taught about all these miracles and supernatural events contained in the Bible, and in another you're having all the reasons why those events are impossible explained to you. It's harder for educated people to accept Catholic doctrine as true. And if you really wanna put it into prespective, the majority of beliefs of Jesus' and Abraham's time have been disproved. The Earth is round, and allowing the stars to dictate which vain to cut to let the "bad blood" out of a sick person unfortunately doesn't work. Why would religious beliefs be affected any differently?

A lot of ex-Catholics on here, and Catholics who don't believe it all anymore. At least there are on this thread. It all seems so familiar!

One thing I will note regarding your post: science cannot tell us about the supernatural. Yes, science, or at least living in a technological culture, influences our likelihood of believing in religious orthodoxy. But science per se cannot say anything about the supernatural beliefs that constitute much, not all, of religious faith. Science is about the natural and can only speak to that. And what is natural? My best answer to that is that it is whatver science has found that it can reliably study, find has understandable regularity about which it can generalize, and about which it can achieve reproducible results. But science is open-ended, and constantly finding new things. So who knows, maybe someday it will detect gods? As Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education says, science can't say anything about God until it develops a theometer. I add that it can't tell us about souls until it has a working soulcatcher. So, yes, science has disproved many things once believed by religious people; but it cannot, and maybe will never be able to, disprove (nor uphold) anything about the supernatural.

[Mozart1220]

"I used to be Irish Catholic, now I'm an American..." --- George Carlin