How did you come to your religion?

I

Insanely Elite

Questions reality.
Registered Senior Member
Really, how?

Was it a book, or revelation, or a preacher, or a church, or family, or experience?

I don't understand with over 6 billion folk, how so many profess so fervently that they got it, that a specific clique has moral authority to suppress another, or rise above another. Why does this unique understanding of God seem to lead to conflict outside of the clique(and indeed within)? Does God need a promoter, or a defender, or an interpreter, or a building?

Polytheism aside, Do we pray all our prayers to the One with no name? I thought the most Holy, the Highest God, the One, everlasting, all powerful, unfathomable God would be the same God for everyone.

So much fighting. So many dead. I know God exists. If you do, what else matters? Dogma that leads to division and apparent unending conflict?

I don't know. What do you all think?
 
I had no religious influences growing up and was agnostic. At age 17-19 I took a stab at Christianty, joining a church in college at 19. I quit the day they kicked a member out for having a epileptic seizure, saying he was possessed by a demon. Later, I learned that Jesus in the NT did not think epileptics were possessed and healed one.

I was in theistic debates in college with agnostic, athiests, (much like this place) christians in the mix but no buddhists, hindus, or muslims. Went back to agnosticism, then generic gnosticism, and eventually became a Unitarian; believing there was a higher power, but I didn't have to know all the historical details of it.
 
Dear Insanely Elite,

It is easier to understand if you appreciate one of the doctrines of one of the World's most ancient, and perhaps the first Higher Religion, Zoroastrianism. The World is Battlefield between the forces of Good and Evil.

so there are Good and Evil Religions. You mentioned Polytheists. Polytheists largely were able to get along. The Many Gods were compatible with each other. Yes, there were plenty of political wars, and some Gods were winners and some losers, but the fighting was never about them. The Jews were innovators in pioneering a Religion of Universal hate and intolerance. Their Monotheism was not so much an assertion of Universal Unity under One God, as simply an insult to the Gods of everyone else.

Nowadays there is a lot of commonality among the higher Mystical Religions. Hindu Yogins, Buddhist Mahayana Sects, Sufis (modern Zoroastrians), and the Catholic Contemplative Religious Orders have much community interaction -- they take retreats to each other's monasteries and take pilgrimages to each other's shrines.

When you think of destructive and hostile Religions you must think in terms of Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam. Oh, and Japanese Shintoism was no sweetheart.
 
Last edited:
Everybody has at least slightly different interpretations of a beLIEf system. Yet most of the major religions are supposed to be fairly absolute. Therefore, even if every person on the planet were members of the same religion -- you would have 6 billion different religions.
 
By the way... what is your fixation on religion?

Every war of the 20th Century has been Secular-Political in origin. Even the present conflict with Islam today can be analyzed as purely a struggle between East and West. The Secular Invasions of the last 3 Centuries (by the European Powers) presented by far a greater intrusion into Islam than the Crusades ever managed; followed by the Zionist Invasion. Then there is the Imperialist Factor of the West imposing its monetary currencies on Islam in order to buy up controlling interest in everyone's life. You can imagine that this might be seen as intrusive and unfair, even without a Religious Element.

There are so many conflicting interests politically, socially and economically, I think it becomes almost gratuitious to insert Religion as a factor.

But I concede, that if the West had not abandoned Higher Religion, then the ethical considerations inherent to a Higher Religion may have influenced the West to be more tactful and less provocative in its imperialistic expansion to conquer the World. Most of the West's problems with Islam could have been avoided if only the West had shown good manners, civility and even a shadow of the Golden Rule.
 
My fixation? Take off the judges robe and don't worry - like most humans I've MANY things I'm interested in . . . or many "fixations'' I suppose. Its been a reoccuring theme here - and one which I've found most compelling in the context here to speak about.

What are your fixations? :)
 
Leo Volont said:
By the way... what is your fixation on religion?

Every war of the 20th Century has been Secular-Political in origin. Even the present conflict with Islam .
Click to expand...
BS every time you say this, you been proved wrong, so why keep saying it.
you are obvously on something again.
I remember when I first came, on the forum, you were hulucinating.
get of the drugs man, there doing you no good.
 
Religion wasn't the reason for most wars, it was merely used a manipulated excuse to rally religious people to their cause since that's the most important thing with most people. If one controls religion, it controls most people. It's no different than using the government to control people. Government and religion is basically the same thing. The only difference is that governement is man-made laws whereas religion is divine laws.

