Why do believers choose one belief system over another?

[Zhade]

This is something that's been puzzling me for years, and I still don't have a good answer for it. Maybe believers here can help me see it from their persepctive.

Why do you follow one belief system, and not another? For example, there is as much evidence for the ancient Greek gods as there is for the Christian god, yet we don't see a significant number of believers who espouse the faith that Zeus is looking out for them. Likewise, not a ton of Odin worshippers around.

What gives? What convinced you that one set on ancient tales had veracity, while another did not - especially when both belief systems have a comparable level of supporting evidence?

Seriously - not flamebait. I truly don't understand why some believers choose XXX and others choose YYY. Little help?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. All I can do is speak for myself

I have visited many different religious places of many different religions, trying always to honor and respect that particular faith and those who worship that way. But what caused me to follow the spiritual path I'm on is a feeling inside.

I take it you are not a believer in God(s), so I'll try and explain it in a way that might better relate to you. Have you ever gone to a party or perhaps a shop or some gathering and felt out of place-like this scene isn't for you? And then you've gone to another party or shop or gathering and immediately felt at home, like this was the right place to be? If you have, then realize that inner feeling is what I have always used to decide if I needed to be in a certain place or follow a certain path. Some call this "intuition" and others "inner guidance". All I know is that I can tell by this feeling what is right for me.

[Zhade]

3. Well, it's believers I hope will step up to explain.

I do have to ask, though - what was it about the feeling that made you decide that it was motivated by the 'truth' of your particular faith?

That's part of the puzzle that just eludes me, because I can't fathom how people can ascribe specific meanings to nebulous feelings.

Thanks for replying, btw!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I'm a believer

but I can't say that the feeling I have had that a particular path is the one for me (I won't use the word "right" because there are many "right" ways to the Truth) was motivated by the "truth" of my faith. In fact, I was directed to Sufism by a series of mystical experiences and coincidences. I can truthfully say that before this series started, I had not heard of Sufism-only the term "whirling dervishes" and I didn't even know really then what a dervish was. And yet when I look at the Ten Sufi Thoughts and other tenets of my order, I realize that they embody ideas and ideals that I have held all my life-for example:

Thought Five:
There is One Law, the law of reciprocity, which can be observed by a selfless conscience, together with a sense of awakened justice.

Thought Six:
There is One Brotherhood, the human brotherhood which unites the children of earth indiscriminately in the Brotherhood of God.

Thought Nine:
There is One Truth, the true knowledge of our being, within and without, which is the essence of all wisdom.

These words ring true to me, to the core of my being. They might seem flat to another's ears, and that is fine, for this is not their spiritual path.

I hope this gives you greater understanding of what I'm trying to say.

[Zhade]

15. Some pretty nifty Thoughts there!

I can see why you embrace them. :)

[tulsakatz]

90. Sufism!

I can't believe someone else has even heard of this religion!! Usually when I mention Sufism, people don't have a clue of what I'm talking about.........

I used to do Sufi dancing! I once went to a Sufi camp where many people were doing the whirling.

Back to the original question.........I can't speak for fundamentalism because I have absolutely no desire to belong to a fundamental religion..........it's just not for me.

I think each person has to decide for themselves which religion is right for them or even if religion is right for them! If they should decide that religion is not their thing, that's ok too.

And many of the world's religions have similarities. Such as the Golden Rule. Maybe all religions don't call it the golden rule but there is still that element of truth in it. It's just that different religions present it in a different way. All religion or spirituality has truth in it. And just because I don't believe in the same dogma as you, does not make you wrong or me right.

Ultimately, I think people choose a teaching that resonates with something inside of them.

[I Have A Dream]

8. I'm not the person to whom you addressed this, but I felt the need...

to answer. For me, I searched for what made me feel as though I was being true to myself. If it turns out that it's not the truth, so be it. However, everything to which I'm drawn is for the highest good of all involved. Therefore, it makes me a much better person than I'd be if I didn't follow my beliefs.

It's hard to describe it because it feels like an "inner knowing" -- it's not just feelings, although they are involved as well.

[Zhade]

16. Please, feel free to answer! All considered thoughts are welcome.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, or to exclude anyone (though we atheists will naturally not be able to speak to the question my OP asks).

All are welcome to answer, and I welcome each person's answers. While I don't believe mythical supernatural beings exist, that doesn't preclude me from wanting to understand others - some of whom probably don't believe in such beings themselves (after all, I asked all believers, and not just theists specifically, to answer).


"If it turns out that it's not the truth, so be it."

An admirable attitude, and one I share. It's not that I KNOW there are no gods, I just don't believe they exist, because I've seen no evidence of any.


"However, everything to which I'm drawn is for the highest good of all involved."

May I ask what you are drawn to?


"Therefore, it makes me a much better person than I'd be if I didn't follow my beliefs."

Is that really the case, though? You seem to be honest and decent, and I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be that way without your belief system, whatever it may be.

That's a compliment, btw. :)

[I Have A Dream]

22. This is extremely difficult for me to put into words.

I think that different people are drawn to different things. I have absolutely no concrete evidence that anything exists outside of this plane. However, every fiber of my being tells me otherwise. I don't know how someone who has not felt this could ever understand it. If I were you, I'd be confused also.

In reference to me being drawn to the highest good of all involved, I try to do this with every decision that I make. It's not a big overwhelming vision (although I do have a dream, thus my username :), but it's the same dream that I think we all have on DU). It's realizing that the tiniest decision that we make in reference to others can have monumental consequences. I can't say that I'm always able to look at things this way, but it is how I strive to live my life, and it is my belief system that pushes me to do this. When you ask what I'm drawn to, do you mean what spiritual teachings?

In reference to me being a better person because of my beliefs, I do indeed believe that it is my beliefs that have made me the person that I am today. I feel as though I made a choice at some point to dedicate myself to working for the good of the world, and it is because of my beliefs that I made that decision. I also think that people are on different soul evolutionary levels, with some souls being relatively new (being in what's equivalent to soul kindergarten) and some souls being old souls (here to get their post-graduate soul degrees). The old souls aren't better than the new souls, in my belief system-- they've just been here more times and, therefore, have evolved already. (By the way, I honestly believe that a Democrat's more likely to be an old soul than a new soul.) Needless to say, I believe in reincarnation.

If I didn't have spiritual beliefs, I think that I'd still be a good person, but I wouldn't be who I am today.

I hope that I answered most of your questions. If not, I'll be happy to provide more information. I remember being in church when I was young and feeling as though I had not found my home. My current beliefs make me feel as though I've found my home, and it's not in any church. Until I found my home, I felt a dull ache in my soul -- almost like homesickness. Again, this probably makes no sense if you haven't felt it.

Thank you for the compliment. :hug:

[tulsakatz]

91. if you're looking for proof that a God exists.......

......you probably won't find any physical evidence.

For those of us who do believe in God, the evidence of God can be found just by being in touch with Nature. Like enjoying a beautiful sunset, a walk in the park and enjoying God's creations. But if you don't believe in God, these things will not be conclusive proof that there is a God.

And that is not to say that I'm right and you're wrong or that I'm wrong and you're right........we just have different opinions, that's all.

[I Have A Dream]

6. Yes -- absolutely the same for me.

I went all the way from Evangelical Christianity to what people would describe as being New Age. I've found what is right for me by following my inner voice.

I consider myself to be extremely spiritual and not at all religious. There's a really big difference between the two to me.

[Maat]

11. I agee, Ayeshahaqqiqa.

I was raised a Presbyterian. I left the church at 15, telling my beloved grandmother that I was a feminist, believed in equal opportunity for all, and could not attend a church that taught that a woman had to submit to her husband, and that homosexuality was a sin.

I did not attend church for thirty years after that.

Then, because I wanted my child to be exposed to healthy spiritual practices, I did quite a bit of research. My goal was to attend a church and donate to it knowing that neither the individual church or the church's administrative body was anti-human-rights.

By virtue of that research, I recommend such churches as the Modern Quaker Movement (Society of Friends), United Church of Christ, Unity, Church of Religious Science, the Epsicopalian church, and the Unitarian-Universalist church. The main thing these churches have in common is honoring diversity in spirituality.

I also appreciate what Ayeshahaqqiqa teaches me about Sufi practices, and we both are universalists, honoring different spiritual paths. Thus, the spiritualities I explore not only honor all paths, but believe that all spiritual paths lead to the One.

Due to that feeling inside, however, I selected Religious Science for me, chiefly because it spoke about a Spirit within and without, a nonjudgmental Spirit there to help and love, and honoring all paths (all paths leading to the One); I liked its unique traditions, such as its unique affirmative prayer practice.

[Zhade]

17. I always appreciate your insights, Maat.

May I ask, what is it that helps you conclude that there is a 'Spirit' that helps you?

Is it a feeling? Have you 'seen' something?

These are the kinds of personal subjective experiences I can't wrap my mind around. More of your insight would be good to read.

[Maat]

21. I feel a very comforting consciousness within.

I had a very stressful childhood; when I found most down, I felt a comforting feeling within. I've also had several experiences as an adult.

For example, I was in a bad car accident once; the car was completely destroyed. The paramedics said I should have been killed; I walked away without a scratch - well, I had some bruising on the ribs where the seatbelt kept me from going through the windshield. When the drunk hit me (the impact happened), I spun and spun around. A comforting consciousness enveloped me, and it was as if someone had put the thought in my head: "Turn the wheel in the same direction as you are spinning, remember." I did, and the police said that had been the right thing to do. A few seconds after the impact, I could see a light and a comforting presence enveloping me, and I heard my grandmother's voice telling me that I was fine - and that I would walk away without a scratch. I needed to live to raise a daughter, and to be there for my husband (we didn't have a daughter at the time). Help will come."

She seemed to be there as energy. She was my deceased paternal grandmother, who had essentially raised me. My husband was away in Texas at the time. The cops said they could not take me home - I had no phone and had shut down a highway. Suddenly, I heard a booming voice say, "Dawn, is that you?" It was one of the counselors from the substance abuse clinic in which I volunteered. "We'll take you home." One could say I was temporarily "psycho," or one could conclude that there are things beyond what we know to be true.

It is o.k. if Bobby Henderson, of Flying Spaghetti Monster fame, calls it supernatural. I can accept that. I don't want my belief system taught in science class; we can explore these things in church class, or in philosophy class, or whatever.

And, when I engage in affirmative prayer, and I state what is my reality (what I need for my goal), and I visualize it, it comes to pass. Is it using my mental power, is it Sprit helping me, is it me availing myself of a System, or all three? Who knows?

Thanks for the kind words, Zhade.

