# Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?



## .   1

Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?

.,,


----------



## drei_lengua

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


 
This is my way of thought.  I don't relate to religions at all.  I was born Catholic and just don't understand or agree with its teachings.  However, I like to believe in an Allmighty.  I'd like to believe that there were more people like me out there.  

Drei


----------



## modus.irrealis

Many forms of Deism have such a philosophy, where they have a God who created the universe but no longer interacts with it (so no belief in miracles), and religious revelation and ritual are eliminated in favour of reason (however that may be understood).


----------



## endeavour

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


I think so.

In my opinion, most people who accept formalised religion and its teachings are Moderator Note: Text attacking the beliefs held by others, and members of one religion in particular,  has been removed in accordance with this forum's guidelines:




> *Specific guidelines regarding religious threads:*
> 
> Word Reference welcomes members from all cultural backgrounds and belief systems – including religious faithful, non-religious believers in a higher power, agnostics, atheists, and others.
> 
> Religious topics are welcome. The tone of each post must remain cordial and respectful of others and their beliefs. *Posts that attempt to denigrate others’ points of view* or lifestyle, promote one faith as being the “only” truth, or attempt in any way to proselytize or promote a single religion are inappropriate and will be removed.


----------



## whattheflock

Yes, it is possible. I practice my own kind of New Stoicism, where "to live consistently with nature" means to me to understand the universe by means of logic and science, where the ultimate expression of fate and the universe is God.
This does not require any meetings, chanting or passing around a plate for offerings.* But it could*, if that's how you think you must accept your fate.


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,




Short answer:  yes




Longer answer:  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Did religion exist before belief in a god, or did belief in a god lead to construction of religions, theologies and places of worship?


----------



## .   1

Senior member's note:  Please do not rag on anybody's religious beliefs or lifestyle system.  
It is not necessary to criticise any religion of any type to answer my question.
If any other negative posts are made I will ask for this thread to be closed.
I am not interested in mugs trying to rain on someone's parade just to try to empower themselves.
I seek intelligent comment not mindless reactionary bullshit.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Of course.
What is God but a human construct. God *is* a concept.
Religion is what one, in concert with others, does about that fact.
Religious teachings are just the words of various people trying to squeeze the square peg of our thoughts and actions into the round hole they have made of their God.


----------



## Sallyb36

Of course it is, it's called having moral values, not religious or spiritual ones!


----------



## Sallyb36

ooops, sorry, I read god as good.


----------



## Nunty

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?


Sure, but may I start the answer backwards?

One very useful definition of religion is: *a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*. The word itself seems to be related to the Latin word _ligo_, which means to tie up or, in the figurative sense, to unite. In this sense the "unified field theory"  could be considered a religious belief.



maxiogee said:


> What is God but a human construct. God *is* a concept.


 (Emphasis in original.)

Here, my good friend and I differ. I believe that God does exist, that She (or He, if you prefer) existed from before the beginning of time, is Creator of all things (including the Big Bang, when time began) and so on. My religious belief system is a theistic one, my God is a personal one.

This does not preclude the possiblity of other people having god-concepts that are not creators, that are not eternal, that are not personal... It is entirely possible to have a god-concept that does not involve worship or a system of beliefs.

I agree, however, that there is something in our psyche that impels toward religious behavior. Remember... hmmm.. .was it _The Lord of the Flies_? The little shipwrecked boys, among other things, begin to worship a boar's head and impute supernatural powers to it.

Or we could look at the well-studied "cargo cults".

My answer, then, is that a relgious system (as I defined it above) can exist without God or a god-concept, and that a person can have a god-concept without a religious system, but that would be unusual.


----------



## Sallyb36

I'm not convinced that a person can have a god-concept without a religious system, even if it's one of their own device.  I agree with Maxiogee here, that god is a human concept.  There have always been religious concepts since the beginning of mankind, obviously set off by wondering about things like how did we get here?, why are we here?, what is that big warm thing up there that keeps us warm and gives us light?  
We have an innate need to understand things, so we invented god.  It's very handy for explaining thngs that are currently unexplainable, it's God's will, we are not meant to understand etc.


----------



## spakh

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,




Perfect balance in the universe is just the evidence of a superb power. Name it as God or anything else. But there is to be one and I think that should show itself in a way. Then what is the aim of creation of us. Why have we been created? Just to live, do sth and die? That cannot be that easy.
I think a person can find the true belief by searching etc, if he or she wants.
I don't believe a God not showing itself.


----------



## Sallyb36

spakh said:


> Perfect balance in the universe is just the evidence of a superb power. Name it as God or anything else. But there is to be one and I think that should show itself in a way. Then what is the aim of creation of us. *Why have we been created? Just to live, do sth and die? That cannot be that easy*.
> I think a person can find the true belief by searching etc, if he or she wants.
> I don't believe a God not showing itself.




I don't understand why not.