If man is in control of both government and religion, that's when bad things start to happen and that's how wars then become good in the eyes of the majority of the population as opposed to normally being bad. How else do those corrupt in charge get the backing of the people to fight their (the corrupt people in charge, not the peoples) war? Religion is manipulated just as government is. The reasons for war come down to the expansionistic greed of those in charge. That's the only reason for war (except for self-defense) -- greed -- not religion or government. Religion and government are merely pawns in the greed game.

- N
 
Neildo said:
Religion wasn't the reason for most wars, it was merely used a manipulated excuse to rally religious people to their cause since that's the most important thing with most people. If one controls religion, it controls most people.
- N
Click to expand...

No. There is a limit to how much you can manipulate people against their political, economic and social interests. You can use Religion to mobilize an already restive populous, but a happy community will always ignore the drumbeats to a gratuitous War.

I heard of a study that stated that Terrorism is an inverse function of Rate of Employment and Standard of Living. So, it seems that in an almost uniformly Prosperous World, if you select a segment of people to keep poor and idle, then you can expect that they might decide to lash out with murder if given the opportunity. And then Religion is blamed and NOT the poverty and unemployment which are the real causative factors.

Dissatisfied Masses can be mobilized with Religion, communist doctrine, or 2nd Amendment Rush Limbaugh exhortations to High Treason. It is the underlying dissatisfactions that are the core concern, no?

This is how people's minds work. In Stanford University some decades ago they did a study with hypnosis. They gave the subjects of the experiment a post-hypnotic suggestion to ask the Interviewer some silly and irrelevent question when the telephone on the secretaries desk would ring. Then the Interviewer would ask the subject why they had asked such a foolish question. 95% of those interviewed were able to rationalize the silly question and gave some excuse for their irrational behavior. Only 5% of the subjects admitted that they simply felt compelled to speak and that it wasn't important and they apologized. This study shows that Most People will find an excuse to do what they want to do anyway.

So you can bellyache about Religion as an ancillary detail and incidental factor, but it is simple Trivia compared to dealing with Root Causes.
 
Last edited:
As to the original question, well, I don't follow any one religion as religion is merely a mass-shared belief and none of my beliefs follow those of the religious masses. I do study comparative religions though to make myself more knowledable of God and everything religious in general than the average religious believer who only follows, and is only knowledable of, one religion. It all comes down to the usual endless quest of seeking the truth.

I like to see how various cultures came about their beliefs so I can trace it all back to the origins of the one true religion which spawned all other religions. I mainly do this in regards to religious myths to trace the originating myths to get a better understanding of our creation and existance of Gods (if what is said is true, and also note I said Gods in plural, as I personally believe Gods to be different than the origin of all creation God). The reason being, since everything after that original religion is most likely all manipulated, updated, and other such tweaks of that original religion, in a sense, the myths afterward then become most likely false. That doesn't mean those religions are bad to follow, it's just bad to take the myths they say as truth.

The other side of religion is teaching better ways of life so that's the good thing (good and bad in a way how technology is) about religions as they grow more current because everything is updated to newer ways of “civilized” life. However, religion has reached it’s peak with Christianity in regards to laws and way of life and there will never again be a mass-shared religious belief system as the next step up from Christianity in regards to a civilized way of life was a democratic government. God is no longer in charge of dictating to us what is right and wrong but rather the people (again, good and bad).

Since I study comparative religion, I still learn a thing or two from each religion as they each have interesting thoughts on way of life and other means of enlightenment, spiritual or not. Remember, religion and philosophy are very similar and since I love philosophy, it’s interesting to read about the various originating prophets philsophical beliefs on God (Hinduism and other Eastern thought is best for that). But what it all comes down to is that all those prophets beliefs are just that, philosophical beliefs, so this is why I’m agnostic as I believe nothing can be known about God and everything we do know about him is our man-made philosophical assumptions and speculation on what God is.

So what it all comes down to is that in regards to God, I’m agnostic. In regards to way of life, enlightenment, and philosophy, I take in all religions (and Eastern, Modern, and personal philosophy). When it comes to religious myths and creation, I take from Sumerian mythology and Hinduism (and modern science). Those are all what is used to give me the beliefs I currently have, but I’m also agnostic in regards to everything in general in that we’ll never know if what we know is truth as everything that is deemed truth is only observation which can only give us a probable, not definite, answer.

- N
 
Leo, what I said was in agreement with you. I'm not saying religion is the reason for most wars of the past as most claim. However, while I'm saying it's not the reason, I am pointing out the influence it has had. And just because it may have had an influence, it doesn't mean it was *the* reason as most claim it to be. Religion was a tool, nothing more.