My hubby calls himself "virtually an atheist." But he doesn't have a problem with me taking the kid to church, because it is a pro-human-rights, pro-GLBT, pro-equal-opportunity church that teaches positive thinking. As I know Spirit, Spirit does not care if you choose to avail yourself of a certain technique, such as affirmative prayer. Spirit is the Unimind, the One, the One Consciousness , the One-Energy, or the Cosmic Muffin, if you will. It is there for you at your convenience. You are there to experience for Spirit. You can do that calling yourself whatever you want.

I honor both my believer friends, my nonbeliever friends, and my questioning friends equally. I think that the important thing is to be involved in a faith that is nonjudgmental and non-punitive, and to allow each person to live their life per their own unique belief system. Do no harm, in other words.

Hope that helps, insightfully-speaking, of course.


I always appreciate your posts also; these threads are my favorite. I tend to avoid ones where two posters go back and forth insulting each other because of belief or non-belief. That's a timewaster. This type of thing improves my insight.

[Arianrhod]

34. "I was in a bad car accident once"

I had a very similar experience when I was in my early 20s. I was driving along the freeway, when I noticed that I was doing 60 mph. At the time, the speed limit was 55, so I took my foot off the gas. Just then the left rear wheel of my car suddenly sheered off its lugs. I remember distinctly watching the wheel roll past me, and wondering what it was! :D Then the car went into a high-speed spin. I watched the guard rail go past once before I realized what was happening. I remember having lots and lots of time to react. I thought to myself, "Which way am I supposed to turn the wheel? Oh, yeah, into the spin." I did, and by the next spin the car had stopped, facing the correct direction, just on the edge of the emergency lane. A truck pulled up behind me, and two men ran out of it. One of them yelled to me, "That's the goddamnedest driving I've ever seen in my life!" hahaha I got out of the car and they helped me push it the rest of the way to the side. I felt very calm. In fact, I had the very strong impression of a large hand literally holding me in its grasp.

The mind does odd things under stress, and eventually I broke down into uncontrollable trembling, but that sense of a "hand" resting on my life has never left me. I feel it now, even as I write this. I don't think I'm alone in having such a feeling, although my interpretation of it may be a bit different than others', and my sense of it very seldom leaves me.

I don't believe in a supernatural per se. But I do think that, if you trust the Universe, it will respond to that trust.

[Maat]

35. Yes, and that idea pretty much is the basis of the church's

philosophy.

The Universe could be called 'Universal Consciousness,' 'Spirit,' 'the Unimind,' or 'God.' It just depends on how one chooses to process things.

I don't harm anyone with my faith; I don't proselytize. When asked, I explain.

My faith is valuable to me, and is entirely compatible with science and evolution. I'm not out there trying to get 'ID' in the schools; in fact, I would not send my child to a school in which intelligent design, or anything close to it, was taught in science class.

Take care!

[Arianrhod]

36. I understand. :)

The Universe is Mind, and we are but the Mind's thoughts. :)

Awesome.

[Maat]

46. Yep.

I believe this theme is articulated in the writings of many churches/faiths/belief-systems, including Pagan beliefs, no?

[Arianrhod]

71. Oh, absolutely.

I'm a Pagan Gnostic myself, a Celtic Druid whose family name goes back 2800 years. As a Pagan, I believe in the Oneness of All. As a Gnostic, I view the Universe as a dream. Not our dream, of course; I agree with the Hermeticists that the Dreamer is unknowable. We are, instead, a part of that dream. Life becomes very different when we learn how to--in Freke and Gandy's term--live lucidly. :)

[Maat]

72. That is so totally cool!

I have to write that down - and tell my daughter about it.

[Arianrhod]

85. haha Most excellent. :) nt

[Zhade]

37. "My faith...is entirely compatible with science..."

So, I gotta ask, does this mean that you see your experiences (say, with the accident), in scientific terms?

Leaving aside the question of evidence (I didn't start this thread to try to trick anyone or 'prove' anyone wrong), can you share with me what that means to you?

In other words, do you view your accident experience as indicative of something unexplained that you 'tapped into'? Like maybe, I don't know, a part of the universe we don't have proof exists, but might uncover one day? Another dimension, perhaps, or...?

Again, I'm not trying to tear down your experience. You say you had it, I have no reason to consider you a liar. I could say that it might have been all in your mind, but then you conceded that possibility, and anyway I'm more interested in understanding your point of view than 'proving' you wrong (which I'm not sure I could do, or would want to do - it was after all your personal experience, whatever it may have been).

Hope that doesn't sound aggressive.

[Maat]

45. I would say that I view it as ..

"indicative of something unexplained .."

Science, to me, involves testable theories. Sometimes we haven't gotten to that point yet.

You have been very polite in discussing these things; I certainly do not mind the questions.

[Zhade]

60. I'm tired of the anger.

Even though I firmly do not subscribe to what I see as nonsensical belief in unproven mythical beings, I don't want to keep the wheel of rage turning.

Even when someone is right (say, BMUS' clear refutations of certain posters), the anger just gets tiresome. Not her anger, but the overall anger.

I don't need to mock someone for their beliefs. I do need to defend reality, and if that's seen as 'attacking' believers' beliefs...it's regrettably necessary.

But if I can approach it respectfully, I can't see why I shouldn't.

Personally, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't hold certain beliefs. They just lack any connection to any alleged gods. Some of the things I feel could be true remain unproven, and I would never state they were factual. So most of us are probably a lot more alike than we are different.

I think most humans have a portion of 'woo-woo-osity' to them. Those that don't, I admire for their clear thinking.

I can likewise admire good, rational people like yourself, and other believers and theists, even if I don't agree with your beliefs. Takes all kinds, ya know?

[Maat]

67. Takes all kinds to make a world!

And I can admire atheists and others as well!

We need to work together on progressive causes - including supporting separation of church and state, which I support strongly, so that we can all make our choices and have them respected.

We never have needed to proselytize in our church; people naturally are attracted to it.

It starts getting confusing when we use the term, 'God' or 'gods.' For example, we Religious Scientists believe in Spirit, or the One-Energy, or the Universal Consciousness. Is that 'God?' I say, 'yes,' but some would say it is different. I say, "God," or "Spirit," but to me that encompasses higher levels of consciousness and being I may not as yet understand or experience.

And I agree; the anger has got to stop. It is just too destructive.

We can work together and respect each other.

I just don't have a problem when someone defends reality (whatever that means to them), but, I agree, we can discuss these things respectfully. The key is just phrasing things in ways such as "In my opinion .."

Thanks for the kind words. Right back at ya'!

[Arianrhod]

69. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply I thought my accident was

somehow influenced by the supernatural.

I don't believe in a "supernatural", actually. I believe in the laws of physics, and in evolution. But I believe in them profoundly, by which I mean that I'm quite willing to accept the more extreme possibilities these theories posit. Erwin Schroedinger--one of the founders of modern quantum mechanics--personally believed that what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle means is that nothing in the Universe exists until it is observed. This, for him, was true at any level--micro or macro. At one point, he wrote that "the universe is not like a mechanism; it is more like a thought." Sir Roger Penrose, the renouned mathematician and collaborator with Stephen Hawking on black hole theory, personally believes that there is a level of existence that corresponds to Plato's Ideal, in which the secrets of the Universe "dwell", and which can be tapped into by those who seek it earnestly enough. (He says so in The Emperor's New Mind.) Fritjof Capra, another quantum physicist, believes that the Universe displays the same interconnectedness and hyperconsciousness that is described in mystical religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism; he called the interplay of particles "the dance of Shiva". Astrophysicist Paul Davies wrote in the mid-1980s that, unless we take into account the effects of virtual particles--ie, particles that do not exist in the way we think of existence--all of our spatial calculations are wrong. IOWs, things that aren't there affect the things that are.

Who needs supernaturalism, when the natural world is so full of mysteries? :)

I have, indeed, "tapped into" various levels of consciousness, although I don't think that happened during my accident. In that case, my mind simply behaved as everyone else's does during a traumatic or life-endangering experience. (I only mentioned it at all because it was so similar to Maat's.) But I've had other experiences which were much more profound.

What are these levels? Where do they reside? What do they mean? I honestly don't know. But then, I honestly don't know who I am, where I ultimately came from, where I am ultimately going. Alan W Watts wrote of a young man who would often find, in the corner of his mind, a "being" who was "watching" him whenever he took an LSD trip. After several such sessions, he finally asked it, "Who are you?" The being responded, "Who wants to know?"

I think that's the ultimate question we'd all like to answer.

Freud wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents, "We are 'lived' by unknown and uncontrollable forces." We do not yet have anything even approaching a true scientific theory of consciousness (although, IMO, Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman is coming very close in his book A Universe of Consciousness). I'm concerned that, in our haste to do away with deities and supernatural influences, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by denying concepts such as multiple levels of existence, higher states of consciousness, and deeper connectedness to the physical world around us. We marvel at the technology we have devised, but how many of us really think about what that technology means? We are sending light waves across space without moving them, replicating physical objects by means of solid holograms, tunneling particles faster than the speed of light; what does all this tell us about the Universe, if not that it "is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine" (Schroedinger again)?

I find this stuff to be so fascinating, that half the time I don't even want to be bothered going into work in the morning. . . . :)

[Maat]

73. I think that I understand.

Where I'm coming from: I'm not scared of exploring the "supernatural" or the "metaphysical," whatever those terms mean; however, even though I believe in some things that have not been proven per our current scientific analysis-related models, I do believe ultimately that I will understand the System, but maybe not on this level of consciousness.

I think that what I said is entirely compatible with your view.

I'm also really fascinated by it also; I'm very fascinated with the common themes that have shown up in the world's religions and belief systems (e.g. the Golden Rule, the idea that all paths lead to the One, or that "the Universe is Mind," as you said). These themes tend to come up in the more enlightened progressively-oriented versions of the faiths - rather than the rigid, patriarchal versions).

Fascinating.

The founder of Religious Science, my faith, Ernest Holmes was known as the "Great Synthesizer," because he explored and incorporated ancient beliefs into his philosophy. That is one very fun aspect of going to the church; my pastor loves delving into these things.

Fun!

[Arianrhod]

88. I think we're pretty close in our outlooks. :) nt

[Zhade]

75. See, I'm much the same way.

It's just that gods simply don't enter into the picture for me, because I cannot physically believe in them - there's zero evidence that the gods described in pretty much all religions exist.

What you speak of, regarding dimensions and all that, may very well exist, and science is certainly teasing out possibilities. But thousands-year-old tribal myths? Those are no closer to being true than the tale of Lucky the Leprechaun, based on the lack of supporting evidence.