----------



## coconutpalm

I'm not a religious. I don't believe in God or any other gods.
Yet I do believe that there is something bigger, more powerful working in this universe, not only for OUR world.
I also agree that God is an invention, yet I doubt whether this almighty thing is. I think it's rather kinda admittance due to the fact that there're always so many unsolveable questions and mysteries.


----------



## Sallyb36

Coconutpalm, that's what I said in my earlier post *We have an innate need to understand things, so we invented god. It's very handy for explaining thngs that are currently unexplainable, it's God's will, we are not meant to understand etc.*__________________


----------



## Benjy

Maybe it's just me but it seems that this question is less about the reality or non reality of God and more about human nature in general?

When someone has/claims to have had/thinks they have had an experience with the divine what do they want to do? Sit on it? The first thing they do is go off and start talking to other people about it.

When people want to have the same kind of experience their first port of call is quite often to see other people who claim to have expertise in that area. People gather around common ground. We like to learn in groups. We tend to do better. No one says "because only I can learn about advanced calculus amd no one can learn it in my place I won't go to university".


----------



## cuchuflete

Sallyb36 said:


> ooops, sorry, I read god as good.



How fortuitous.

I have a friend who is deeply spiritual, has no use for religion, and understands and names his creator as "good".


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> I have a friend who is deeply spiritual, has no use for religion, and understands and names his creator as "good".


Your friend is getting close to the heart of my question.

.,,


----------



## Sallyb36

That friend seems eminently sensible to me!!  I don't think that it's by accident that god and good and devil and evil are so similar.


----------



## .   1

Sallyb36 said:


> That friend seems eminently sensible to me!! I don't think that it's by accident that god and good and devil and evil are so similar.


I feel quite dim to admit that I had not noticed that.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

That similarity seems to exist only in Germanic languages (doesn't work in French or in any of the few other Romance languages I "know").


----------



## Ana Raquel

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


 
Sure, especially when we take God as the intelligence responsible for the nature's design and its laws, not as the super person out there in the sky.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hello Nun-Translator

Please, note that, as you say, the word 'religion' comes from 'ligo', (ligare, unite) and re (again), thus, the 'unified field theory' would be not a 'religious' belief in the usual sense of the word religion, but precisely, re-unite what it has been separated, I insist, not a religious (respect for what is sacred, reverence of the god, etc) meaning.


_Nun-Translator wrote: One very useful __definition __of religion is: *a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*. The word itself seems to be related to the Latin word ligo, which means to tie up or, in the figurative sense, to unite. In this sense the "unified field theory" could be considered a religious belief._


----------



## Nunty

Ana Raquel said:


> Hello Nun-Translator
> 
> Please, note that, as you say, the word 'religion' comes from 'ligo', (ligare, unite) and re (again), thus, the 'unified field theory' would be not a 'religious' belief in the usual sense of the word religion, but precisely, re-unite what it has been separated, I insist, not a religious (respect for what is sacred, reverence of the god, etc) meaning.



I hear what you are saying, Ana Raquel, but I disagree. There is nothing in the word "religion" per se that requires that this re-uniting be theistic in nature. As a religious person ("nun" is not just a nic), I am not in favor of religious systems that do not include God, but as a philosopher (which I also am) I admit the possibility.

Of course, this is not the usual meaning of the word "religious", and I took this approach intentionally. I wanted to suggest that there are many ways of looking at and approaching these questions. There is a folk saying that "No one is more religious than an atheist". What does that really mean? An atheist has a a system of belief that explains the way the world works, but without God or a god-concept.

It is not the usual meaning of the word "religion", but it is, I affirm, a legitimate one.

Other than that, Ana Raquel, I'm not sure what you're saying. How do you feel about the original question: Is it possible to have a god-concept without a religious system?


----------



## spakh

Sallyb36 said:


> I don't understand why not.


 

We're the only creatures on earth spoiling the balance. And I think the evil thoughts in our minds and our behaviours against the situations are the means, by them we are being tested. Looking around, everything has a purpose in life, so ours is not to spoil the balance. We can't deny it, we can't run away from the facts either. All the wonder around us reminds the first creator. First of all things. I think that one, who is not content with his/her belief should search and think about the truth. Of course there would be a limit when our brains cannot comprehend. Then the thing is to surrender.
Hope I'm clear.


----------



## cuchuflete

spakh said:


> Hope I'm clear.


  As far as the internal logic of your statement, you are clear.  But what has anything you wrote to do with the question of this thread?   Does acceptance of a God/god/power...whatever name you choose to put on it...require religion?


----------



## Sallyb36

spakh said:


> We're the only creatures on earth spoiling the balance. And I think the evil thoughts in our minds and our behaviours against the situations are the means, by them we are being tested. Looking around, everything has a purpose in life, so ours is not to spoil the balance. We can't deny it, we can't run away from the facts either. *All the wonder around us reminds the first creator*. First of all things. I think that one, who is not content with his/her belief should search and think about the truth. Of course there would be a limit when our brains cannot comprehend. Then the thing is to surrender.
> Hope I'm clear.



