What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Mole]

Oh, I agree with you, that there is no scientific proof that God had anything to do with the Big Bang (or that God even exists).

Like I said, I believe that God cannot be measured by science. So while you can study something God made/did (this and other universes, the Big Bang, ect.) you will not be able to measure God in these things through scientific means.

Also, interesting tid bit I found out recently: The guy that first thought of the Big Bang explanation was a Catholic priest.

I personally believe that science and faith in God go together just fine. That's just me though.

Let me continue to reason with you, remembering the official Catholic doctrine is Faith and Reason.

If you claim the Trinity created everything, that as we measured everything from the background radiation of the Big Bang, to the quantum movement of atoms, to gravity waves, we would find some evidence that the Trinity created the Big Bang. And without such evidence we can reasonably conclude that the Trinity no more created the Big Bang than the Rainbow Serpent.

And if this wasn't enough, the Catholic Church has been raping children for the last 500 years across the world and successfully covering it up.

So we can reasonably conclude that it is unlikely God created the Big Bang, and it is unlikely the Catholic Church represents God on Earth.

 

[Kerik_S]

The closest thing that I've ever read that anywhere near matches my belief system is called "YalHaKian Neo-Sebbatian Kabbalah".

Coincidental, though.

　
I'm basically just an esotericist who likes to envision things in a kabbalist fashion ("emanationist", seeing the hierarchy as "tree-like") with a "Satanist" twist.

Probably not too different from your garden-variety "spiritual person" in America, maybe?

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

Let me continue to reason with you, remembering the official Catholic doctrine is Faith and Reason.

If you claim the Trinity created everything, that as we measured everything from the background radiation of the Big Bang, to the quantum movement of atoms, to gravity waves, we would find some evidence that the Trinity created the Big Bang. And without such evidence we can reasonably conclude that the Trinity no more created the Big Bang than the Rainbow Serpent.

And if this wasn't enough, the Catholic Church has been raping children for the last 500 years across the world and successfully covering it up.

So we can reasonably conclude that it is unlikely God created the Big Bang, and it is unlikely the Catholic Church represents God on Earth.

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have hit the same brick wall twice...

I stated that, in my estimates and ideas through and of my faith, God is of a supernatural essence and realm, and while God is in contact with our natural, physical world, it is beyond what science can measure or understand, at least at this time (but I suspect we'll never understand in our natural lifetimes).

Therefore, you can't refute my beliefs by saying "Yeah, we looked into the radiation that spread from the Big Bang, and God's name wasn't on it. Therefore, since our science didn't find traces of God, your beliefs are inconsistent." I've stated multiple times now that I don't expect science to be able to measure the essence of God.

And if your claim is that because some priests & bishops are terrible people, God couldn't possibly be represented by the Catholic Church, you've clearly forgotten that in the gospels the people Jesus handpicked to be his apostles were imperfect, and one effectively got him killed. The faith is the faith, regardless of humans' deeds. But there are some truly TERRIBLE people in the Catholic Church, don't get me wrong. With that said, there are also many wonderful, loving people.

Once again, my belief in the existence of God is based solely on faith. I don't know that there is a God, or that there is not. I merely have faith that there is one. Take that how you will.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go say the Rosary

 

[Lark]

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have hit the same brick wall twice...

I stated that, in my estimates and ideas through and of my faith, God is of a supernatural essence and realm, and while God is in contact with our natural, physical world, it is beyond what science can measure or understand, at least at this time (but I suspect we'll never understand in our natural lifetimes).

Therefore, you can't refute my beliefs by saying "Yeah, we looked into the radiation that spread from the Big Bang, and God's name wasn't on it. Therefore, since our science didn't find traces of God, your beliefs are inconsistent." I've stated multiple times now that I don't expect science to be able to measure the essence of God.

And if your claim is that because some priests & bishops are terrible people, God couldn't possibly be represented by the Catholic Church, you've clearly forgotten that in the gospels the people Jesus handpicked to be his apostles were imperfect, and one effectively got him killed. The faith is the faith, regardless of humans' deeds. But there are some truly TERRIBLE people in the Catholic Church, don't get me wrong. With that said, there are also many wonderful, loving people.