Could there be beings like 'gods' out there? Maybe, but so far there's no credible reason to think there are. However, I wouldn't say there's no reason to not wonder about what science hasn't helped us uncover yet, if there's anything to uncover.

I'd be fascinated to read more about those things you detail in your last paragraph - got any links I could peruse?

[Arianrhod]

86. I might be able to get you started.

I read about these things in hard-copy Discover Magazine and IEEE Spectrum. I don't have time for a real search at the moment, but here's a link for FTL:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n1_v146/ai_15570666

[Arianrhod]

87. BTW, I actually saw an example last year

of a holographically-produced object. I attended a museum showing of Celtic artifacts from 200 BCE. One of them--an 18"-tall carved deer--had been reproduced using a holographic replicator. A blueprint of the statue was fed to the machine, and, using jets that sprayed liquid polymers at a target platform from several directions, it recreated the deer in mid-air. We were allowed to pick the copy up and study it. Pretty cool.

[mrcheerful]

2. Its called the catholic church and the grand inquisition

They pretty much murdered and destroyed all other religions of the past. What you see in religion today are the survivers of the dark ages. Remember at the time catholics were he only christen church it was only after the dark age that sects broke off from the catholic church.

[Zhade]

18. But certainly there are more belief systems than Christianity.

Why does a Hindu believe in gods? Why does a Jewish person not believe Jesus to be more than a man, while most Christians revere him as divine?

It's a large question than the settled and acknowledged treachery of the Catholic Church hierarchy.

[Hardrada]

4. Most people are born into a religion

and since most never develop an analytical or critical sense, they remain in the same faith. Same reason a great many people don't "get" satirical humor.

[Zhade]

19. But then I know many believers who are VERY critical thinkers.

Except with regards to accepting their preferred unproven god.

Why the contradiction?

[Hardrada]

28. Mental compartmentalization

Educated Xians are very good at this. I decided not to lead a life like that since everything must be appraised and scrutinized. Even the compartmentalizing phenomenon since it is so irrational it is almost primordial like vestigial gills on an amphibian.

[Zhade]

38. Would it be fair to say that the more literalist a believer is...

...the more compartmentalized their mind becomes?

In other words, a believer who just kind of feels Something Out There that they describe as 'god' has less cognitive dissonance than, say, someone who erroneously thinks the Earth was created in six literal 24-hour days?

It seems to me that the more nebulous, the more vague the overall notion of 'god' becomes, the more room there is for a believer to operate under logic and reason, even if there's no objective evidence their god actually exists.

Make sense?

[Hardrada]

53. Strict logic and reason would not indicate

any deity at this point. One can mathematically posit a fourth dimension but that does not prove any theistic truth.

[Zhade]

62. I pretty much have to agree.

There is no evidence for the existence of gods outside subjective personal experiences rife with the possibility of misinterpretation.

[Burning Water]

5. Not a lot of Odin worshippers around???

google 'Asatru'.

[Zhade]

20. I confess to being uneducated about the amount of "Norse faithful".

Still, I think the point stands, regardless of the numbers - after all, "universal truth is not measured in mass appeal".

Why do most Christians not also believe in odin, or Zeus, or Ganesha? The ability to choose between different gods with roughly equivalent evidence (little to none, I must add) bewilders me, and I wish I understood it better.

[Burning Water]

31. That's sort of the

genius of paganism. Every cult was basically a local or ethnic type cult. but the ancient pagans saw the similarities. "This goddess is really Aphrodite. "This god is equivalent to Apollo; this one to Zeus". Etc.

Very different from the monotheistic Gods, Yahweh and Allah, who are very different from each other. Also very different from, say, Buddhism.

I'm a Christian myself. I think that I have valid reasons for being so, that do not depend on my 'feelings', a foolish reason for making any decision. However, they are too complex to discuss on a forum like this one, especially as I generally post during breaks at work. There would have to be a lot of back and forth as I made statements that were obvious to me, while you required a greater explanation. Then there would be my questions about your opinions.

Why don't you find a Christian that you can discuss this with personally, and ask him why not? As to why most Christians don't believe in other gods, my own (short) answer is that God said we were to worship only Him. So we can either worship Him and no other, or not, but we can't do both.

[Zhade]

39. Um, Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same god.

The 'god of Abraham', as it were.

As far as asking Christians, I've 'been' one before, so believe me, I've asked!

I really find the last bit of your post perplexing. You say your god said to worship only him...but why is it that you believe that god's decree over another's?

That's sort of the whole reason I posted the thread. I don't understand why one believer will pick one belief system, and another another, when the alleged gods of both systems may very well say 'worship me and only me'.

If it's not feelings that drive you to decide one decree is the one to follow, and not the other, what could it be?

(I understand the posting-at-work-on-break thing - I do it all the time. Time constraints hinder full discussion, alas.)

[manic expression]

56. I think

some information on pantheism could help.

There are many belief systems, so while Christians, Jews and Muslims do not believe in Zeus, Odin, Ganesha or any other deity besides their own, there is so much more. Look no further than paganism, as they worship a MYRIAD of gods and goddesses. Look no further than Hinduism, as god is seen in and as all things, from worshiped deities to trees to the wind to a house to a rock to an animal to a person (I think this is the same in paganism...and Shintoism as well, I believe). Look no further than Shintoism, as it may be a rock or tree that is held in esteem, and I believe there is ample evidence for rocks and trees.

Perhaps you are working from an understanding of a monotheistic mindset, when there are many other mindsets to be understood.

The question on which god to choose: well, which sports team to choose? Which political party to choose? It is the same. People may devote themselves to one deity because they feel connected to it, or because their parents or their village worships it. However, there are many who do not follow the path of devotion.

I hope that helps.

[Zhade]

61. Well, yes and no on the choosing thing.

I mean, yes, people choose based on how they 'connect' - but then, sports teams and political parties are known to physically exist.

Gods, evidence-wise, aren't. So it's different in a significant way, and while your answer does extend some range to the idea of belief in general, it still doesn't help me understand how people pick one unproven thing to believe in over another.

I'm getting closer to understanding that, though.

[manic expression]

64. I see

but people don't root for a sports team based on the evidence of their chance of winning the championship. People choose political parties not because they think their party will win. All those choices rely on conviction and connection, or faith, if you will.

The thing is that the connection between a person and the deity does not have to be proven. I cannot prove love, but anyone who has had that sensation knows what I am talking about. It is about what is best for an individual. Atheism is best for you, so it would be unreasonable to ask for proof of your discomfort with religion.

Again, I hope that makes sense.

(edited spelling error)

[Zhade]

76. I wrote this great reply...and lost it.

:cry:

The gist was that I understand the connection angle, and yet don't get why believers have to believe their chosen myths actually happened in order for, say, the purported teachings of Jesus to resonate.

I mean, to ME, (most of) the words attributed to the biblical Jesus don't have to rely on unproven supernatural nonsense to mean something. Heck, I think all that stuff actually detracts from the idea of an extraordinary man teaching wonderful ideas like "love your fellow humans" - I like the idea that a human being came up with those ideals! (And, if Jesus did exist, he clearly was just a man, but a wise one.) Knowing that some guy 2,000 years ago came up with that kind of thinking, or even just furthered Bhuddist-type teachings, makes it more accessible, more possible that ALL humans can reach that point and essentially grow up to take care of each other.

Throwing in the silliness about unproven miracles and all that just removes humans' ability to treat each other well to a remote, judgement-from-on-high place. It doesn't elevate US, it elevates the ideals to a point where only 'god' can access them, and that's a tragedy, IMHO.

I also think it's a lie. Humans CAN be that good to each other, without the intervention of some supernatural deity.

[hunter]

78. Early Christianity was competing with other religions, not science.

All these competing religions had supernatural components.

Why would anyone follow a man, when the other religions offered gods?

:evilgrin:

It is astonishing to me that any of Christ's most radical teachings survived the subsequent corruption of the Church.

I don't think we need to be like Thomas Jefferson crossing the "miracles" out of his Bible, when the true miracle is that these teachings of Jesus survived. Jesus said so many radical things, and He called so many powerful people out on their hypocrisy that they eventually hung Him.

Yet the story survived.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." is an incredibly subversive idea in a world where the power structure is based almost entirely on casting stones; it is always some "us" against some "them" which is the way those who hold power keep the flock divided against itself, living in fear of their neighbors.

The idea that we are all imperfect, but that we can love one another and work together for a common good, threatens mightily those who control our resources.

[manic expression]

80. It's OK

I think a lot of the people you speak of are literalists, and they have as much opposition from religious people as from anyone else.

The belief that some myths happened exactly as they are written is indicative of, in my opinion, a fundamentalist mindset. Their mindset is that it HAS to be that way, for it is in the "book". However, for many religious people, it doesn't matter if a story happened or if it is loosely based on an event (a la Iliad), for its worth pervade that insignificant quality (it's different for various groups).

Another thing is that one cannot underestimate the importance of symbolism. The world may not literally balance upon a turtle's shell (Native American tale), but there is a balance that our world must have for it to continue. It is this that gives myths their real value, for it transcends time and setting.

To really answer your question, I can't say I know why people need to think things happened exactly as their book says it did. I also don't know why people blindly believe clearly incorrect things in politics. I can accurately answer why I DON'T think that way, but that is obvious.

However, I think there are many reasons for this type of folly. For some, it may make them feel more vindicated over other beliefs, while others are looking to put something where it doesn't need to be. The thought that leads to this incorrect conclusion is a mistake in itself, and arises from a lack of understanding IMO.

Well, the miracle thing is just something people do. Others believe the most insipid of lies about Iraq, while others waste their money on "miracle" products that really do nothing, so it is not confined to the realm of religion. The belief in such miracles is like a kid thinking he/she can use the force after watching Star Wars, for it has no place in the physical world. What about the miracles that happen everyday, many by human hand? That is what should be admired.

Sorry if I didn't answer everything.

[tulsakatz]

92. you covered a lot!!

Yes, fundamentalism usually leaves little room for interpretation but really interpretation is what it's all about!! I remember when I was a kid, unfortunately I attended a Baptist church. I would always be amazed at how the teachers or the Pastor would take a simple phrase from the Bible and interpret it (or you could also say 'spin') in a way that didn't seem logical to me. I remember how surprised I felt when I wondered how he could have gotten all of that from just one or two sentences.

And speaking of miracles, there is also another class I took (once I grew up and became more enlightened) called A Course in Miracles. It's not really a religion but it has to do with religion and spirituality. And it is a way of changing your perception of things and it helps you realize the many miracles that happen every day. It's a great course! And you can do it just once, or you can do it for years, whatever works for you.