Only if you believe there is one.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reminder:  *     Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?*

This is the thread topic.   Please try to stay close to it.

Expressions of personal religious beliefs, unless they are very directly linked to the question above, are subjects for another thread.  

Moderator


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Nun-Translator, yes, of course it is a legitimate one! We are saying the same, I can't agree more, and we both have the proof in the etymology. I was opposing the theistic meaning of the word. 

Regarding my response to the original question I did it in the previous post, I answered, yes, especially when we take God as the intelligence responsible for the nature's design and its laws, not as the super person out there in the sky.




Nun-Translator said:


> I hear what you are saying, Ana Raquel, but I disagree. There is nothing in the word "religion" per se that requires that this re-uniting be theistic in nature. As a religious person ("nun" is not just a nic), I am not in favor of religious systems that do not include God, but as a philosopher (which I also am) I admit the possibility.
> 
> Of course, this is not the usual meaning of the word "religious", and I took this approach intentionally. I wanted to suggest that there are many ways of looking at and approaching these questions. There is a folk saying that "No one is more religious than an atheist". What does that really mean? An atheist has a a system of belief that explains the way the world works, but without God or a god-concept.
> 
> It is not the usual meaning of the word "religion", but it is, I affirm, a legitimate one.
> 
> Other than that, Ana Raquel, I'm not sure what you're saying. How do you feel about the original question: Is it possible to have a god-concept without a religious system?


----------



## french4beth

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


Yes. No matter what you call it, god, higher power, supreme being, etc., believing in such an entity does not necessarily mean that you believe in religion in general or in specific religious teachings.

For many years, I confused 'spirituality' with 'religion' - I realize now that I have always been a very spiritual person, which is not negated in any way by the way I choose (or choose not to) practice religious beliefs.


----------



## spakh

As I said before I think there is an ultimate power, (whatelse you name it) and it is to show itself. We can find it around us if we really want. Unless we want to ignore or deny the perfection. So I believe there is a system of belief set by the Almighty for us. Name it as religion no matter. But if it weren't so, how could we know what to do or not to do and how to wind up the discussions.


----------



## cuchuflete

french4beth said:


> For many years, I confused 'spirituality' with 'religion'



One may closely associate the two, using religion as a means to 
deepen, explain, or confirm spirituality.  On the other hand, religion is not required for deep spirituality.  Benjy's point about our social nature gives good insight as to why many people do
choose to make religion part of their spiritual life.  That doesn't negate the sincere spirituality of those who see no need at all for any association with religion.


----------



## cuchuflete

spakh said:


> As I said before I think there is an ultimate power, (whatelse you name it) and it is to show itself. We can find it around us if we really want. Unless we want to ignore or deny the perfection. So I believe there is a system of belief set by the Almighty for us. Name it as religion no matter. But if it weren't so, how could we know what to do or not to do and how to wind up the discussions.



Are you saying that religion is a requirement for accepting the existence of an ultimate power?


----------



## spakh

cuchuflete said:


> Are you saying that religion is a requirement for accepting the existence of an ultimate power?


 

Absolutely yes.
Because there is a truth faith and it has its own ways excluding false beliefs and stupid prohibitions set by religious men exploiting the religions.
I believe in the pure faith as its first time when it was appeared.


----------



## Benjy

spakh said:


> Absolutely yes.
> Because there is a truth faith and it has its own ways excluding false beliefs and stupid prohibitions set by religious men exploiting the religions.
> I believe in the pure faith as its first time when it was appeared.



That doesn't in any way show that one has to practice the true faith in order to have a concept of God/Higher power etc.

Assuming there is a "true faith", set of people who believe in God = {(people who practice the true faith),(people who believe in God who don't practice the true faith)}


----------



## spakh

I think that people thinking to be practising the true faith(however not doing so) but not really unaware of the real faith should be safe.


----------



## rsweet

This is a very interesting thread. Thanks, ..,!

I believe in the concept of God or even gods. I do not ascribe to the teachings of any organized religion. I agree with other foreros who have stated that a concept of God must come first, before religion, or God would truly be a human construct. I've gone round and round about the pros and cons of lifestyles that include a formal religion and those that choose to recognize a higher power without an organized church. I've narrowed it down to two primary features that I struggle with pretty much constantly.

Con: Most organized religions are by nature exclusive. You are pretty much a member of the club and choose the group's paradigm of God, salvation, and codified teachings. I know that many religious people are extremely tolerant of others' beliefs, they are kind, and do much good in the world. But there's still that undercore of "My way is the true and right way."

Pro: Organized religions provide community for people. Everyone shares a common language for deep spiritual beliefs. It's a shorthand to understanding each other, and gives people a deep sense of belonging, which I believe we all crave. Members of a community support and help each other; they recognize each other as a part of themselves. 