- N
 
Neildo said:
religion has reached it’s peak with Christianity in regards to laws and way of life and there will never again be a mass-shared religious belief system as the next step up from Christianity in regards to a civilized way of life was a democratic government. - N
Click to expand...

Huh!?

Civilization has never known a stable and enduring Democracy. Europe almost disintegrated into utter chaos just a hundred years after it rejected Monarchy.

We can see what works better. The Far East still retains Authoritarian Bureaucracies and Civil Service like Administrations. They are doing well. But American convinced the South American countries to become Democratic. So they did... and all the Investment Dollars flew to Asia where they could find some Political Stability which democracy can never provide.

Look at America today. Is America not polarizing worse every second. How much more divisive can America get before the top finally blows off and all those 2nd Amendment guns come out for more than target practice?


Have you ever read Toynbee. His "Study of History" is actually a study of the dynamics of the rise and fall of Civilizations. It is clear that our present Civilization is already in an irreversable decline. Democracy will simply be used as a tool which the autocrats will use to deprive the Central Governments of revenue. The decline in education, social infrastructures and security will cause a collapse into chaos. Populations will die off in starvation as the Urban Centers can no longer be maintained, or they will be murdered off in reaction to inevitable social rebellion.


Then I was thinking about my Social Economic dismissal of Religion. Not quite, now that I reflect upon it. In the formation of a Civilization Religion IS inevitable. People must be Morally Convinced that it is Ultimately and Absolutely WRONG to eat the Seed Grain. Civilization requires a shared concensus of respect for Moral Constraints and Social Obligations. Religion does this. The more secure the Morality, the longer the Civilization can expect to flourish.

No Civilization has ever survived. Moral Religious Codes were either abandoned or they did not have a full enough spectrum to provide for all threats. Take China for instance. China rises and falls in quick succession. Their Traditional Culture quickly secures order and property... but it sets off a Race for Accumulation of Wealth which ends, soon enough, in the collapse of what becomes a lopsided Economy.

A complete Moral System must secure not only Surplus Property but also a fair and healthy distribution over the Entire Social Body. This requires that unlimited acquisition of personal wealth be checked so that no few individuals can be capable of sucking their entire society dry -- the cause of every Civilizations decline.

The Vikings had a custom useful in this regard. Every Viking King, after his death, would be put on board his ship which would be loaded with half of his wealth. It would then be set on fire and sunk. It seems like a waste, and yes it was. But it would keep the Family of the Kings from accruing so much wealth that their relative power in their Societies would seem to become absolute.

So a perfect Religion must emphasize Charity and Community Responsiblity and the institutions of that Religion must be able to retain a secular control over every individual. Civilizations fall when the Wealthy are given the Political Power to exempt themselves from Tithes and Taxes. A Working Religion must NEVER give up that control. The Church, or its Secular Arm, the State must retain the power to Tax.
 
Why does it have to be a Religion? Can't a simple philosophy accomplish all of the same things?
 
Gravity said:
Why does it have to be a Religion? Can't a simple philosophy accomplish all of the same things?
Click to expand...

What is morally binding about a philosophy? Unless a Moral Code is seen to be Divinely Established and Etermally binding, no one will care to follow it once it conflicts with the tiniest self interest.

For Instance: Philosophy is understanding that Society needs to collect Taxes. But nobody would ever vote to have their own taxes raised -- therefore the futility of Philosophy
 
When I mentioned a democracy, I'm referring only to the way of life and more freedom that comes with it, not how viable and efficient it may be.

Is a democracy not seen as the most civilized form of government so far (or am I just a brainwashed American)? Each religion of the past has updated and improved on the way of life and thinking that was later seen as flaws from the previous religion they followed (Hinduism to Buddhism, Judaism to Christianity and Islam, etc). The most recent widely-shared religion was Christianity (actually it's Islam, but they teach to submit to God but since we're moving away from a religious society, I have to omit it) which is all about love so what can top that?

Since I doubt there will ever be a new widely-shared religion due to our new freedoms, government is the only thing we're left with as a means of control and a democracy promotes the most freedom for it's people which most improves their way of life. That's the only "update" I can think of in regards to way of life. And if ever it happens, the thing that will top a democracy is when the whole world becomes a free-loving utopian society. Again, this has no bearing on the efficiency or viability of that form of government or way of life, but rather the freedoms that people want (free from who? heh, I loved that thread).

Of course if it were up to me, I'd just wish we could live and let live. Let people have their own differing religion or beliefs so long as it doesn't interfere with others in a negative way. Go ahead and let some crazies on some secluded island kill themselves over and over if they choose, it's up to them and they're all alone, so it's no problem so long as they don't start killing people outside of their environment.