You don't have to see a man walk on water to experience a miracle. Miracles happen every day but most of us are too busy or too distracted to be aware of them.

[SoKalKyle]

9. Mostly Inherited

Most religions, IMHO, are inherited from the parents. Kids are usually indoctrinated early and by the time they are able to think critically, the damage is done (Catholocism's guilt comes to mind -- no offense ). But it's the same with Muslims and Jews -- you are raised to believe it and you would have to disavow all of that life history to change it.

I was raised in a lapsed Christian family. They tried to put me in Sunday schools and I occasionally went to church but, once I realized that I didn't have to , I stopped (and slept in on Sundays).

I've been critical of religion all of my life but I still feel the influence of Christianity -- that nagging feeling that maybe I am wrong. Right now I am studying Buddhism and thinking about looking at Taoism -- because they are personal journeys without a god necessarily. My critical thinking still kicks in every once in a while and i stop and say 'what am i doing?" but i think i have chosen a path that i can live with.

[Maat]

23. And your exploration is a wonderful thing, in my humble opinion.

All paths lead to the One, I believe.

[StoryTeller]

10. From a believer...

This is a good question. My faith springs both from a process of deep critical thinking as well as personal experience. I am a Christian (yes, an "evangelical" even, albeit a progressive one) and the reason is because, after a lot of thinking and studying, I reached the conclusion that Christianity offered the best answers to questions that are deeply meaningful to me.

1) Why am I alive? What is my life all about?
2) Why is there evil in the world?
3) Why is there good in the world?
4) Why do innocent people suffer? Why do guilty people seem to succeed?
5) What happens when I die?
6) Is there anyone I can trust and rely on, who will never let me down?
7) Is there any way to make things right when I've done something wrong?

Maybe those questions aren't important to some people, but they are important to me. I think Christianity offers me the best and most sensible answers.

The other part of this, as I said, is personal experience. One of the most unique things about Christianity is that it presents a God that desires personal interaction with humans. It's become a cliche in the Christian community, but the idea of a "personal relationship" with a God that loves each person individually is an incredibly appealing concept.

I've found that knowing God gives me a deep sense of peace and even joy, no matter my situation. There's a centeredness that comes from this relationship with the God of the Bible--it frees me from being afraid, or panicking about all the awful things happening in the world. The times I do get upset or discouraged are usually the times I've tried to figure it all out on my own or stopped focusing on the fact that God is in control of my life. But I can say that in over 25 years of being a follower of Jesus, God has never let me down or abandoned me. My life is far from perfect, but it's been satisfying and fulfilling even in the ups and downs.

So that's why I believe what I do--study and critical reflection combined with a powerful internal experience.

[Zebedeo]

32. Amen, and bravo!

You said it better than I could have. :hi:

[Zhade]

40. And this is why it's so difficult for me to understand believers.

You ascribe many positives to your life thanks to your belief system - yet I, as an atheist, am right now happier in my life than I've ever been.

That's not to say it's because of my atheism, but I do have to note that I am far more complete and whole and joyful as a nonbeliever than I ever was attempting to be a Christian - one who never really could buy into the unproven nature of the bible's mythical supernatural tales.

Please, PLEASE understand that what I just said is NOT meant to insult, but to illuminate my thoughts. To me, the bible, and the books of all 'revealed' religions, are sometimes-nice, sometimes-wise stories, but nothing more.

I don't see any evidence that they are true stories, or that one needs to believe them to be literally true to acknowledge what good lessons might be contained within (some of the alleged Jesus' purported non-Paulian teachings are fairly wise and evolved).

Therein lies a wealth of frustration. Many believers truly believe (they've said as much to me) that one cannot be happy or moral without the belief that god is in their lives...yet my life demonstrates, to me at the very least, that such notions are completely inaccurate.

How do we bridge the gap between those of us who acknowledge that there is no evidence that the gods of religion exist, and those who accept on faith, without evidence, that there are beings somehow involved in our creation/life/existence?

[manic expression]

55. That's because

you are who you are. If no religion speaks to you and if the thought of a deity does not speak to you, what's the point in taking part in something that you feel no affinity towards? If atheism suits you, then that is the path you should follow. That's really what it boils down to with everyone.

Attempting to be something that doesn't fit you or your views is something that is dishonest to oneself.

To a lot of religious people, those very same stories are nothing more than sometimes-nice and sometimes-wise, but that wisdom and those morals are what it is all about. When you read a fiction novel, it's not about the factual backing of the characters, it's about the higher messages and themes you find in the story.

There is evidence for a lot of religious beliefs (we could discuss this better in another thread). In addition to this, I need not produce evidence of morals, ethics and worldviews. Again, that is what it is about.

I hope you understand this next part:

Evidence is inconsequential, for although I could put evidence for many of the beliefs I hold, there is more to the story. When I pray to an image of a deity, what am I praying to? I pray to many things, not just the picture. First, people pray to the same deity in a completely different way, to a completely different image that looks nothing like my own, so it is not logical to declare one form of that entity true. What is true, however, is the abstract form that is behind those images. At the very least, you can see evidence of destruction, the thing that the deity embodies, so this notion itself is the deity.

Just a few thoughts. I think your question is a valid one and an important one.

[Zhade]

63. I think your fiction analogy is very good.

I, like a lot of DUers, am an avid reader, and of course I don't believe that, say, Arthur really left Earth with Ford Prefect right before it went kablooie - but the lessons and themes and connections are still very worthwhile, especially from someone as talented as Adams.

In a way, this analogy helps. I can understand wanting a story to be true. If you'll forgive my geekiness, when I was a teenager I read (gah, embarassing) Star Trek novels, and often really, REALLY wanted to be able to go to Starfleet Academy. I admired the ideals it represented in the stories.

Of course, it doesn't exist. But I wanted it to, sometimes desperately. After all, they didn't drink and forget you existed at SA...

Anyway, my point is that there can be lots to learn from ancient tribal religions (though much of it is now correctly viewed as reprehensible - slavery being okay and all that), but it doesn't mean the stories have to be true to mean something.

Jesus didn't have to exist for his purported words (most of them, at any rate) to be revolutionary.

Hmmm. Good stuff to chew on, thanks.

[manic expression]

65. OK

I'm glad that made some sense. Here's to hoping this will, too.

I get what you mean about it not existing. Call it mysticism if you want, but the idea of discovering the stars and going where no one has gone before very much exists. Star Trek embodies, in a way, that purpose that manifests itself in our world. Basically, it doesn't matter if Spok (sp?) never existed, because whenever people watch the show and find truth in it, the show and the ideas truly do exist in the minds and hearts of those who find that value.

I really think that, in the big picture, fiction is the expression of certain ideas through a story. It is a medium where we can find parallels to the reality we know. In a sense, it IS reality, but only like a dream: it is a further level from reality than the world around us.

I do think that you are right in the fact that wrong has been done because of misuse of religion. I would argue that there can be misuse of anything and everything, so religion is just another tool of wrongdoers. Just like our misadventure in Iraq is not for freedom, wars fought for religion simply use dogma as propaganda. People tried to justify slavery through religion, but the abolitionists used religion for their aims, as well.

Religion has been used for unspeakable atrocities. Religion has also been used for actions of great worth.

I really appreciate your questions and this discussion, so thanks for that.

[hunter]

74. It's all stories, even science.

Storytelling is what humanity does.

I suspect that's why so many deep thinking scientist become a little odd. They throw their life into their work seeking some solid foundation in "reality" and it isn't there.

That's how you get Erwin Schrodinger talking about ghostly cats, Roger Penrose talking about the quantum structure of the mind, or Carl Sagan with a serious far-away look on his face blowing marijuana smoke at the ceiling.

The miracle of science is the complex and evolving rules we follow to make these stories "conform" to our observations. We do this by creating new expressions or by redefining old expressions.

For example:

"She has a forceful personality.

"Force equals mass times acceleration." (Newton's equation.)

One force is still entirely a storytelling tool, and one force is a "scientific" description.

But the scientific description is also a storytelling tool which has been very much redefined since Isaac Newton first wrote it down. Unfortunately for anyone seeking a solid truth, F=ma is not reality -- it is still very much conflicted in terms of relativity and quantum physics. Einstein's dream of unification still eludes us.

When I was young I bounced around various religions like a pinball. When I didn't find what I was looking for in religion I threw myself into science, and did some more pinball bouncing. Eventually I settled into an Orthodox Christianity as my religion and Evolutionary Biology as my science. For the past twenty years or so I'm pretty much a left wing Catholic, although I haven't formalized my relationship with the Catholic Church and probably never will so long as they remain so frozen in their opposition to gay marriage and such. So, even though I attend Mass most Sundays, I live in the schisms. But it doesn't bother me at all. My wife is Catholic, my kids are Catholic, and so is much of our family. But none of us are right wing "conservative" Catholics of the Anthony Scalia sort.

I see the same sort of "progress" that happens in science taking place in terms of religion, humanism and spirituality. Most mainstream religions are evolving in exactly the same sort of way that science does -- a complex set of rules is developed and applied to make our stories about ethics and spirituality better conform to our observations.

More than twenty years ago I had a girlfriend who was a lesbian. Her fundamentalist upbringing wouldn't let her admit this, not even to herself, and one consequence was that our relationship ended horribly. (I left a lot of my blood on the streets of Berkely!) I know it would have been much worse if we'd married.

Shortly after she started living with another friend of mine (so I guess I get a toaster...) and then they got married with the help of a scary high priced lawyer and a crazy preacher. Right away they started calling one another "my wife" to everyone.

This was an incredibly radical thing to do then. Now it's not. There are mainstream Christian churches that celebrate homosexual unions, and laws that recognize these unions. There has been much progress and that is why the fundamentalist right wing makes such fearsome noises. The reason for this progress is that religious and civil institutions are recognizing the realities of homosexuality and reconfiguring their stories.

Is such progress "science?" It is certainly a rational process. But I don't think it would have happened any quicker if all religions had somehow suddenly evaporated. As it turns out some religions have found the tools within their own houses to build a spiritual framework supporting gay marriages. It's not religion itself opposing gay marriage, it's the prejudices of those supporting certain religions that oppose gay marriage. Take away the religion of those people who oppose gay marriage and all the prejudices will remain. A right wing "Christian" who hasn't attended a church service for many years or done anything recently to help his neighbors in Christ's name will still scream that homosexuality isn't "natural" and will still fight to keep laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

[Arianrhod]

70. I'm stuck with you there.

Although you would, by all counts, call me a "believer", I prefer to think of myself as a "skeptic". I've never been good at faith; I just don't seem to be wired for it. (I suppose my natural aversion to authority might have something to do with that.) I'm afraid I have to see a thing before I'll believe it.

