What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?

Rav said:
I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*.
Click to expand...

I'm an agnostic (epistemologically) and effectively an atheist (I'm reasonably certain that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic 'God' doesn't exist).

But having said that, I follow a Buddhist practice. (Or more accurately, I feel guilty about not giving that practice the attention it deserves.)

In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I don't.

One of the things that attracts me to Buddhism is that primarily, it's what religious-studies types call an 'orthopraxy'. That word means 'right practice', and it's contrasted with 'orthodoxy', which means 'right belief'. In Buddhism, what matters isn't so much what you believe as what you do.

Am I certain that my thinking and ideas accurately reflect those of the Buddha and the historical tradition? No. I'm pretty sure that some of my ideas are dramatically different. I feel no guilt about crafting a modernist form of Buddhist philosophy for myself that's consistent with contemporary scientific understanding of the universe. The Buddha formed his ideas and expressed his message in terms of the concepts that were available in his ancient time and place. I suspect that if he were alive today, he'd probably express his insights in terms derived from our time and place, cognitive neuroscience or something.

Am I certain that my more traditional ideas of Buddhist practice will successfully deliver me to salvation, nibbana or whatever it's supposed to be? No. I have no way of knowing that. In fact, I'm almost certain that it isn't going to happen in this lifetime. I don't anticipate any grand enlightenment events.

But having acknowledged that, and addressing your question more directly, practice isn't without its own internal verification and rewards. But it's modest and subtle, small alterations in mood, awareness, cognition and functioning that seem to be improvements.

This isn't about supernatural personalities or revealed transcendntal ontologies. It's just a matter of making simple changes (both inner-contemplative and outer-ethical) in real life and then observing what the effects seem to be. If the results seem to be positive, then the practice might be working and appears to have some truth in a pragmatic sense.

Can I be sure that other paths don't work? Of course not. It's entirely possible that different inconsistent practices have their own pragmatic truth for different individuals in different psychological circumstances. The Buddhist tradition (and perhaps the Buddha himself) used the analogy of medicine to describe this. They portray the Buddha as a physician treating spiritual disease. And just as a physician prescribes different treatments to different patients depending on their circumstances, the Buddha often did the same with his teaching. The early discourses are always delivered to particular individuals in response to particular needs.
 
Adstar said:
Because i am not reliant on my own performance but on the promise of a perfect God. In my belief it is Jesus who saves, i rely on His righteousness. His Honesty, His perfection. Not my own. Therefore if i believe Jesus i accept the Way they He says leads to being saved. That is by believing and trusting Jesus. Then I can be totally confident. Belief is an easy thing.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this belief with the book of James Chapter 2?
 
Rav said:
I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*.
Click to expand...
this sounds of doctrine not of belief.
doctrine spells out what you are supposed to believe and do,
belief is what you believe.

I do not join a church and change my beliefs to suit them, i find a church that closest believes as i believe.(no such thing as perfect)
i try to do what i think God wants me to do, not what some human wants me to do.

In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
this intones an 'if i just do what i am told,i will be saved', again capatilized on by the church..thing is, who is telling you? God or some man behind a pulpit.

I believe, if we were able to strip all the ritual, and posturing out of all the religions, we would find more things in common..
religion is what you make it, no more, no less.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.
Click to expand...
i have a baptism certificate, does that count?:eek::D

<edit>
btw, only read the first page, but well said all..
 
Well I, as you all may have guessed by now, foster a deep belief in the new doctrine of 'Universal Creationism'. My belief is the ideal as any religion (which I will refer to as subsets) can be encompassed into its teachings. There is no fixed abode of God if you will. God is all you want it to be. The only fixed rule being that any stance anyone may take is immateterial in regards to conflict between subsets because god is all. Any interpretation has the will of God's blessing, though he has no will as such bar a symbolic will symptom of the universes ability to compute using an evolved structure/settling. In fact all the subsets of the world have God's designs flowing through them, and are mutually exclusive and emulative of gods ability to foster ALL his incumbents. The evolution of the universe and all its evolved/evolving subsets are accepted at once (indeed all subsets are still/always evolving).

My god does not need you to believe, and it assuredly does not want you to believe. It just requires you(as part of your inclusion in its universe) to be that which you want to be. And do this within its all.

All laws of science, physics, logic etc. apply.

All the movement suggests is that one calls god 'All', and bathes in the 'All' of 'All'.
 
Last edited:
universaldistress said:
All belief has structure. I think he is just trying to ask why you believe your system of faith/belief is the one for you, above all others?
Click to expand...

um, ignoring the 'system' part,(implies 'do as your told')

why do i believe my faith/belief is the one for me?
because it is the one that God has guided me to.
 
NMSquirrel said:
um, ignoring the 'system' part,(implies 'do as your told')
Click to expand...

A system can be personally formed and subject to personal evolution of one's choosing ie, not fixed by any but you, or even not even by you, if you choose?

why do i believe my faith/belief is the one for me?
because it is the one that God has guided me to.
Click to expand...

That is answer enough I suppose. One's personal belief is down to one's own choice/finding.
 
universaldistress said:
A system can be personally formed and subject to personal evolution of one's choosing ie, not fixed by any but you, or even not even by you, if you choose?
Click to expand...
it still implies limits to what God can do.

God: i want you to do this.
Me: but my system/doctrine/whatever says i can't do that.
God: who are you going to listen to?
 
NMSquirrel said:
it still implies limits to what God can do.
Click to expand...

The system can be one of no limits?