I apologize for having to condense a lot of complicated thinking into these soundbites, but I believe this medium requires it.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hello spakh



spakh said:


> Absolutely yes.
> Because there is a truth faith and it has its own ways excluding false beliefs and stupid prohibitions set by religious men exploiting the religions.
> I believe in the pure faith as its first time when it was appeared.


 
the words 'faith' and 'truth' don't fit to each other, can't be together. Faith implies strong belief in something, something that can't be proved (if it can be proved faith is not needed anymore) while truth implies verification and allows us to know something (opposed to believe in something)


----------



## LV4-26

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?


If we want to really answer the original question and only the original question, I believe the only answer we can give is a very matter-of-fact one : "*some do, therefore it must be possible"*.


----------



## maxiogee

spakh said:


> Perfect balance in the universe is just the evidence of a superb power.


Perfect balance? Tell me more, please. 

I was led to believe that the universe is expanding, and will do one of three things…

continue expanding until who-knows-what will happen;
reach a limit to its expansion and then contract on itself until there is another "big bang" which extinguishes both it and time;
repeatedly re-form itself from repeated big bangs.
I don't see "balance" in that.

However, the notion that a God is "all things" and therefore 'balance' is questionable. We see good and evil, order and chaos, life and death as polar opposites - they are not necessarily so, I would suggest.

======



Nun-Translator said:


> One very useful definition of religion is: *a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*. The word itself seems to be related to the Latin word _ligo_, which means to tie up or, in the figurative sense, to unite.


Whilst I am slow to argue with a nun (and one with a dictionary at that! ) I would dare to suggest that the definition you cite is missing its completion, and the dictionary is understating the case of what I would consider to be the bigger half of the definition!

The actual definition in that link is…


> a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


I would seriously argue with the lexicographer who put "usually" and "often" in there.
I doubt that there has ever been a religion which did not attempt to dictate to its adherents how they should live, and what their God required of them.

======

To expand on my point about our Gods being human constructs, I would suggest that religion exists to explain our ignorances - from the God of the Volcano (or whatever) who needed sacrifices of one sort or another, to appease its wrath; to the Goddess of the Harvest who needed rituals to be performed to ensure fertility and plenty; to the God of the Sun who controlled its daily appearances. As we have learnt how our world works, the priesthoods which required these obeisances were shown to be in error and we re-defined our Gods and refined our religions.
When we can't explain ~anything~ which goes on around us, our Gods must be many and various, and endowed with almost-but-not-quite unimaginable powers. They are also petty and vengeful, wreaking havoc or causing disaster at their whim, and always it is the fault of the unfaithful ones, the ones who are not practising as decreed. Slowly the domains of the Gods have been whittled away - until we have few dark places left in our view of the universe. The great unprovables we are still wrangling with are the meaning of life and the end of it. We quail at the thoughts that there might be no "meaning" to life, and that there might be nothing for us after this life.

To even ask the question this thread poses is to suggest that Humanists are amoral - with no ability to devise their own concepts of what is "good". I find that a very unsettling thought.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ana Raquel is correct.  Further, belief in a god/God/supreme being or whatever allows for tolerance of all of the following:

—members of many religions and their belief systems
—those who do not share a belief in a higher power/creator
—those who are indifferent to the subject

When religion is added, some of this tolerance may disappear, at least for those whose religion (not spirituality) says that there is one and only one truth, and only one "valid" way to apprehend the god in question.  Ultimately it all comes down to "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right, and the fact that most of humanity doesn't share my views only proves that they are wrong because they are wrong because they don't agree with me and that's wrong, by definition."
It's an internally consistent logic within the religion, and it bumps up against other equally internally consistent logic systems—totally contrary—of other religions.


----------



## karuna

Let's say that I believe in God but it has zero influence on my life, my actions, morals, thoughts etc. It is possible but then in the same way I could believe that there are green aliens living on moon. Such belief doesn't mean anything, it is equal to fantasy or delusion. Even Star Wars characters have more influence on the lives of their fans.

But as soon as there are some influence to our lives due to belief in some supernatural entity there is a semblance of religion. We can split hairs about how strong this influence has to be before it can be called a legitimate religion but it doesn't change the idea. 

Although the religion and concept of God seems to be very connected concepts in the western world, in many traditions it is not so. Therefore whenever we try to look from broader perspective, it sudenly becomes hard to define what the word "religion" really means. If we apply it too narrowly then it would exclude even some world's largest acts of God's worship, and we apply it too broadly then it would mean that everything we do is religion. Therefore I don't really know how to answer to the thread's question.


----------



## karuna

Now there is another possibility than one may believe in God but really hates Him. His actions and emotions would be greatly influenced by his belief that there is God but would you call it a religion?


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> When religion is added, some of this tolerance may disappear, at least for those whose religion (not spirituality) says that there is one and only one truth, and only one "valid" way to apprehend the god in question.