And even then, I might not.

I like the attitude displayed by Chris Rock as the 13th Apostle in Dogma: No one ever died for an idea. We can all have ideas about what the world is, what life is about; but as soon as we insist on others taking on our beliefs, that's where we run into trouble.

I, like Maat, would never, ever push my ideas onto someone else.

[StoryTeller]

81. Bridging the Gap

Hi Zhade,

As someone else pointed out, we could spend a whole different thread debating about whether the evidence for, say, the Bible is as scant as you think it is. I'm not really interested in doing that because I'd rather get to know you than spend time trying to "prove" to you whether something is true or not. But I just wanted to let you know there are entire books, from both fundamental as well as more progressive viewpoints, dedicated to this subject--at least for the Bible. I'm not sure about other religions. If you googled "Bible apologetics" you'd probably get a good list.

Anyway, to respond to your statement about being happier and more content now than you were when you were trying to fit in with a Christian community, there are a lot of factors that could be responsible for this. I don't take it as an insult at all.

Also, I agree with you that the people who told you you can't be happy or live a moral life without faith (I'm assuming they meant Christianity here) were inaccurate in their assessment. If they were Christians, they were forgetting that according to our own beliefs, God shows mercy and favor on those who don't believe in Him as well as those who do. He doesn't punish people with a bad life just for being non-believers. Christianity also teaches that moral behavior is "hard-coded" on the human heart--that most people instinctively know right from wrong, regardless of whether or not they choose to act on it or not. I think that when you survey cultures across time, there's a general consensus on basic moral behavior--with perhaps some slight variation. At the very least, most cultures acknowledge a difference in right and wrong, even if the details vary from one culture to another. So it would make sense that you, as a non-believer, could live a happy, fulfilled, moral life.

At least for me, the purpose of faith in God is not to make me happy--though it often does so. But the purpose is for me to acknowledge that I don't have all the answers to life and to study and follow the God that does have those answers. That reflection and soul searching has led me to the conclusions I stated in my previous post.

You and a few others have alluded to the fact that for a lot of people who grew up in a religious family, their faith never really "took." It never advanced from a family tradition to be a personally held faith. I'm very familiar with this happening in Christian circles. Unfortunately, too many of those people never bother to give closer examination to how they are really thinking and feeling about their faith, and so they just continue giving lip service to something that has never really gripped their hearts. I think that is why you see so many who claim to be Christians violating so many Christian teachings and behaving in ways that seem so hypocritical. It's because their faith has either become a tradition or they are manipulating religion to suit their purposes. Zhade, you've chosen a far more honorable path--of being honest in your doubts and not playing the religious game.

How to bridge the gap? It might help to acknowledge that we all trust in something. For some of us, we put faith and trust in a divine power. For others, they might trust their own mind or intellect. For others, they trust their money or their power. Some trust intuition or life experience. Some put great amount of faith in people they respect and admire. I wouldn't think that an athiest is a person devoid of faith. It's simply a matter of where you place that faith. If you can identify what you've put faith in, then it might help you understand better the religious faith of other people. One reason for this is that just as you can point out the weaknesses you perceive in my faith, other people could probably point out the weaknesses in whatever you trust in. Choosing to trust and rely on something, even when it appears weak or foolish, is what faith is about. And I think that is a strength of humans, not a failing. Faith is what gives us hope and keeps us from despair. It's a gift to all, not just those who are religious.

I hope that makes a little bit of sense. :)

[happyslug]

12. Religion has served many purposes throughout history...

But its main purpose has been to unite people into one group. Now once you get a society above tribal size you need something more than a story of multiple gods, with you and your clan "favored" by one particular god. Thus the raise of multiple gods in the Ancient World. The problem is once these tribes start to unite into a nation you need rationalized the gods. Thus Zeus became the King of the gods. Under the Roman Republic this continued for Rome just wanted subjects to Rome, and thus other gods became subject to the Roman gods (and thus the Roman Empire). This process had started in Mesopotamian thousand of years earlier as one city-state took anther City state and made that second City-State god a subject to the Conquering City-State Gods. By the time of Greece you had multiple gods subject to higher god and Rome continued this practice.

The problem is what happens when Subjects become Citizens? Prior to Rome this just did not occur, if you were born for example an Athenian to Athenian Parents you were an Athenian, but if one of your parents was NOT an Athenian you were not an Athenian. Thus your gods and Citizenship were one and the same. This changed with Rome. Rome believed in granting full Citizenship to anyone who wanted to be a Roman Citizen. Furthermore you could bring your gods with you BUT YOU HAD TO CONFIRM TO ROMAN STANDARDS and worship of the Ancient gods was one of the Standards (and under the Emperors worship of the Emperor). Thus under the early Roman Empire, the multiple gods were tolerated and encouraged as long as most of the Subjects of the Roman Empire was just that Subjects. Once Most of the people of the Roman Empire were Citizens (about 212 AD) this was no longer a way to keep the empire united. Furthermore with the Overthrow of the Pathans by the Persians and the expansion of the Goths in right is now Germany, Rome for the first time since Hannibal had large foreign enemies it had to fight. This forced Rome to keep its Citizens united and the old multiple gods were NO LONGER capable of doing that, thus the Expansion of Christianity from about 250 AD onward. By 400 AD to be Roman was to be Christian (Some pagans survived but ignored till Justinian who ordered the last Pagan Temples closed). The significance of this was if someone invaded Roman territory the Peasants did not look upon them as some new overlord who is just replacing the Roman Overlord, but as enemies of their Empire and their God. This lead to two things about the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, First the main successful invaders were fellow CHRISTIANS (The Roman Peasants had no problem working under a Barbarian as long as he was a Christian but would fight against PAGAN invaders such as the Huns), Second even after the Fall of the Empire in the West, the Eastern Empire could raise money out of the West until the Pope Crown Charlemagne "Emperor of the Franks". Rome did not so much fall, but its Army dissolved leaving only the people, who were untied to the Empire in being Christian.

This concept of using Religion as something to unite a people can be seen in the Crusades when Western Europe made an UNITED effort to defeat an common enemy. What united Europe? Christianity. Who was the Enemy, the Enemy of Christianity (Through with the Invasion of the Mongols, the Western Emperor could raise an army to fight the Mongols in Poland, as Poland was viewed as part of Western Christianity.

Thus Religion can unite people across ethic lines, across political lines and thus give people a way to define themselves other than as individuals.

Given this use of Religion to unite, religion is often use to define enemies of the people who believe in that religion. For example the Religious wars of the 1500 and 1600s are less about Religion and more about the raise of the Middle Class (and the decline of the old Nobility). For example in England, the Protestant High Church represented the Nobility, the Puritans represented the Middle Class and the Catholics Represented the peasants (and why King Charles II was executed for allying himself with the Catholics NOT for his war against Parliament, the Puritans did NOT want the poor Laborers and Peasants to revolt against the Rule of the Middle Class, especially after the Middle Class had defeated the old English Nobility in the previous English Civil War).

On the Continent the split is harder to see while the Lutherans represented the Middle Class of Northern Germany and Scandinavia, the Catholics represented not only the Peasants but the Nobility, and thus the split between the three classes are harder to see. Puritanism rose for it represented the desires of the Middle Class Merchants while Catholicism had been about balancing between the Three Classes. Lutheranism represented the Northern States of Europe against the SOuthern States that stayed Catholic. Thus the religious split was NOT so much religious as between two groups who had been fighting each other since Northern Europe adopted Christianity around 1000 AD.

Thus one of the reason for the Change during the Reformation was Society had changed and a New Religion was needed. Under the Roman Empire a similar need for a New religion had been needed and was filled. When a Society has a need for change that Society's Religion changed or that Society adopted a New Religion. Monotheism is a very flexible religion while the teaching of Christ sets up a nice set of rules for people to live by. As to change, the Church had changed over the Years, for example in the Ninth Century Lent was expanded to 40 days before Easter and everyone was restricted to one meal of meat per day. Among the poor this was NOT much of a Change, for many of them by the that time in the winter had no meat, but the upper Classes had to give up meat in Solidarity with the poor. The Ninth Century is the Closest thing to a Marxist Revolution in the History of Europe and this is do to various invasions, the Magyars into Europe, the Viking in the North and the Arabs from Africa. Western Europe was besieged, so to solve this problem the upper class was replaced by people who would fight off these invaders. Thus the Observation in Europe that no family in Europe can trace themselves, through the male line, to anyone who lived prior to the Ninth Century. That is how complete the replacement of the Upper Class was (and the Female lines seems just to be used to tie up lose ideas about ownership of the land as opposed to a woman fighting off these invaders). As I said the Church Changed in the Ninth Century to make itself less tied in with the Old Roman Nobility and more with the Peasants, thus lent FOR EVERYONE was set at 40 days, no eating of meat during lent and given the feeling of doom of the period a more somber doctrine (which partially disappears with the Defeat of the above Invaders and Western Europe's invasion of the East during the Crusades). This somber doctrine would re-appear during the Black Death at the end of the Crusades and ever since that time period you have had these two aspects of Christianity, the Somber threat of death derived from the Black Death and the joy of prosperity of the Middle ages.

Thus people and doctrine Change do to changes in Society. Belief systems reflects what the Society sees as in its best interests. Even Communism can be seen as part of this changing world-view, for while Marxism advocated the State should be Atheistic, it did not advocate its people should be (Lenin and Stalin made that step, a mistake Marx and Rosenberg told their followers to avoid). Thus Communism reflected the Growth of Industry and that that power reflected in that growth (Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict was more Socialist than most American Religious Leaders).

One last note, the basic reading of the Gospels retells Christ's basic philosophy. IT reflected Judaism but also something new, that ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE YOUR BROTHER not just the members of your tribe, clan or nation. The Roman Empire liked this doctrine for it viewed itself as the World and thus adopted Christianity as a Uniting force (And permitted the Emperors to cut out support for the Ancient gods and to melt down the Ancient idols to make into baby needed currency for the Empire). While other had said we are all one family, Christ was the first to get a huge number of followers to spread that message to the world. That message has often been ignored by people who claim to be Christian, but it is a Doctrine deep in our collective Psych as people living in what is called the "Western Word". This is true even if we are NOT going to Church every Sunday, the Doctrine is deep in us, we learn it not only from our parents and other relatives, but from our friends and other people we deal with, that is how deep in out collective psych do to most of our ancestors being Christians since the time of the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. We can debate whether this is a historical Accident or God's Will, but the result is still deep within us and our Society.

[Zhade]

41. Fascinating analysis.

If I'm not mistaken, the Jesus recorded in some of the books left out of the bible did not want a church, period.