Once again, my belief in the existence of God is based solely on faith. I don't know that there is a God, or that there is not. I merely have faith that there is one. Take that how you will.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go say the Rosary

To be honest on the crimes of the RCC there's a great line in Spotlight, a believer states that the RCC is made of people and is passing and he is devoted to the eternal things, its meant to be what the RCC and some sorts of deeper conservatism were once dedicated to, one of the best lines the whole movie.

The thing about blaming the RCC for being confounded by the phenomenon of rampant peadophilia is that people take comfort from the fact they can "leave" the RCC or they arent RCC to begin with etc. etc., all that does is breed complacency when people should be alert instead, and I dont know what the same people are going to do when they discover that secular responses to the same problem are falling short and failing in the same ways that the RCC responses did. It wouldnt take a lot of work to figure that out either, in the UK there's a huge historical enquiry about celebrity child abuse and sex offending at the BBC and there's also a lot of historical enquiries looking at senior government officials and politicians, its not even years and years old too, there was a recent scandal in the UK conservative party involving a vulnerable male committing suicide following harrassment from homosexuals.

All of which are temporal affairs and human, all too human failings, not God.

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

To be honest on the crimes of the RCC there's a great line in Spotlight, a believer states that the RCC is made of people and is passing and he is devoted to the eternal things, its meant to be what the RCC and some sorts of deeper conservatism were once dedicated to, one of the best lines the whole movie.

The thing about blaming the RCC for being confounded by the phenomenon of rampant peadophilia is that people take comfort from the fact they can "leave" the RCC or they arent RCC to begin with etc. etc., all that does is breed complacency when people should be alert instead, and I dont know what the same people are going to do when they discover that secular responses to the same problem are falling short and failing in the same ways that the RCC responses did. It wouldnt take a lot of work to figure that out either, in the UK there's a huge historical enquiry about celebrity child abuse and sex offending at the BBC and there's also a lot of historical enquiries looking at senior government officials and politicians, its not even years and years old too, there was a recent scandal in the UK conservative party involving a vulnerable male committing suicide following harrassment from homosexuals.

All of which are temporal affairs and human, all too human failings, not God.

I agree with much of what you say, especially your last line.

We humans are imperfect, morally and physically. Even if one doesn't believe in the existence of true morality, our physical imperfection is still a fact.
Anything and everything in the natural, physical world is imperfect, and has a failing of some sort. The natural world has an inclination towards disorder and imperfection (hence why it's easier to keep a room dirty than clean ). Just because our physical reality is imperfect, doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a force of perfection in all of existence, within a higher realm.

Maybe it's because I have a strong iNtuitive Perceiving inclination, but I'm personally fine with the idea that a force exists that is almighty and perfect within a realm that is supernatural and beyond our capabilities of understanding. It doesn't bother me to believe that there are open-ended questions that can't be answered in the natural world.

I've never been one of those "if I can't put it under a microscope and watch it wiggle, it doesn't exist" kind of guys.
In the past, whenever I put myself in that position and tried to think like that, I just came away feeling my mind had been constricted.

That's just me though

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Why is there no all-of-them-at-the-same-time option?

 

[Mole]

Spontaneity and Reciprocity

I become whatever I worship. So what do I worship? I worship spontaneity and reciprocity. So I am devoted to removing obstacles to spontaneity within my own psyche, and I am devoted to forming equal relationships with others.

I am devoted, I am a devotee, or we could say, I pious towards spontaneity and reciprocity, without thinking they are easily obtained.

But as I move towards spontaneity and reciprocity, I find I am becoming more relaxed and more comfortable in my own skin.

Traditionally we have personalised values such as spontaneity and reciprocity into gods and goddesses, but as we have become more prosperous and educated, we have started to see these values as part of our own psyches rather than part of supernatural beings.

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

I become whatever I worship. So what do I worship? I worship spontaneity and reciprocity. So I am devoted to removing obstacles to spontaneity within my own psyche, and I am devoted to forming equal relationships with others.