This is why I find it impossible to believe clerics of whatever hue who say that they respect other religions. 
I was taught that, a person having been informed of the true faith, it would be a sin to reject it and to practise any other, or no, religion — and that such a person would spend eternity in Hell.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> This is why I find it impossible to believe clerics of whatever hue who say that they respect other religions.
> I was taught that, a person having been informed of the true faith, it would be a sin to reject it and to practise any other, or no, religion — and that such a person would spend eternity in Hell.


I am sad that you were taught by an exclusive religion and that it has coloured your view of all religions.  There are many inclusive religions that are not so demeaning of other religions.  Many clerics seem quite happy that a person is religious no matter what religion that is.  Many religions are so comfortable with their religions that they do not fear other religions.

.,,


----------



## spakh

maxiogee said:


> Perfect balance? Tell me more, please.
> 
> I was led to believe that the universe is expanding, and will do one of three things…
> 
> continue expanding until who-knows-what will happen;
> reach a limit to its expansion and then contract on itself until there is another "big bang" which extinguishes both it and time;
> repeatedly re-form itself from repeated big bangs.
> I don't see "balance" in that.
> 
> However, the notion that a God is "all things" and therefore 'balance' is questionable. We see good and evil, order and chaos, life and death as polar opposites - they are not necessarily so, I would suggest.


 

I agree that universe is expanding.(or being expanded) I actually know a verse in Koran saying about that the universe is created and being expanded by Allah. Sorry I can't make a fully correct translation but that is so. When I first read that in Koran and knowing that the expansion of the universe is a new discovery (by Einstein), I was really impressed, nearly shocked.
As for the balance I really believe in. That is, every creature has a duty and all it needs to survive is present on earth. And also all stars super-novas, our galaxy, sun, etc. and especially the world we live in makes me believe in balance.
If there weren't any humanbeings, the earth would be probably the heaven.


----------



## whattheflock

The actual discovery of the expanding universe was Edwin Hubble's (he of the red-shifted star photos) physical observation. The concept of an expanding universe has been kicked around since the 1800's (for example, Heinrich Olbers thought that the universe must be finite). As for the cyclic universe, recent discoveries (helped in part by the COBE research) appear to indicate that there is not enought matter in the universe to accomplish a "Big Crunch" (even with imaginary dark stuff added) and that the expansion is actually accelerating.

In my personal view of things, all these facts, although interesting and even exciting, do not make me doubt (or confirm) the existence of God, nor affect the manner in which I perceive what is my duty in life.
But I've been thinking that a "religion" (one of the general definitions of the word is "cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion") is indeed the natural result of having a concept of the reality of God/gods/divinities/titans/etc. and of basing one's personal ethics and values in the pursuit of a personal relationship with Him/they/it/etc.
So, now I'm thinking that perhaps I didn't appreciate how deeply penetrating Mr *.,,*'s question was: I'm beginning to think that perhaps it is simply not possible to acknowledge or deny God's reality (which would be "having a concept of God") without accepting "religion".
Even atheists have a "conscientious devotion" to their ideology, or so it seems.


----------



## cuchuflete

Interesting and stimulating approach, Whattheflock.  It may well account for many believers, but not all.  What of those who accept, with whatever degree of gratitude or appreciation, without any zeal or conscientious devotion, the existence of a creator?  There are many I know who are of this bent.  They, or should I say we, accept, acknowledge, and somewhat passively appreciate the creations, without any attention, pro or con, to religious rules, interpretations, rites, hierarchies, etc.?  There is, for such people, no appropriate theology.  There is no zealous proselytizing, nor any attempt whatsoever to either codify or share a personal belief.  
Even if this might, by some stretch, be included in an expanded definition of religion, it seems well beyond the common acceptance of that term.


----------



## maxiogee

whattheflock said:


> and of basing one's personal ethics and values in the pursuit of a personal relationship with Him/they/it/etc.



Surely one can acknowledge a creator without desiring, or even pursuing a personal relationship with it?
What of those who believe we were created, and were then just left to get on with it, some sort of incidental event within the creation concept? That we are not the focus of the creator's attentions, as many religions would have us think, is eminently plausible.

*John Milton* wrote in "_On His Blindness_"…
  "Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
     I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
 That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
    Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
    Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best.

I think there is more than Milton intended in those four words "God doth not need" - there is precious little evidence that any God is aware of our existence.


----------



## maxiogee

spakh said:


> I agree that universe is expanding.(or being expanded) I actually know a verse in Koran saying about that the universe is created and being expanded by Allah. Sorry I can't make a fully correct translation but that is so. When I first read that in Koran and knowing that the expansion of the universe is a new discovery (by Einstein), I was really impressed, nearly shocked.


Is that not just a way of saying that Allah is _continually_ involved with his creation?





> That is, every creature has a duty and all it needs to survive is present on earth.


A duty to do what?
Of course all it needs to survive is present here, we have no access to any other non-earth sources of survival.
Does that "is present on earth" mean that we do not need God/Allah for our survival? Many religions would say that we exist at the whim of their God.




> And also all stars super-novas, our galaxy, sun, etc. and especially the world we live in makes me believe in balance.