Easy to see why some WOULD want a church. I mean, the RCC didn't even let people READ the bible for hundreds of years - great way to control its followers, one must admit. Devious, dishonest, reprehensible, but easy to understand the ruthless logic behind such a decision.

[happyslug]

47. The record is clear, Jesus did NOT want Pharisees

That is what he was aiming at when he said language the Right wing uses to attack the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He did not want people to say "I am holier than thou and therefore I should be given special privileges" on the other hand he seems to have wanted some structure, thus Peter is made his "Rock". Basically he he said it was alright for people to call people religious because they were, he was perfectly OK with some structure for the Church (and that includes any needed vestments needed for that position i.e. the ornate clothing of the Bishops and the Pope) but he opposed the idea that just because someone says he is religious he should be treated better than the common head. Basically Christ accepted Rank has its privileges, but emphasized that those Privileges exist to permit that person to work for the common good NOT FOR HIS OWN GOOD ALONE.

As to the Catholic Church NOT permitting people to read the bible, that is understandable in the days prior to the Modern high Speed Printing Press (Invented about 1850). I have found out people who can read but don't often can not understand some of the messages in the Bible DO TO THE LACK OF PRACTICE OF READING. Without some background on the subject the Bible out of Context can (and has been) misconstrued. Thus the Church discouraged people reading the Bible WITHOUT someone to help them understand what the bible was saying. Simply put, the Church wanted people who normally did not read to study the Bible in what we would call a class room setting as opposed to their own study. As to people who did read, the Church was less concerned for such people would also read the various commentaries on the Bible and how to use it in context. The problem was prior to about 1850 such books were rare, and to expensive for most working class people. Even some upper middle class people of the time period had a problem finding books to read (Do to the cost of books and thus their rarity). High Speed preses ended this problem and permitted anyone who could read to read (The actual movement started about 1700 with the invention of Steam powered presses but accelerated with the invention of High Speed Presses and pulp paper about 1850).

Now as to the apocryphal books, these are written later than the four Gospels in the existing New Testament and seems to include passages that Christ may NOT have said but that latter writers said Christ Said (This was common during this time period, this was common even Ben Franklin said in his autobiography said he found it better to say a saying was from an famous person then his own). Thus the problem with these apocryphal books, we just can not tell if they contain what Christ said OR what people said Christ said. This is even a Concern regarding the four Gospels, but they tend to reaffirm each other and given their much earlier age more likely to be direct quotes as opposed to saying attributed to Christ. Please not even the Gospels are written within a generation of Christ but are written in the Second generation after Christ as his saying were starting to be corrupted (Not do to any intention corruption but the corruption that creeps into oral traditions over time). To end this corruption was why the Gospels were written in the first place. The effectiveness of this was NOT lost on other and thus in the second Century after Christ you start to see more and more Books about what Christ said. These books are good for reference as to what was being discussed about Christ during that time period, but not as reliable as the Four Gospels as to what Christ actually said.

[catbert836]

52. Wow.

Your analysis is extremely intriguing. If it had it's own thread, I would nominate it.
One thing worth pointing out: During World War II, Josef Stalin used the Russian Orthodox Church as a way to rally his people against Nazi Germany and as a patriotic organization, even though he was an avowed enemy of religion. That fits ito your assertion that religion is used as a way to unite people, esecially against an enemy.

[happyslug]

68. Religion has performed many functions in society

First it is a way to unite people into one defined group. Its rules more often than not are attempts to keep that group united, for example the various rules on how to handle crimes, the attempt is to balance the needs of the Victim and the Perpetrator so that the family of each still believe they belong to the same group (Thus death penalties were more common against non-members of a Society than members of a Society through out history, this was often done by permitting families to buy off the victims family and set the amount of the payoff).

While the above was the prime purpose of Religion, the prime purpose of Churches (I use the term "Churches" or Church to be the hierarchy of a religion as opposed to the Doctrine of that Religion) throughout history was gathering and sending news. For example as the Roman Empire evolved it needed a better way to gather what was needed by its citizens. The old meeting of the Senate was no longer sufficient (This was especially true after the abolishment of the Assembly of the Tribes under Tiberius). While the Army and the Imperial Governors could report as to what was happening in the Areas they control, in areas without direct rule via the Army (Which was MOST OF THE EMPIRE) you had poor communications between the people and the emperor. The early Christian Church had duplicated for itself the same Diocesan system of the Roman Empire, but added to that its parishes, thus it had a better communications system than the Civil Government of the Time (and would continue to have it till today if we ignore Newspapers, radio, Television and the Internet which at least in the US NOT controlled directly by the Government). Thus Constantine's adoption of Christianity was more an attempt to attached this communication system to the Imperial Throne than any other single reason. This superior Communications system survived till today. Now it is superior to the Government Communication system of today, but since the invention of high Speed Presses and Pulp Paper (about 1850), the Radio broadcasting (about 1920), Television Broadcasting (about 1947) and the Internet (about 2000) you have had superior system of Communications than the church since about 1850. While the Printing press invention in the 1400s would seem to have started this trend, it actually increased the power of the Church for only the Church had a system in place to get messages from one part of Europe to Another. Thus until you have the invention of the Steam Printing Press about 1700 you just do not see books let alone what we would call newspaper till that time. With the Invention of the Steam Printing Press you start to see information being spread other than by the Churches but even this was minor compared to the Church till you have pulp paper and high speed presses about 1850. Thus in the 1700s you see pamphlets being printed but these were to be read by group of people (much like how Churches spread information orally at the same time period). Example of this was Thomas Paine "Common Sense" and earlier Voltaire's Books, but till you have mass media (starting about 1850) these were mostly for the upper classes, for no one else could afford them. You start to see a change about the time of the American Revolution but it is slow till the introduction of Pulp newspapers about 1850, then its takes off replacing the Church in the function of spreading information.

A third function of the Church (and as part of its duty to keep people united) was to perform mediation among its members. In the last 40 years you have seen in the legal profession a push for increase mediation of litigation especially among low end claims. In the days of the Established Church this was done by the Church, leaving the Courts to handle cases that could not be mediated. In America this was perform by Churches while into the 20th Century, provided both litigates where of the same Church OR if in two different churches the Church local Parish Pastors were are talking terms so both could mediate between the parities. With urbanization this tend to die out as more and more people belong to more and more parishes. This made it more and more difficult for the churches to perform this functions and as the 19th Century turned into the 20th, you see less and less of this functions (Especially in Urban Areas). This inability to perform this function became overwhelming with the widespread adoption of the Automobile, but some of this still exists. While many legal scholars would like to see more mediation and less litigation in our society, that you have to have some way to organize people to get them to mediate is missing in such legal scholars opinions on the value of Mediation, thus one of the chief cause of increase litigation in out society has been the Churches inability to Mediate. The real issue is what to replace the Church with to perform this duty of mitigation, no one has suggested a real solution.

A fourth function was the care for the poor and handicap. In America the poor and handicap were wards of the Church who received money form the state to take care of them. This was the main expenditure of State Money by the CHurch when we had state Churches in America. In the 1790s the Southern States started the process of abolishing state Churches, while saying they were doing so in the name of "Freedom of Religion" but in reality freeing the State from paying for the poor in Society. The best comparison is with the Republican " Welfare to Work" policy of the mid-1990s, it had less to do with getting people to work and more about cutting costs, but "Welfare to Work" sounds better than "Cut welfare so we can cut taxes for the rich". The same in the 1790s, "Freedom of Religion" sounded better than "We have to cut costs, and the chief cost is welfare, so lets cut welfare". Massachusetts was the last state to abolish its State system of support for its State Church (and did so in 1837 at the height of the next depression in America when Massachusetts wanted to cut its cost it was spending on Welfare, furthermore this was the height of the Irish movement to America and Massachusetts was like a lot of States, did not want its Taxes to pay for Welfare for these new Immigrants, thus Massachusetts cut off of support for its Church). No today Bush wants to bring in "Faith Based" welfare program for the same reason, he wants to cut Welfare costs without actually saying he is leaving people without any source of income. Bush is trying to use the Churches as a mean to transfer the cost of welfare onto someone else, but without increase state money the Churches can not do it, but that may be Bush's Plan, transfer funds to the Churches, and then cut back those funds, this time under the banner "Separation of Church and State: it worked in the 1790s while not today?

The fifth function (and tied in with a Churches Mediation function and care for the poor functions) was family law. Under the English Common Law, you had harsh rules for inner-family functions, but these rules existed more to keep such inner-family disputes OUT OF THE COURT SYSTEM then as harsh rules. The court's primary concern was who had control of land, once that decided the Court just did not want to hear about Inner-Family Issues (Land Ownership was tied in with Military duty in the Middle ages and thus the Law Courts Concern with Land ownership including inheritance of land, the King needed to know who owned what land so the King could demand Military duty form those land owners). Thus except for the issue of land ownership, issues of inner-family disputes was a function of the Church. This included distribution of non-real property, child care, Child Custody, abuse, separation, and even divorce (Through Support of an illegitimate Child was made Criminal by Queen Elizabeth, but that is tied in with the loss of power of the Church in Society as Elizabeth converted England from being Catholic to Anglican). Thus except for Child Support of illegitimate Children, Family issue stayed a function of the Church till AFTER the American Revolution. After the Revolution with the cutting off of the State Churches the Churches in the Rural Areas continued to try to help the Poor and resolve Family disputes (and even handled issues of Abuse, but on a case by case basis). Without the ability to ask the state for funds (and legal muscle when needed) the Churches just could NOT provide the services needed. This existed till the unrest of the General Strike of 1877. As a result of that unrest the States decided they needed to adopt welfare for its poorer citizens for two good reasons, first it gave people one less reason to revolt for the state was again taking care of the destitute, but secondarily, if another such widespread revolt would occur the state could shut off such aid, and the fear of such a shut off would provide a very good reason for people NOT to support the Revolt (One of the key to the General Strike of 1877 was the widespread support the strikers had from their wives, sisters, daughters and mothers, in that the men were doing SOMETHING to help them as oppose to doing nothing, to END this support Welfare for Women and Children were started in most Urban areas). Now the Church WHEN IT HAD CONTROL OF WELFARE ie pre-1790, integrated teaching people how to live in a way to earn a living AND support to keep body and soul together. They thought of nothing of putting Teenagers to full time work, but teenagers working all day was common in that day and age. Thus you had a seamless teaching people how to live to be productive AND getting them into the job market. This was breaking down in England by the mid-1700s with industrialization. You no longer had parishes with rich, middle class and poor going to the same church, you started to see rich living in London going to Anglican Mass, the Middle Class Puritans living together near the job site but in an independent Community and the poor (often Catholic or un-churched) living near the work site. This was worse with the agricultural revolution that pre-dated the Industrial Revolution. It was not uncommon for the Poor in England and Scotland in the 1700s to be driven off land they have been on for Centuries to convert that land to graze sheep. The "Owners" of the land often than not lived in England and told his local foreman to kick the peasants off the land and convert it to sheep production. As you can see once the owner of the land was no longer living in the same are, mediation was impossible and the poor were just driven off the land and more often than not forbidden by law to go to the local church even if the pastor was willing to help them (this was do to the fact the Owner of the property did NOT want those peasants to stay around, fearing they may move back to their old homes so Churches, even Non-state churches were forbidden to help them, now several Pastors worked around these rules, for example the rule said not in the Church, but then the Pastors would leave them stay in the land around the church for they had no place to go, but even this was made illegal by London after the land owners complain they feared such peasants may return to their former land). I will not go on for the growth of the movement to separate Church from State in the last 200 years is more often than not an attempt to separate care for the poor from the state and then the Church itself and the sad affect that has had on people over the last 200 years especially tied in with industrialization and the search for cheap labor no matter who is hurt (and the raise of he Corporation and the upper middle class's tendency to replace the Church with worship of the Corporation, a bad form of religion if they ever was one).

