Confusion on religions
Hello anyone,
I find myself in a conundrum of sorts and although I reckon my own decisions, my curiosity got the best of me and I wanted try to suss out my exact position if possible and maybe relieve my frustation. There may already be a discussion regarding this topic and if so, I apologize and would appreciate being pointed to the approprate forum.
On the subject of religion: what happens to those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God but yet a real person and a prophet without the kingdom of heaven in the prospect? Honestly just curious and I can't think of a single person in my field of friends where this topic would not cause a hands on brawl. Needless to say I am agnostic and welcome any comments, opinions or views. Also I did not know where else to turn for objective opinions so I appreciate any feedback. Thank you.
I find myself in a conundrum of sorts and although I reckon my own decisions, my curiosity got the best of me and I wanted try to suss out my exact position if possible and maybe relieve my frustation. There may already be a discussion regarding this topic and if so, I apologize and would appreciate being pointed to the approprate forum.
On the subject of religion: what happens to those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God but yet a real person and a prophet without the kingdom of heaven in the prospect? Honestly just curious and I can't think of a single person in my field of friends where this topic would not cause a hands on brawl. Needless to say I am agnostic and welcome any comments, opinions or views. Also I did not know where else to turn for objective opinions so I appreciate any feedback. Thank you.
Comments (75)
Of course the cardinal difficulty with this view, is that mainstream Christianity itself would likely reject any such view as being heretical or blasphemous, on account of the idea that Christ was literally the only instance of God incarnate in history. But that's where a rather more, shall we say, 'oriental' framework is useful. Within the Eastern traditions, there is also a kind of universalist view, within which holy figures, even supremely holy figures, such as the Buddha, are a type or a kind, rather than a totally unique individual. Or, in Hinduism, there is the understanding that God or the gods manifest in various forms or 'avatars' (incarnations, and the origin of the term 'avatar'.)
So within that context, much of Jesus' teaching can be framed or understood as 'archetypal spiritual teachings'. This is of course very much in line with many new-age, theosophical and other counter-cultural attitudes to such questions, which again are generally vigorously rejected by mainstream and especially fundamentalist religious communities. But it does, I feel, open up a much broader kind of landscape within which to interpret the issue, as an alternative to either outright belief, or outright rejection, which is the kind of binary choice that the Western mindset imposes on it.
That's the key purpose for evangelical Christians, obviously. Is that the perspective you're asking the question from?
I found your posits quite interesting. My previous post was to tim wood so I hope there was not confusion. I don't agree however that Jesus was a divine illumination because the adjective "divine" could be construed as god like to which end I'm not entirely sure why that would be considered blasphemy. You summarized my point exactly [quote="Wayfarer;294681".
]Within the Eastern traditions, there is also a kind of universalist view, within which holy figures, even supremely holy figures, such as the Buddha, are a type or a kind, rather than a totally unique individual. Or, in Hinduism, there is the understanding that God or the gods manifest in various forms or 'avatars' (incarnations, and the origin of the term 'avatar'.)[/quote]
Isn't God or a higher power etc. universal and why would that power exclude any type of following?
Jesus doesn’t decide that - according to Christian lore, Christ rose from the dead, and salvation depends on believing it.
I guess what I am saying is, if you’re interested in religion as a matter of history or anthropology, then do some more reading. There’s tons of books out there.
One way to handle your question, Christine...is to change the way you phrase it.
Fact is, in a religious discussion, any comment that contains the words "believe" or "belief"...is actually talking about a guess about the unknown. "I 'believe' (in) God"...really means, "My blind guess is that there is a GOD involved in the REALITY of existence."
"I 'believe' there are no gods"...really means, "My blind guess is that no gods exist."
So, essentially you are asking, "How do we reconcile differences in what we guess about the REALTY of existence?"
Ahhh...the answer is six of one; half dozen of another.
People who guess a GOD exists may be correct; people who guess the GOD is a personal GOD may be correct; people who guess the GOD has expectations of humans may be correct; people who guess the GOD please with certain human conduct and offended by other human conduct may be correct.
People who guess there are no gods...may be correct.
And people who just do not want to make a blind guess about the question because there is no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess...ARE CORRECT.
I don't understand the context. Do you mean "What happens after physical death?"
Quoting christine.