I am devoted, I am a devotee, or we could say, I pious towards spontaneity and reciprocity, without thinking they are easily obtained.

But as I move towards spontaneity and reciprocity, I find I am becoming more relaxed and more comfortable in my own skin.

Traditionally we have personalised values such as spontaneity and reciprocity into gods and goddesses, but as we have become more prosperous and educated, we have started to see these values as part of our own psyches rather than part of supernatural beings.

Huh. That's a very creative kind of secular humanism. I like it.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

It is hard to answer these kinds of questions without being unintentionally cruel to someone I feel. So, with this is mind please take my answer with a grain of salt.

I would like to highlight Quietism as something... valuable that more should look to in their explorations of these topics.

Quietism in philosophy is an approach to the subject that sees the role of philosophy as broadly therapeutic or remedial. Quietist philosophers believe that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute, but rather that its value is in defusing confusions in the linguistic and conceptual frameworks of other subjects, including non-quietist philosophy. By re-formulating supposed problems in a way that makes the misguided reasoning from which they arise apparent, the quietist hopes to put an end to humanity's confusion, and help return to a state of intellectual quietude.

Why?

As a part of being in the world it is inevitable we will experience many things both good and bad. It is good to be able to use language to heal yourself if & when those situations arise.

 

[Mole]

Huh. That's a very creative kind of secular humanism. I like it.

It's fascinating that creativity is the content of the internet, and everyone and their dog is creative.

Creative writing classes are everywhere, and we are all creative.

But the content of the electric media merely distract our mind, while the medium itself goes to work changing our psyche.

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

It's fascinating that creativity is the content of the internet, and everyone and their dog is creative.

Creative writing classes are everywhere, and we are all creative.

But the content of the electric media merely distract our mind, while the medium itself goes to work changing our psyche.

Oh, did you not create that particular description of secular humanism? I had never heard it described that way, so I figured you came up with it.

 

[Mole]

Oh, did you not create that particular description of secular humanism? I had never heard it described that way, so I figured you came up with it.

I don't describe myself as a secular humanist, rather you have decided yourself to call me a secular humanist.

I am Western, and the West is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and the Enlightenment.

I do understand though that the words secular humanist are politically loaded terms in the USA. But I don't share USA parochial politics.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I'm an agnostic who was raised Christian. I no longer practice Christianity for the following reasons:

1. Like most religions, it promotes the concept of women being viewed as possessions rather than people, specifically in marriages. The majority of the bible seems to be written for men. Deuteronomy 5:1 states: "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife." There is no equivalent which states that a woman should not covet another woman's husband. Not to mention the "submit and obey" stuff.

2. As a kid it was so easy to view Christianity as absolute truth because everyone around me either practiced it or was an atheist. There was no third option, just "believer" and "non-believer." In high school, I learned about other religions that are extremely common in other parts of the world; places in which Christianity has almost no presence at all. In my opinion, this diminishes its credibility. If it hasn't out-survived Shinto and Hinduism, how do we know it's any more true than those?

3. I remember being annoyed at everyone at youth group because they refused to think for themselves. Specifically, there was one sermon in which the message was basically "lying is always wrong, even if it's to save someone's life." A few people in that group insisted that they would not associate themselves with a person who lied to save their life. I was 14 or 15 at the time, but I still found it ridiculous to view morality as totally objective.

4. I can recall several instances in which I was saddened and/or outraged by supposedly moral atrocities in the bible, such as a man's entire family (including his children) being killed as a result of his actions, or someone being afflicted with a terrible disease for doing something immoral. Sitting in church, everyone around me seemed to be thinking, "oh yeah, God sure showed them!" but I was just shocked.

 

[Lark]

I'm an agnostic who was raised Christian. I no longer practice Christianity for the following reasons:

1. Like most religions, it promotes the concept of women being viewed as possessions rather than people, specifically in marriages. The majority of the bible seems to be written for men. Deuteronomy 5:1 states: "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife." There is no equivalent which states that a woman should not covet another woman's husband. Not to mention the "submit and obey" stuff.