[More Than A Feeling]

13. Well, I chose Christianity over Buddhism

because Buddhism didn't speak to me. It didn't have the answers to some of the things I was experiencing. (neither did atheism, which was the worldview I had growing up) It stacked on my shoulders a list of things I was supposed to have to reach enlightenment, but that just added to my prior list of shortcomings, making me more unhappy.

Christianity, OTOH, explained what I was feeling and offered a solution that really was what I had been looking for. Being Christian has boosted my confidence by resolving some of my personal issues.

[Zhade]

42. Can I ask what some of those issues were?

If you'd rather not, I understand - but it might make for an interesting discussion!

[Zhade]

14. ARG! I hate typos, especially late-discovered ones.

Obviously, "one set on ancient tales" should be "one set OF ancient tales".

D'oh!

[Maat]

24. We all know how intelligent you are, and ..

that a typo is just a typo.

HeeHee.

I'm glad all of the posters here explore these things; it is not as if we have to keep the same tightfisted beliefs forever. We can grow and evolve.

And, I find as one explores things in progressively-minded churches (e.g. United Church of Christ, Unitarian-Universalist, Unity, Religious Science, Sufi, Reconstructionist Judaism and the more modern versions of longstanding faiths), one hears the same themes of viewing things as consciousnesses/viewpoints to explore, not the only way.

[Zhade]

43. Thanks for the compliment!

Personally, I see the concepts of belief systems evolving away from insistence that the tales of 'revealed' religions literally happened and that gods literally exist and control aspects of human lives, toward an amalgamation of the progressive lessons of those religions - the lessons that apply today, with our modern understanding of ethics.

In other words, in my view, religion will one day cease to be about believing in the unproven supernatural or impossible (worldwide floods, 6-day creations, walking on water) and will simply be philisophical systems people embrace as a handy way to organize their ethical nature.

That may explain the fevered push of the literalists and fundamentalists - they may feel and clearly fear that evolution, and fight to cling to something that just doesn't hold water in humanity's collective modern experience.

[Maat]

48. Hmmm .. interesting thoughts.

I think it is not your path to conceptualize and believe in a 'God.'

And I mean that in a very respectful way. You just don't like the idea.

And I honor that.

But, to me, 'God' is not about external control. As strange as it sounds, Spirit does not control my life, nor seek to control my life. Spirit is like a system I can avail myself of if I choose. I am here, as a divine piece of Spirit, to experience for Spirit. How I do so is my choice.

Life would be miserable and not worth living if the only ideas I liked exploring were proven ones.

I didn't mean to offend. It's just my two cents' worth.

It's important to understand that I was one of the ones who had a negative experience with organized religion; I just threw that off, though. I have moved onto a belief system I enjoy.

[I Have A Dream]

59. I was going to say the same thing about his path, Maat.

At least in this lifetime, it's just not going to make sense to him. There's much that can be learned in that type of lifetime, and I'm sure that I've had them in the past, but I'm glad that it's not what this lifetime is about for me.

After responding to this thread last night, I started thinking about the path issue. (Probably because someone, maybe you, mentioned it then.) Why do people who believe in metaphysical and esoteric things believe what we believe, and how do we decide what we believe? For me, it's by following my own unique path that allows me to feed my soul. I can't imagine being happy living any other way.

[Maat]

66. Well, that was well-put!

And I really mean it!

I feel the same way! Feeding my soul - and giving my daughter the tools to do so when she wants to in the future - are what matters.

[Zhade]

77. I know you didn't intend it, but that's a little bit insulting.

It's quite possible that there's nothing for me to 'get'. Likewise, I don't feel that my 'lifetime' is limited, as you clearly see it to be.

I'm not taking offense, because I know it wasn't intended, but I'd like you to look at your post and see it from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in the things you do.

It's the assumption, even innocent, that those of us who don't buy into things that might not even exist are somehow limited that insults. Just consider it for a bit, if you would.

[I Have A Dream]

79. Please believe that I meant no offense. I truly respect you.

Please be aware that the way that I worded this seems to me to be the same way that you worded things in some of your posts to people who see the world the same way that you do. Maybe you don't see it, but it's the way that it hit me. However, I wasn't offended by it because I knew that you weren't intending to insult people who are drawn to spiritual things, and also because this is the way that you view the world -- it is your reality just as my reality is mine. Can you see what I'm saying?

Please realize that, in my earlier post, I was speaking from my frame of reference to another person who sees the world similar to the way that I do. In my post, I wasn't saying that you are limited but rather that living life like that would be limiting for me where I currently stand. You seem to be happy that you are the way that you are. I also am happy that I am the way I am, which is what I'm stating in my earlier post.

I hope that you'll understand that my frame of reference is different from yours, and I'm not going to see the world the way that you do. You seemed to be happy that you see the world the way that you do, and I am happy that I see the world the way that I do.

Bottom line: Do you understand how my words are similar to yours?

Again, I meant no offense, and I have really appreciated this thread.

[Zhade]

84. "living life like that would be limiting for me"

This is an excellent way to put it, and appreciated.

It is true that it's clear I brook no nonsense like miracles and the like - not, btw, because of the concept of miracles, but because there's no evidence they happened as described in, say, the bible.


I wasn't offended by it because I knew that you weren't intending to insult people who are drawn to spiritual things

This is where it gets a bit interesting, because the truth of the matter is that even I am drawn to spiritual things. I just don't conclude that such things are physically real. But I wonder, as I think most humans do, about that which eludes our ability to understand.

This may damage my 'atheist rep' with some here, and possibly get me labelled a woo-woo, but I've experienced things I can't explain. The difference between myself and the average believer is that I don't assume those experiences add up to any specific meaning. Heck, I'm not even sure they weren't all in my head (and in the interests of full disclosure, insanity runs in my family - my grandmother is full-blown schizophrenic with religious delusions, on top of having the 'Memento disease' that disables her ability to remember what happened five minutes ago).

Perhaps that's where some of my frustrations lie: I see ascribing meanings I can't really know are true to the unexplainable to be presumptous, and don't understand why people jump to conclusions when I don't.

That's not to say I'm a better person. Just different in my approach to the Great Unknown, whatever it may be, if indeed it be.

While I understand that our posts are reflections of each other, I'm sorely tempted to add that what I say - that there is no evidence for miracles, for example - is accurate (unless someone can provide objective evidence they've happened). And I know that's going to sound arrogant, but it's true. My mindset works from established evidence, even when I've personally experienced something I can't claim to be representative of something supernatural, even if I really WANT to.

So living that way is limiting to you, and I agree that it's limited in a sense with regards to my own life, but it's a self-imposed limit that I'm happy to live with, because then I don't feel I'm likely to swallow just any story without evidence to back it up.

I really hope this doesn't read wrong, because I too sincerely appreciate the back-and-forth on this thread. I think it's just about the calmest, most positively productive R&T thread I've been on in a long time.

In the end, it matters not that you see XXX and I see YYY, as long as we agree to work within the confines of ZZZ - a secular approach to government that allows for both XXX and YYY.

[I Have A Dream]

89. Thank you for this post, Zhade.

Thank you for sharing the information about your grandmother. Given this fact, I can understand why you'd be especially cautious in reference to spiritual things.

I really can't tell you how much this thread has made me think. I hope that you don't resent me saying this, but I think that "the Universe" used your post to really help a lot of us besides helping you with your original question. (I'm wording this using words from my frame of reference, so please forgive me.) I just find it amusing that this particular question posed by you, a skeptic, has helped at least me to see my beliefs much more clearly. (To me, "the Universe" has a sense of humor.)

I think that someone compared religion/spirituality to drugs in another post. In a way, this is true for me. However, to me, spirituality doesn't make me high. It's more like taking an anti-depressant. It allows me to see life in color rather than in black and white. It takes away my "depression". (I don't actually have depression, but I think that the analogy's appropriate for what I'm trying to say.)

Another thing that I thought about since this post began is that I really don't worship anything. I do believe that there's an energy that is everything including me, and I do believe that there are other realms with beings who know much more than we do. However, spirituality to me is totally about connecting with my higher self. It's not worship. However, I do think that it's important to express gratitude to "the Universe" because it brings even more abundance into your life. (In addition to the fact that I actually am thankful for whatever outside help that I might be getting.)

I understand your caution about believing in things that can't be scientifically proven. However, until recently, we couldn't see germs. We could see the effects of them, but we couldn't absolutely, positively see that they existed outside of secondary methods such as things growing in cultures and things like that. (I know that there are more ways -- I'm not getting really scientific here.) To me, my spiritual beliefs are like that. We haven't found (and probably never will find) a way to "prove" that spiritual things really exist or don't exist, but I feel that I see the effects in my life in many ways that "prove" to me that they're real. (And if they're not real, I'm OK with that because my life is better with them than without them.)

In reference to the separation of church and state, I'm 100% behind that. I don't want religion mentioned on money, in the pledge, in our courthouses, etc. I've have big fights about this with my sister, who is an Evangelical Christian.

[Arianrhod]

93. In his PBS series "Cosmos"

Carl Sagan demonstrated the difficulty of seeing things outside of 3 dimensions. He took a 3D cube and shined a light on it so as to cast a shadow. He then showed a physical model of what that shadow looked like. It was hard to tell that the original object was a cube. Then he showed another model which was the shadow of a 4-dimensional cube. His point was that there is no way for us to conceptualize a 4D cube, but we can make inferences about it based on the shadow.