What happens is that you go straight to hell. You do not pass go, you do not collect $200. You are doomed to an eternity of watching daytime TV. :naughty:
"Religion" for many Americans (and many people elsewhere) does not have much meaning. It isn't just a Christian thing, but let's stick to Christianity. In order for Christianity (or any other religion) to have meaning, a person needs to have a minimum level of understanding about what the religion teaches (like, "God is love"; "Love one another as I have loved you." "God expects you to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." and so on. It is essential to belong to a community of believers to gain deeper understanding of the religion.
A lot of people were born into families who were religious and never had to make a decision to learn about religion. They learned it from pre-school on up till the time they left home. Others grew up in families that were not religious, or were so lukewarm that they might as well have not been.
A Key Understanding: God is not religion. Religion is about God. God doesn't need religion--people do. If God wants to find you, he knows where you live. He doesn't need the church's help. Humans generally need help seeking out God, and that is what religion helps one do. If you are looking for God, join a welcoming church.
C'mon. Of course I am not wrong on this.
It means that for a Christian as much as it means it for anyone else using it in a religious discussion.
Yeah, that is what I said. It is a guess. That is what a presupposition is.
I do not think they are nonsense. I think they are guesses. They may even be correct. Some guesses are. But they may be incorrect...as many guesses are.
That's a pretty strong belief. I may even venture to call it piety.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
One...it is not a "belief." I know it.
Two...I do not give a rat's ass what you venture to call it.
You believe you know it.
It's possible you don't.
Jesus was a mortal man. And he's not the first or only Son of God; one can be found in the Book of Daniel.
Mazel tov as we non-Christians say.
A Universalist is a Christian who believes everyone goes to heaven no matter what. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism. This is not a mainstream view. Protestants require faith alone to get to heaven. Catholics require some good acts as well.
A Unitarian Universalist is anyone seeking spirituality, without specific creed. Some identify as Christians, others agnostics and atheists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism. That might be your best choice for a pastor for your vows instead of butting heads with a pastor of a faith inconsistent with yours..
I do not do believing.
I know that it is not a belief.
Belief, like a pool of memories you didn't want to lose!
That's a beliefQuoting Frank Apisa
That is also a belief.
And I know that it's a belief in the same way you know it isn't.
Canny, right?
Quoting Shamshir
It is not a "belief"...but if it makes your life more worth living to suppose it is...go for it. Cost me nothing...and brings a bit of cheer into your life.
Consider it charity on my part...rather than pity.
No, it isn't. But you obviously need to think it to be...so have a ball.
Anything to help someone like you who needs the help.
You couldn't be canny if you worked for John Steinbeck.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Any proof, other than you believe it isn't?
What's and where's the infallible proof that determines it's not a belief?
Sorry, Shamshir, I've got better things to do than arguing with a kid looking for attention. Stick with the other kids in the playground. They like this stuff as much as you.
Oooweee...someone is testes. :yikes:
That was funny...although it would have been a lot funnier if you had proofed it before posting.
Belief is constituted by our pressuppositions. For everything we know, there are things we pressuppose.
...are nothing more than blind guesses being disguised.
I "believe" in God"...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.
I "believe" there are no gods...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.
I "believe" "God" is please with this and is offended by that...is nothing but a blind guess about the unknown REALITY.
Yeah, those two sentences are blind guesses - your own.
Anyone who hasn't seen their Great-great-grandfather, believes they have this unknown to them grandfather.
Are those people blindly guessing?
It is a guess...a blind guess.
And "faith" is the absurd insistence that it is correct no matter what.
Anyone with a brain KNOWS they had a great, great grandfather. They KNOW they their great, great, grandfather also had a great, great grandfather.
This is supposed to be a forum devoted to philosophy. Once in a while people like you ought to act like it is.
By the same logic anyone may KNOW there is a God.
No...they cannot.
But it requires a functioning brain to see the difference...so you are at a major disadvantage here.
Because? Both are unknown.
One is unknown. There may or may not be a GOD.
But every goddam person who has ever lived has had a father...which means everyone's father has had a father...which means everyone who has had a father has had a grandfather. And the grandfather has had a father...and that father has had a father...which means that every one has had a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a great, great grandfather.
Going further back in that chain is probably beyond you...so try not to hurt yourself thinking about it.
Ask one of the older kids in the playground. They might be able to get through to you.
Both are unknown. There may or may not be a Great-great-grandfather.
Quoting Frank Apisa
And going back far enough, your progenitor did not only believe in God but was created by God.
Are you going to tell your progenitor he's wrong?