2. As a kid it was so easy to view Christianity as absolute truth because everyone around me either practiced it or was an atheist. There was no third option, just "believer" and "non-believer." In high school, I learned about other religions that are extremely common in other parts of the world; places in which Christianity has almost no presence at all. In my opinion, this diminishes its credibility. If it hasn't out-survived Shinto and Hinduism, how do we know it's any more true than those?

3. I remember being annoyed at everyone at youth group because they refused to think for themselves. Specifically, there was one sermon in which the message was basically "lying is always wrong, even if it's to save someone's life." A few people in that group insisted that they would not associate themselves with a person who lied to save their life. I was 14 or 15 at the time, but I still found it ridiculous to view morality as totally objective.

4. I can recall several instances in which I was saddened and/or outraged by supposedly moral atrocities in the bible, such as a man's entire family (including his children) being killed as a result of his actions, or someone being afflicted with a terrible disease for doing something immoral. Sitting in church, everyone around me seemed to be thinking, "oh yeah, God sure showed them!" but I was just shocked.

I dont think most religions take that view of women, I dont think that christianity properly understood does either, nor the RCC which I'm a part of and practicing member, though increasingly its looking like an institution that wont survive.

There have always been faiths besides those of the Judeo-Christian variety and I think there always will be, I do believe that the tradition I belong to is the correct one and would recommend it to others but I am fine with there being others in existence, the evangelical, fundamentalist and other exclusive and exclusionary traditions are not things I could ever subscribe to and consider they nye on heretical and displeasing to God but even if I did not consider that to be the case I dont believe that the existence of diverse and disparite opinions necessarily invalidates any of the opinions per se.

I'm sorry to hear about the lack of critical thinking etc. there's a lot of poor, poor interpretation of the bible in some of the traditions I've discovered are out there, I consider it to be seriously in error, and a lot of it just sets up atheists and atheism as a good idea to casual observers.

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

I don't describe myself as a secular humanist, rather you have decided yourself to call me a secular humanist.

I am Western, and the West is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, and the Enlightenment.

I do understand though that the words secular humanist are politically loaded terms in the USA. But I don't share USA parochial politics.

Oh, I just meant that, despite you not calling your beliefs secular humanism, they still very easily fall under that umbrella

Kind of like how a Protestant might have a preference to be called by the name of a more specific group (like "Baptist" or "Methodist"), despite that group still being a subset of Protestantism.

What you described would technically make you a secular humanist, despite you not liking that term because of the possible political connotations.

That's all I meant! I didn't realize you had negative feelings towards the term when I first pointed it out.

 

[EcK]

none because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and they have none. So Flame worship has as much truth value likelihood as Christianity or the flying spaghetti monster.

common sense.

 

[EcK]

I'm an agnostic who was raised Christian. I no longer practice Christianity for the following reasons:

1. Like most religions, it promotes the concept of women being viewed as possessions rather than people, specifically in marriages. The majority of the bible seems to be written for men. Deuteronomy 5:1 states: "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife." There is no equivalent which states that a woman should not covet another woman's husband. Not to mention the "submit and obey" stuff.

2. As a kid it was so easy to view Christianity as absolute truth because everyone around me either practiced it or was an atheist. There was no third option, just "believer" and "non-believer." In high school, I learned about other religions that are extremely common in other parts of the world; places in which Christianity has almost no presence at all. In my opinion, this diminishes its credibility. If it hasn't out-survived Shinto and Hinduism, how do we know it's any more true than those?

3. I remember being annoyed at everyone at youth group because they refused to think for themselves. Specifically, there was one sermon in which the message was basically "lying is always wrong, even if it's to save someone's life." A few people in that group insisted that they would not associate themselves with a person who lied to save their life. I was 14 or 15 at the time, but I still found it ridiculous to view morality as totally objective.

4. I can recall several instances in which I was saddened and/or outraged by supposedly moral atrocities in the bible, such as a man's entire family (including his children) being killed as a result of his actions, or someone being afflicted with a terrible disease for doing something immoral. Sitting in church, everyone around me seemed to be thinking, "oh yeah, God sure showed them!" but I was just shocked.