But we know there is no balance, that change is continual and that planets die. As the 'law' states —> "in any closed system, entropy increases" - all things tend towards corruption and decay. Recognisable and systematic order does not arise randomly in nature, on earth or in space.



> If there weren't any humanbeings, the earth would be probably the heaven.


For many millions of years there were no humans on earth. Can heaven become corrupted?


----------



## whattheflock

cuchuflete said:


> [...] There is, for such people, no appropriate theology.  There is no zealous proselytizing, nor any attempt whatsoever to either codify or share a personal belief.
> Even if this might, by some stretch, be included in an expanded definition of religion, it seems well beyond the common acceptance of that term.



Yes, it is true. But *.,,* question made me think that perhaps, after all that has happened in the intervening centuries between today and the time when the word "religion" was invented, maybe the meaning of it has become inseparable from the concept of the mysticism involved in propitiating a deity. I suppose never again a personal "religion" can be confused with a personal ideology or "way of life".



maxiogee said:


> [...] That we are not the focus of the creator's attentions, as many religions would have us think, is eminently plausible.



I think this is not only plausible, but it might actually be true. I believe it myself.


----------



## mansio

spakh said:
			
		

> I agree that universe is expanding.(or being expanded) I actually know a verse in Koran saying about that the universe is created and being expanded by Allah. Sorry I can't make a fully correct translation but that is so. When I first read that in Koran and knowing that the expansion of the universe is a new discovery (by Einstein), I was really impressed, nearly shocked.



It is verse 51:47. The closest English translation to the Arabic original is that of Shakir. 
The expansion of the universe by Allah is one possible translation among others. There is no indication in the Koran that the expansion or spreading of the universe is a continuous process.


----------



## spakh

maxiogee said:


> Is that not just a way of saying that Allah is _continually_ involved with his creation?
> 
> A duty to do what?
> Of course all it needs to survive is present here, we have no access to any other non-earth sources of survival.
> Does that "is present on earth" mean that we do not need God/Allah for our survival? Many religions would say that we exist at the whim of their God.
> 
> But we know there is no balance, that change is continual and that planets die. As the 'law' states —> "in any closed system, entropy increases" - all things tend towards corruption and decay. Recognisable and systematic order does not arise randomly in nature, on earth or in space.
> 
> For many millions of years there were no humans on earth. Can heaven become corrupted?


 
Allah is always involved in our lives. Universe is expanded by Allah.

'all it needs to survives is present on earth' shows we should be grateful for it to Allah. Because Allah gives both all believers' and non-believers' needs.

Everything(planets, stars, universe, anythingelse) will experience the death and that doesn't mean there's no balance. Balance is in nature.

Real heaven cannot be corrupted. I meaned earth might have resembled the heaven.


----------



## maxiogee

spakh said:


> Allah is always involved in our lives. Universe is expanded by Allah.


I see no signs of this - how is this involvementn manifested?



> 'all it needs to survives is present on earth' shows we should be grateful for it to Allah. Because Allah gives both all believers' and non-believers' needs.


What has been provided for the survival of the child born with a genetic disorder which means it will die shortly after birth? 



> Everything(planets, stars, universe, anythingelse) will experience the death and that doesn't mean there's no balance. Balance is in nature.


If _everything_ dies, where is the 'balance' when the universe dies?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I see no signs of this - how is this involvementn manifested?


The peace and contentment in the hearts of the believers.



maxiogee said:


> What has been provided for the survival of the child born with a genetic disorder which means it will die shortly after birth?


The same as is provided for the child born free of genetic disorder.



maxiogee said:


> If _everything_ dies, where is the 'balance' when the universe dies?


Death follows life. It is an inevitable balance. Life is a terminal disease or to quote Warren Zevon, "Life'll kill ya.

.,,


----------



## rsweet

Even people like Steven Hawking bring up the question: Before the creation of the universe (insert favorite theory, Big Bang, etc.), what was there before the beginning? It boggles the mind. I don't think anyone can believe in a complete void without the concept of a creator. The creator may be God or Allah or intelligent/unintelligent energy. It's just a short step to believe that that creator is still directing life in ways that we may not fully understand.

I guess if someone asks, "What was there before the creator," I've painted myself into a bit or a corner. But if one can conceive of some creative force that has just always existed, I think it very difficult not to hold some spiritual belief.


----------



## maxiogee

rsweet said:


> But if one can conceive of some creative force that has just always existed, I think it very difficult not to hold some spiritual belief.



In what has it always existed?

I believe that some scientists now believe that the mathematics they calculate would have been involved in a "Big Bang" show that the "disturbance" in the nothingness could have caused it. I cannot recollect where I read this, alas.


----------



## spakh

. said:


> The peace and contentment in the hearts of the believers.
> 
> The same as is provided for the child born free of genetic disorder.
> 
> Death follows life. It is an inevitable balance. Life is a terminal disease or to quote Warren Zevon, "Life'll kill ya.
> 
> .,,


 

I thank you, Robert
This is not my first discussion about religion or God with a Christian. I'm still a beginner. Hope I'll have greater knowledge.