I see spiritual things sort of like that. Our lives are lived in the "shadows" of higher dimensions, realms, or realities which--although we have no means of conceptualizing them--nonetheless are part of our existence on this plane. I think we can do things to help us connect more fully to those dimensions (things like meditation or ritual), but we have to be careful in how we interpret what we experience as we do so. The human mind cannot accurately conceptualize these things, so it will draw conclusions about the experiences based on what it knows about the 3D world--and this knowledge is influenced deeply by culture, education, etc. Thus there is much room for error.

What I seek to do is to get my mind into as objective a state as possible (the basis of the scientific method), and honestly face the things that I find in myself when I meditate, as well as those things I find in the world (both natural and cultural) as I go about my everyday life. In this way, I hope not to make too many mistakes. :)

[IndianaGreen]

25. Why some people choose one drug over another?

Belief in Jesus is just as valid as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Zhade]

44. Yes, this is true.

There is as much objective evidence for either...which is why I asked the question posed in the OP, as it bewilders me why people choose one over another.

I'm trying to understand that persepective, so that I can more readily discuss the issue with believers.

[manic expression]

82. There is truth in that

belief, if it is genuine, in the FSM is no less valid than any other religious belief. Why? Because it matters not what one worships, it matters what the real worth of that action is.

Seriously, someone could worship a half-eaten sunflower seed and that would be perfectly valid to me.

"God" is everything and everything is god. Worship anything and you worship the ultimate truth.

That's just my take on it.

[FooFootheSnoo]

26. I also agree

with ayeshahaqqiqa. In my case, I found all my searching led me right back to where I had started from. I returned to the catholic church after a 15 year absence and genuinely felt like I belonged there. I had been searching for a church to take my daughter to. I considered the United Church of Christ, but a nagging feeling told me to take her to mass just one time before going to the UCC. So, I did. I had (and still have) my issues with the church, but I had a deep sense of belonging and peace when I walked into that church again. I don't believe that catholic church is the be-all and end-all of God's message. I don't believe non-catholics and non-christians are going to hell. My own mother is a practicing wiccan and my husband is agnostic, so I'd be a rather upset person if I did believe that. The more I think about it, my relationship with my church has a lot to do with my daughter. I know that's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's the way it is for me. We are of Irish heritage and as far back as anyone remembers everyone on my side of the family has been catholic, so in some ways our church attendance is in honor of our ancestors and passing on part of her heritage. I wanted her to understand the message of Christ does indeed include social justice and I think the catholic church, while deficient in a lot of things, does a good job including the social justice part of the gospel. I enjoy the "rituals" and the changing seasons of the church calender. They give a rhythm to the year and no matter what else is happening there will always be Lent, Advent, Christmas, Easter, Pentacost, etc. This is a catty, un-christian reason, but my mother in law and step mother in law are both right wing fundamentalist types and I knew if I didn't take her to some church soon, they were going to try to get her to theirs. Now, I can refuse and tell them I don't want her to be "confused".
I'm not 100% sure there is a god. When we go to church, I always say a prayer giving thanks for what I do have and spend time thinking about those less fortunate. One priest always gives a homily emphasizing seeing Christ in others and being Christ to others through service and compassion to others. In the end, if there is not a god, then I think that one hour a week will have been a good way to celebrate life.

[Maat]

50. I share some things in common with you.

After 30 years of not being part of an organized church, at 45, I decided that I had to choose a faith in which to raise my daughter, or certain fundamentalist relatives would become predatory; we are older parents.

Now, I explain to her how many different people fight for social and economic justice in many faiths. She has visited a Catholic church, and a Unitarian-Universalist church. We are working on visiting other churches.

I selected Religious Science because of its traditions, which I enjoy. Also, I selected it for its focus on positive thinking and personal accountability, in addition to its honoring all paths and exploration of various spiritualities.

And, we also celebrate life each service.

[CarbonDate]

27. When in Rome....

...worship Jupiter.

But since we are in America, people worship Jesus.

It's called going with the flow. In Saudi Arabia, people follow Islam.

I guess the real question then, would be why people choose to be a religious minority. I think it either has to do with up-bringing or just being contrary, the latter of which is admirable, IMO.

With no disrespect intended to the religious; I just think that people tend to do what everybody else is doing as sort of a pack mentality, and religion is no exception to that.

[Hardrada]

29. I spent a year at a Lutheran seminary.

That's how serious I was. We understood that it would be better not to confuse our future parishioners with scientific facts that might cause some DOUBT!!

[Maat]

51. Well, that would not be true in my case.

I selected my faith after much thought and research.

[CarbonDate]

83. Of course. I'm not speaking of everybody.

But do you think that the reason that you can guess what religion a person is by what country they live in with near-perfect accuracy is because everybody puts a lot of thought and research into their decision? You can even look at a map of the U.S. and guess which denomination of Christianity somebody is by which state they live in.

My statement stands for the vast majority of people.

[manic expression]

58. Many do, but it would be folly

to say all. I would be an example of someone who found the thing I was looking for. I'd be lying if I said it's been easy for me, so no, it's not about doing as the Romans do.

The pack mentality is very observable in just about any other group activity, as are the exceptions. Because people are people in everything they do, religion does see a bit of this as well.

Oh, and not all Romans worshiped Jupiter.

[FM Arouet666]

30. Presupposing a choice..

Most people are sucked into a religious belief because of social pressure, family tradition being the most forceful. Logic seems to fall on deaf ears, why question ever lasting life and happiness, go ahead believe, it's easy. I am fascinated how people are so easily given to a belief in the bible, critical thinking?

Gods, souls, heaven are just not that important in everyday life, you go to church for a few hours a week, see all your friends, kibbutz, and off you go. Salvation is what awaits you for a pittance, a few sunday mornings. Who needs any demonstration of the supernatural, it happened two thousand years ago, they wrote it down, now suck it up, stop all your doubting.

Who really cares if the sermon is true, you are just going along with the nonsense to fit in, heck, if there is an afterlife, it's a plus.

Yep, no real problem, unless of course your fellow humans decide to impose their religious view on others. Crash a few planes into buildings, deny other segments of society a medical choice, deny the basic right of marriage, a few burnings at the stake, and some holy torture. Yep, no problem at all. Religious belief, a victimless crime against humanity?

Sorry, for the rant, I need to vomit...............

[Arianrhod]

33. I have always followed the teachings that correlated

the most closely (as far as I can tell within my limited knowledge) with the "real world". I think that I can honestly say that I believe nothing that is not a tenet of science, a teaching from deep history that agrees with science, or something that I have not experienced for myself. My religion demands the same precepts that govern science--ie, observation, verification, and repeatablility. While I am always open to investigating various religious claims, if they lack these three requirements, I will not follow them. I guess you could say that I practice only what works.

This gives me an endless variety of sources and possibilities to explore. Not being tied down to a particular dogma or set of authoritarian doctrines allows me to examine any claim that strikes my interest, without fear of violating my existing beliefs; and at the same time, having a guiding set of principles like the scientific method keeps me from wasting my time with spurious con games.

My goal is personal transformation. Whatever leads me in that direction is what I will follow.

[catbert836]

49. You made a good decision

asking this question of DU, because believers here tend to have experience with more than one faith, as opposed to less tolerant people who tend to stay with one religion their whole life, and never ask questions as to its validity.

I suppose the answer itself lies in what kind of person you are. More competitive people, as well as people with many needs, tend to choose rigid, exculsionary structures of belief, such as fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. The reason the fundies of both faiths (as well as many others) have so man converts is people have a real need to believe in something. This is also the rason why $cientology has so many followers. These people are needy, and want answers as to why their lives suck, and sometimes they're willing to believe almost anything as a result.
On the other hand, believers like me are more thoughful and contemplative while searching for the truth, and we usually make sure that whatever belief system we've chosen (or grow up with) is right for us. For example, I (and many others like me) more attracted to Eastern spiritualities like Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, because they are more relaxed and open to interpretation than most Western religions.
A large part of it is just discretionary, of course, meaning some of it is just what feels right to us.
Excellent question, btw. Thanks for making me think. :toast:

[I Have A Dream]

57. Your comment about why certain people choose fundamentalism...

made me think. In addition to what you said, I think that it also has something to do with having the answers given rather than the person having to try to figure out things for him/herself. Also, there's the issue of safety at least in reference to Christian fundamentalists. Once they've accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they're forever saved in their belief system. Can't get better than that if security's really important to you. This might also be why many fundamentalist Christians have supported B*'s "War on Terror" -- again, because security's really important to many of them.

[manic expression]

54. Because of many reasons

Most of the time, they follow the belief system of their parents and relatives.

Basically, however, people follow the system they simply agree with. It's like politics, as many people are either Republican or Democrat because of their parents, while others are in a party solely because of conviction, while others are independent voters.

The fact that almost all European Pagans were converted (forcefully, in many cases) would explain why there are few worshippers of Zeus or Odin. However, there are many pagans today who worship those gods, showing that it is personal affinity which can determine what religion a person joins.

It's not only about ancient tales, as there is a philosophy behind that. There is also a culture and a people that are a part of this system, and that is what connects a lot of people to their religion.

For example: some people say that the Bhagavad Gita happened the way it was written down, others say it was based on a historical event (like the Iliad), others say it is a metaphor and others say it is symbolic. However, all those people agree with the messages, the ideas and the philosophies that are within that work. It is much the same for many other religions.

[Exiled in America]

94. I don't follow a belief "system." That doesn't mean I don't have beliefs

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. Okay, here's my take on it

I've always been very intuitive, one who knows things without knowing how I know them. To me, people and places can have definite (for the want of a better word) "vibes." This intuition has allowed me to feel a Presence that is beyond human understanding.

We humans tend to approach this Presence, this Source of All, in ways that are culturally and psychologically appropriate for us, since we cannot comprehend something of that magnitude.

It's the old "blind men and the elephant" story. Each belief system has part of the truth. Most people simply accept the one they were born into. Living in a pluralistic society with freedom of religion, we Americans have the option of being seekers and looking for a belief system that fits us.

I settled into the Episcopal Church officially in my early forties, after many years of drifting back and forth between the Episcopal and Lutheran churches and seeing Buddhist practices firsthand in Asia. Do I believe everything that's in the Nicene Creed that we say every Sunday? It doesn't really matter. This is my culturally and psychologically satisfying way of seeking contact with the Source of All, one that offers tremendous opportunities for service (recent work trip to the Mississippi Gult Coast), esthetic experiences (choir), and intellectual discussions (EFM course).