God: i want you to do this.
Me: but my system/doctrine/whatever says i can't do that.
God: who are you going to listen to?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you do not decide?

The structure of your belief makes any limitations or lack of limitations you require?

Freedom is a choice.
 
Rhaedas said:
Maybe more of a focus should be the question...WHY did you choose your current belief? Did you ever have a choice, or have you always assumed what you believe is right?
Click to expand...

I was born as a Christian, but dropped out around 13. By 16 or so I was meditating. After a few years experimenting with different belief systems, Buddhism was the best fit because of near immediate results.

Great , join the human race of Super men . Good soldiers of love are hard to come by . Autistic kids can have trouble knowing when to breath . SID babies too . Natural responses to bombardments against there natural human baby archetypes ? I Don't know ? I think some people are afraid to breath . They don't feel worthy to live so they have problems taking there share of life giving air. Part of My theories on anal retention in modern societies . Don't Bust Me for using Theory wrong DW
Click to expand...

I think you can sum this up in a clear sentence or two. If you did it would be beneficial to my understanding. Come again?
 
gmilam said:
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this belief with the book of James Chapter 2?
Click to expand...

I believe James was talking about people who did not Love their neighbours. The two laws we follow is Love God and Love your neighbour. James was saying that if you don't help your neighbour in their distress, in practical ways then it shows that you do not love your neighbour and thus you are a fake.

But still we are saved by faith. those who have the faith will seek to love their neighbour. That fruit comes from the genuine belief.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Rav said:
I've seen you make this point before, but there is really no incompatibility if you understand that even though you can't "earn" salvation, there are typically practices that flow from having accepted it (such as prayer, continued repentance, evangelism etc). Such "practices" are important to many people so it seemed natural to include the word.
Click to expand...

Well i do pray, and when i do something wrong i feel regret that just comes naturally now and of course i do share the message of Jesus. But again none of these things earns me eternity with God. I believe it is God who saves. All glory and honour is to Him. As Isaiah said:

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.



I know what it typically means, but not every religious person in this forum is of an Abrahamic faith. I had others in mind when I decided to expand the definition of the word so as not to exclude them. Some may see rising to a higher plane of existence as a salvation of sorts, for example. If I get more complaints about this literary blasphemy I shall do something about it, but for now I trust that the intent is clear.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy? A bit too strong of an expression in relation to the issue i think.

You seem to be saying that the most important thing of all is proper submission to God's righteousness and power. Does it matter to one's salvation then if they believe that Jesus died for their sins (or not), as long as they adopt this attitude towards God? If not, fair enough. If so, how have you become certain that it matters?
Click to expand...

If one believes and trusts in Jesus then one will believe He died for their sins. I cannot see how anyone who truly believed Jesus would not believe He died for there sins. Is it such an incredible concept?

Believing Jesus but disbelieving Hie died for ones sin. Is like climbing over a great mountain, then upon coming to a staircase being unable to go up the first step.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Adstar said:
If one believes and trusts in Jesus then one will believe He died for their sins. I cannot see how anyone who truly believed Jesus would not believe He died for there sins. Is it such an incredible concept?
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. An educated agnostic who is seeking the truth knows that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for their sins. But they also likely know that the Qur'an teaches Jesus wasn't crucified at all. Specifically it teaches that regardless of the reports of such, Jesus was in fact taken up to heaven to be with Allah instead. It also teaches that while the Bible has some authority, and is indeed a good book for learn from, it has been superseded by the more recent revelation contained within the Qur'an. So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.

What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.
 
Signal said:
I believe that if a person is truly convinced of something, they will act accordingly. If they aren't convinced, they won't act accordingly.

This is not to say that everyone who acts a certain way has the according convictions.
Just that when the issue is about declaring convictions, then actions are the measure of them.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, I have heard the testimonies of former protestant pastors and spouses of pastors who held back from formally entering the church for a time due to financial concerns etc. They were convicted of the Truth of the Church and yet.....

I suppose that one could say that this is merely a stage in the process of conviction and then building up the courage to act on that conviction. That is, a stage whereby one must translate the growing conviction into action.

Otherwise I agree with you. A person's action in this matter is a measure of their conviction.
 
Rav said:
Are you saying then that it is less likely for a person to be "right" with God if they have not embraced the new testament teachings of Jesus, or if they instead embrace a doctrine that may recognize that it has some authority, but has been superseded by more recent prophecy? Of course you have already indicated that exceptions can be made for people of any religion who genuinely seek God, which seems fair.
Click to expand...
I make no asserion as to how "right with God" ANYone is. That is between them personally and God.

The question you asked is, "What makes you (that would be me, personally) certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not? (in choosing to be a Catholic Christian as opposed to Jewish or Islamic)

But - as to the teachings of the two groups mentioned (Abrahamic traditions)
The Jews, as a faith, rejected the coming of the Messiah in Christ Jesus. So they find no authority at all in the NT.
Islam, on the other hand seems to accept some of the NT concepts, but likewise rejects the fullfilment that we see in Christ. So their prophet wrote a whole new book to set the record straight.
In this I see shades similar to the founding of Mormonism. The claim that the NT writers and the "pre-canon" interpreters got it wrong and so here is another book that gets it right....

Now these are my personal views. They are not to be taken as in any way reflecting official church teaching. If you'd like to see what the church says about our lrelationship to Islam, you could look it up in the catechism.
 
Rav said:
So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the point I have made earlier, namely, that the question of choosing the right religion presupposes a fear or conviction in an evil God?


What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.
Click to expand...

What do you think -
Who can answer these questions?
Can one person answer them for other people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top