I think "a soul could see Allah's presence even when looking into a drop of rain and a soul will deny the truth even if you show him/her real miracles."

Regards

Mustafa


----------



## maxiogee

spakh said:


> I think "a soul could see Allah's presence even when looking into a drop of rain and a soul will deny the truth even if you show him/her real miracles."



Mustafa, 
One can see miracles and not need to believe that a God was involved to appreciate their miraculousness.
My mother was advised that she had probably got about six months to live following an operation for lung-cancer. She was seriously ill. She recovered enough to live a further 25 more years, many of them in excellent health. Her doctors - she outlived some of them - were amazed at her endurance, and _they_ deemed it miraculous.

I have recovered from a dreadful addiction to alcoholism. I had been through serious problems related to this, both mental and physical. I deem that miraculous - but I don't need to ascribe it to an outside agency. I ascribe it to two spiritual experiences I had shortly after making the decision to quit drinking and sort myself out, whatever the cost - and stopping brought more mental problems, but I was able to overcome them, with the right help and a willingness to accept it.

I see the miraculous regularly - and am always awed by it, but that doesn't mean that I need to imagine some unknowable being - whose existence has been written about by people who claim to have known 'Him' - but who never had any witnesses to these events. This God inspires them to write sacred texts and we are told we must accept that they are the word of this God - without any evidence.


----------



## almostfreebird

This is my God!
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/almostfreebird/gandalf-hippy-1.jpg


----------



## cuchuflete

spakh said:
			
		

> I thank you, Robert
> This is not my first discussion about religion or God with a Christian.



On what grounds do you assume and declare any member of this thread to be a Christian?  (Nun-translator very probably is, but I haven't seen any firm indications from other people.)


----------



## geve

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?


The answer to your question would depend on what you mean by "to have a concept of god" and by "accept". 

I have a concept of god: The concept of a creator, a superior intelligence, a force or something, is somewhere in my brain.
I don't have a concept of god: I don't have faith in or worship any deity.

I accept religion and religious teachings: I understand, acknowledge the existence and utility of religion and religions teachings. 
I don't accept religion and religious teachings: I don't adhere to, I don't believe in any religion or religious teaching.

I quite like Jean-Mi's answer:


LV4-26 said:


> If we want to really answer the original question and only the original question, I believe the only answer we can give is a very matter-of-fact one : "*some do, therefore it must be possible"*.


----------



## Roberto097

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


 
Hello  
Yes and no.
Why yes?
1.- The creature has a relation with the creator. Regardless of beliefs. 
2.- That relation is always based on experience. Only experience can make it real. 
Question: Could we have a personal religion based on experience? 

No
Why no?
1.- The relation between the creature to the creator is at present called religion. If religion is taken as an absolute = problem. If religion is taken as a relative = growth.
2.- To blame the creator for the mistakes of religion is like to judge the tree by its shade and not by its fruits.
Questions: Is it to be loyal to god (the creator) the same as to be loyal to any particular religion? Is religion = god?

Thank you
R097


----------



## floraa

I think it is possible to have a concept of god without accepting religious teachings.

Me for example, I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, and eventually stopped believing in the religious practices and those teachings. 

I never stopped believing in God as a whole, just in what was taught to me by my parents/Church. For me, organized religion is something society created and you don't really need to be a part of it to have a belief in God or a higher power.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Yes. I believe in a deity. (Call it whatever you like) But I don't follow and accept a religion. So that means it's quite possible, eh?

I totally agree with the last part of what floraa said.


----------



## Bonjules

Pretty funny, a discussion about God among grown up and otherwise mostly not unreasonable people (at least one could have spelled 
Him/Her/It with a capital 'G' in the title)
But the concept does explain something important about us: 
Our delusion about ourselves and our continued refusal to realistically
acknowledge our nature.
Since Man has always 'created' God(s) in his own image, which, at least since the Greeks and the Renaissance (yes, I'm talking 'western' cultures here) is a very lofty and basically wonderful one, God is, of course even more perfect, benign,'good' and, like
we ourselves often want to be, omnipotent (only in Hinduism, as far as I know, is
a God(ess) which is a bit nasty). Then this perfect entity has of course in return
'created' us - in His/Her/Its image, very reassuring- ; an infallible feedback loop of perfection.
Our self-delusion about our nature along with another equally insidious
consequence of God/religion - that is not having to take ultimate
responsibility for us/our family/community/planet etc-- will lead to our
demise, of course. As always, when you deny reality for too long. But, at
least like the alcoholic/drug addict we can say 'well, I know I'm doomed, but
at least I had some fun in the process..'..
(Thinking about this point, I'm actually not so sure that the majority
of our fellow humans are having such a great time...
I suppose they are the ones that need Him/Her?/It more than most participants in these fora..)
God will of course hardly notice that we'll be gone. He/She/It will,
as Carl Sagan taught us, have all these 'billions and billions'
of galaxies to worry about...