Well
1st) Whether you agree with something or not should not have any impact on whether it's true or not. So how the bible says women should be treated or what it says about morals is independent from its central claim: that these ideas come from a 'god' who created humanity and the whole universe.

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

Well
1st) Whether you agree with something or not should not have any impact on whether it's true or not. So how the bible says women should be treated or what it says about morals is independent from its central claim: that these ideas come from a 'god' who created humanity and the whole universe.

Well, there actually is no central claim like that in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings from multiple authors over a stretch of time that were combined into one book well after they were written, so there is no possible claim in the Bible that fits what all of the writers were collectively expressing.

The belief that every word came from God (or whatever else has been believed) are actually claims made by the countless faith groups that use the Bible in their worship and beliefs; not the Bible itself.

My personal belief is that the Bible is the account of people who met God in some way or another. Some of it is allegory, some of it is literal, some of it is embellished and/or hyperbolic because of the writing styles of the times.
But regardless, any possible inconsistencies in the Bible are the inconsistencies of imperfect humans (who are products of their time periods), who are trying their best to express how God has revealed himself in their lives.

Of course, those are just my opinions and beliefs (well, aside from the first two paragraphs -- those are pretty factual )

 

[EcK]

Well, there actually is no central claim like that in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings from multiple authors over a stretch of time that were combined into one book well after they were written, so there is no possible claim in the Bible that fits what all of the writers were collectively expressing.

The belief that every word came from God (or whatever else has been believed) are actually claims made by the countless faith groups that use the Bible in their worship and beliefs; not the Bible itself.

My personal belief is that the Bible is the account of people who met God in some way or another. Some of it is allegory, some of it is literal, some of it is embellished and/or hyperbolic because of the writing styles of the times.
But regardless, any possible inconsistencies in the Bible are the inconsistencies of imperfect humans (who are products of their time periods), who are trying their best to express how God has revealed himself in their lives.

Of course, those are just my opinions and beliefs (well, aside from the first two paragraphs -- those are pretty factual )

Your personal belief is unsubstantiated by fact, so it is in nature no different from someone believing that Sauron is real. How do you reconcile that your faith and belief in the religion you were (most probably) brought up to believe is indeed the right religion out of thousands of other religions with equal truth value (ie: no basis in observable facts for their extraordinary claims) ?

 

[DoctorCroupy#9]

Your personal belief is unsubstantiated by fact, so it is in nature no different from someone believing that Sauron is real. How do you reconcile that your faith and belief in the religion you were (most probably) brought up to believe is indeed the right religion out of thousands of other religions with equal truth value (ie: no basis in observable facts for their extraordinary claims) ?

Oh, I know it is unsubstantiated by scientific fact. I'm actually a Catholic convert.

It's very easy to reconcile it is the right religion when your faith teaches that, while it may be the best representation of God's will on earth, it is not the only representation.

The Catholic faith does not teach that living on in the afterlife is reserved only for Catholics, or even only for people of Abrahamic faiths. God is taught to be the judge of a person's true intent. Anybody, whether they are Hindu, Atheist, or anything else can be able to live on in 'Heaven' if they are of truly good intent in their souls. The Faith teaches that God is complete mercy. 'Hell' may very well be empty.

I agree that it could be terribly hard to belong to a religion that wants to say that only they themselves deserve 'Heaven', or whatever they may call it. I chose Catholicism, because if we were to start with the assumption that God can and does exist, the Catholic faith seems to make the most sense to me in answering the age old questions of 'where does life come from?' or 'how did the universe begin?' and 'what happens to others who don't believe the same as I do?' That's, of course, just my opinion. Other's may think other religions make more sense

But regardless, I don't believe in the existence of God because of science. I have believe in the existence of God through faith, because I am open to the possibility that there are things we cannot discover through natural, physical science.

(I see you're another ENTP :hi: You seem to have taken the more standard ENTP route in your beliefs, or lack thereof. More power to you!)