Go ahead. :yum:
You actually are arguing that you may NOT HAVE A GREAT, GREAT GRANDFATHER?????
Apparently I am talking with someone who should stick to the playground sandbox.
Go back to the sandbox.
The sandbox.
than with a quarrelsome and nagging [s]wife[/s] Frank.
Proverbs 21:19 :cool:
Unfortunately, christine has not been back since the day she posted this, so it is not possible to discuss what is at issue for her.
Instead we find once again Frank Apisa demonstrating his belief in the importance of his informing us that he "does not do believing". He fails to understand either the etiology or function of belief. He is steadfast in his belief that the alternatives are we either know or blindly guess. This is his cage, one he cannot see that he is in. One he blindly guesses he is not in.
This is about confusion on religion, Tim.
EVERY comment on the "tenets" of EVERY religion...is a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
Some people are simply going to refuse to acknowledge this...including people who argue FOR the existence of gods and those who argue AGAINST the existence of any gods.
That is something we all have to accept...and I now accept you are one of those people.
Sorry your marital situation is so bad, Shamshir.
I assume you fail to see the irony! Believing (or guessing) that repeating the same thing and petulantly crying "You are pathetic" is a suitable example of philosophical discussion.
You assume wrong...I actually see the irony.
I intentionally did what I did.
You are an insult to philosophic considerations...because you do not grok such a thing.
Now...go away and do more blind guessing...and then pretend it is not blind guessing by calling it "believing."
Frank, it is because I actually have an interest in philosophical discussion that I am not going to sink to your level. You have dug yourself into a hole and with every effort to extricate yourself you sink lower and lower. It is not just your failure to understand what the term 'believe' means but your philosophical and emotional immaturity. Happy to do my part to make that evident to anyone here who is not already aware of it.
You would need to climb a ladder to get "to my level", Fool. But nice try at attempting to get to where you think I am...after pretending you would not do it.
I know what "believe" means...and I know how it is used. In conversations about religion...which is what this is. "Believe" is a word used to disguise a blind guess.
You cannot refute it...so you attempt this bullshit. But you are a waif here.
"I 'believe' (in) God"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.
"I 'believe' there are no gods"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.
"I 'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.
I hope you finally get that!
I hope it doesn't happen when you are repairing a roof or trimming the top of a tree...because when it hits you it is going to kick your ass harder than it has ever been kicked. Don't want you hurting yourself discovering a truth you should be getting right here.
Frank you really are a child! Repeating the same thing over and over again, putting it in ALL CAPS, throwing tantrums and stomping your feet, none of it changes the vacuousness of your claim.
Okay...then I am not sorry your marital situation is so bad.
No...at 82 (83 in August)...I am far from a child.
There is nothing vacuous about any of my comments or claims.
I understand that you are not yet up to speed...and cannot fully appreciate what I am saying or the value of it. Perhaps some day you will get there...or you may remain the fool you use for the pretension: Fooloso4.
Up to you. Good stuff being thrown your way. Make some use of it rather than indulging your anger.
Yes Frank. I am aware of your chronological age.
Except for that extra "a" in the last word...I suspect that may be true.
What does that have to do with "believe" is a word that disguises a guess.
Don't let the pressure get to you.
Stay as real as you can.
You are aware of what I say my chronological age to be.
Try to be precise...if you are going to continue this pretense of intellectualism.
Keep digging Frank!
You are evidently still fighting your own demons (or perhaps you were lying when you said that at one time you were "zealous religious"). Now you are zealous about bearing witness to the good news that you do not do believing. Your struggles are your own, but as with many who have been reformed you have a compulsive need to reform others. When you insist that what others believe is a blind guess then it is no longer just about you and whatever your beliefs may or may not be.
I did not call my veracity into question. I merely mentioned that you were not being accurate.
You ought to work on that.
I will leave the "digging" to you. Although I think you have dug deep enough. Try getting out of your hole.
I do not do "believing."
I am merely presenting a cogent argument about the word "believe" when used in a religious discussion context. You seem to resent that. Work on that also.
As for my previous time as a religious person...I grew out of it. As St. Paul said, ""When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
1 Corinthians 13:11
Quoting Shamshir
If that is the best you can do...you probably should not have done it.
I'm the guy using "Fool" for that fool who thinks he is a philosopher. I apologize...and will use his/her full name from this point on...although "fool" seems appropriate.
I can't even figure out why you thought that a clever response, Shamshir. I gotta ease up on your. I see the strain is taking its toll on you.