- N
 
I came to Christianity through peer pressure and eventually rejected it when I learnt how to think for myself.
 
Leo Volont said:
Have you ever read Toynbee. His "Study of History" is actually a study of the dynamics of the rise and fall of Civilizations. It is clear that our present Civilization is already in an irreversable decline. Democracy will simply be used as a tool which the autocrats will use to deprive the Central Governments of revenue. The decline in education, social infrastructures and security will cause a collapse into chaos. Populations will die off in starvation as the Urban Centers can no longer be maintained, or they will be murdered off in reaction to inevitable social rebellion.
Click to expand...

Can't wait! :D

I was a Christian as a little kid, but living with my mom meant we didn't practice. I've only been to church twice in my life, both times with my grandma.

Then I became an Atheist somewhere along the lines. I don't know when. To be honest, it wasn't a major turning point in my life. It's as if I were always Atheist.

Then a couple months ago, I found a homepage of an Atheist, and he mentioned Pantheism. I followed the link, and totally agreed with what it had to say. So I like to say I'm a Pantheist, though I say I'm an Atheist absent-mindedly - also for the sake of argument and so I don't have to explain it everytime I say "Pantheist".

There is my religious past in a nutshell.
 
I had the most wonderful child, I'm saying this so as the religious people on this forum dont try to poo poo it.
I had a childhood almost devoid of religious influences my education was mostly at home,My grand father a catholic from childhood but I presume with athiest tendencies and only because of the things he said
he never spoke of god to me or my brothers and sisters. (I have six brothers and seven sisters) anyway lets get back to the point of my ramblings my elder brother gave me a book of bible storys along with easops fables and the arabian nights when I was thirteen. as you know all these were moral tales. this was the first step to my love of literature. I later read the bible cover to cover in fact I study it with an open mind. but it is only a book to me and a not a well written one at that, my atheism comes from being one with life from the begining, so I dont suffer fools gladly, I can be rude and abusive but I would not harm a fly. my granddad would say enjoy life while you can and give what you can because your a long time dead.

also heaven dont want me, and hell thinks I might take over.(btw this does not mean, I believe in any gods/devils ok, it's just humour.)
 
The problem with threads like these is that their application of the word "religion" is entirely secular. Ancient Hebrew didn't even have a word for religion - the closest to it you'll find is the word da'at, derived from the Persian, and used in reference to an edict of the King (i.e., the final word). It eventually came to describe the custom and tradition (as a King's edict would become). For a long time, Israel had only God for a king, and the pentatech was His edict.

"Religion" is actually an obscured, distilled notion of a relationship with God. Each nation in ancient times had their own gods. The nation itself was the religion. When God spoke to Abraham, He literally seemed to come out of nowhere. Which nation did He belong to? Whose God was He? Hints remain of this uncertainty in Genesis, for example - where it's simply clear that He was unlike other gods. His name and identity was only revealed later. God made it clear that He would create a nation for himself, and a Name for himself. The first thing God did was to differentiate himself from religion. The highest sacrifice a person could offer their gods was their children, so Abraham wasn't surprised that this new God would demand the same. But God showed him that the nation He had in mind would be born in spite of religion, in spite of other gods. His nation would be one spared from religion. In fact, having no visbile represenation of their God meant that to other nations it would seem they had no God!

As time went on, however, Israel fell into the trap of religion, not just once, but over and over. It seemed so secure, to be able to see their God, and flaunt his strength. And then they were destroyed and taken captive. But a remnant always remained: Those who wouldn't let disaster or religion obscure their relationship with God.

The meaning of this relationship was expressed, and everything related to it was preserved. The laws were the skeleton, the wisdom its flesh, their prophecies its eyes and mouth. But the heartwas always God himself. Whenever it was replaced by a human heart, it became a religion just like any other. And this has happened so often that people still confuse religion with having a living relationship with God.

If you want to know what my "religion" is, it's Christ. I didn't get to know God any other way. I see Christ in my parents, friends, strangers, in love and hope. I can see Him in their eyes and their lives. But I wouldn't have known what I was seeing if others never saw it, too. If Israel never knew God, or never told, I wouldn't have known Him. If God never loved, we wouldn't have known love. If it depended on science, I would have had to be agnostic - not just about God, but many other things besides. If it depended on people, I might even have been atheist. I might have been whatever it was the fashion of the day to be. As such, I'm almost glad it's falling out of fashion - that way I can see who I really am much more clearly.

But never, ever, will I fall into the trap of thinking it's religion that makes that relationship possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top