----------



## geve

Bonjules said:


> Pretty funny, a discussion about God among grown up and otherwise mostly not unreasonable people (at least one could have spelled
> Him/Her/It with a capital 'G' in the title)


Perhaps in some people's concept, god takes a minuscule g


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> Perhaps in some people's concept, god takes a minuscule g


This is part of the point of the question.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:


> Perhaps in some people's concept, god takes a minuscule g


 Yes, and perhaps in some people's concept, the creator/higher power/deity/it/her/them has better things to worry about than mere human spelling conventions.


----------



## geve

. said:


> This is part of the point of the question.
> 
> .,,


That's how I had understood it, indeed - it surely didn't look like a typo to me.


cuchuflete said:


> Yes, and perhaps in some people's concept, the creator/higher power/deity/it/her/them has better things to worry about than mere human spelling conventions.


GOD is not welcomed on this forum then! 
(capitalizing every letter is a good strategy to escape the problem )


----------



## rsweet

While Bonjules is certainly entitled to own his spiritual beliefs, I disagree with him about his grammar. The capitalization of religious terms is really set up to refer to a specific, monotheistic concept of a deity (note: not the Deity). When I write _God_, I'm referring to the one and only, the big kahuna, the put-no-other gods before me God. Pronouns and references to the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father, Christ Child, or Allah follow suit. It is certainly incorrect to capitalize "gods," and I question strongly whether it is appropriate to capitalize the word when referring to an unorthodox spiritual concept.


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:
			
		

> (capitalizing every letter is a good strategy to *escape* the problem )



Hmmmm...Are you suggesting a correlation between escapism and religion?


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> Hmmmm...Are you suggesting a correlation between escapism and religion?


This is a good question, but I'm not sure how to read it... It's possible that some try to escape something with religion, and that some try to escape religion altogether. Which did you mean?


----------



## Bonjules

rsweet said:


> While, Bonjules is certainly entitled to own his spiritual beliefs, I disagree with him about his grammar. The capitalization of religious terms is really set up to refer to a specific, monotheistic concept of a deity (note: not the Deity). When I write _God_, I'm referring to the one and only, the big kahuna, the put-no-other gods before me God. Pronouns and references to the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father, Christ Child, or Allah follow suit. It is certainly incorrect to capitalize "gods," and I question strongly whether it is appropriate to capitalize the word when referring to an unorthodox spiritual concept.


rsweet, I don't think there should be a comma after the first word of your post.
You are certainly correct, I shouldn't have written God(s) -laziness
on my part. On the other hand, from how the title is written I'd say there is little doubt we are dealing with the 'One and Only', or, as you say so
nicely, the 'big kahuna', not just any run-of- the-mill, street corner god.

Ah - I almost forgot: Could we rather talk about our need to create God (gods, goddesses, what have you)?


----------



## JamesM

Bonjules said:


> Pretty funny, a discussion about God among grown up and otherwise mostly not unreasonable people (at least one could have spelled
> Him/Her/It with a capital 'G' in the title)
> But the concept does explain something important about us:
> Our delusion about ourselves and our continued refusal to realistically
> acknowledge our nature.
> Since Man has always 'created' God(s) in his own image, which, at least since the Greeks and the Renaissance (yes, I'm talking 'western' cultures here) is a very lofty and basically wonderful one, God is, of course even more perfect, benign,'good' and, like
> we ourselves often want to be, omnipotent (only in Hinduism, as far as I know, is
> a God(ess) which is a bit nasty). Then this perfect entity has of course in return
> 'created' us - in His/Her/Its image, very reassuring- ; an infallible feedback loop of perfection.
> Our self-delusion about our nature along with another equally insidious
> consequence of God/religion - that is not having to take ultimate
> responsibility for us/our family/community/planet etc-- will lead to our
> demise, of course. As always, when you deny reality for too long. But, at
> least like the alcoholic/drug addict we can say 'well, I know I'm doomed, but
> at least I had some fun in the process..'..
> (Thinking about this point, I'm actually not so sure that the majority
> of our fellow humans are having such a great time...
> I suppose they are the ones that need Him/Her?/It more than most participants in these fora..)
> God will of course hardly notice that we'll be gone. He/She/It will,
> as Carl Sagan taught us, have all these 'billions and billions'
> of galaxies to worry about...


 
This is as much a "belief" (we created God in our own image) as any other.  It has as much or as little evidence as any other belief.  The fact that is currently a very popular belief among those who consider themselves to be progressive thinkers makes it no more real or unreal than any other belief.  Yet the tone used is distinctly similar to the tone of true believers of any age or persuasion.  To those who hold such a belief (we created God in our own image), it is the One and Only Truth.


----------



## Bonjules

JamesM said:


> This is as much a "belief" (we created God in our own image) as any other. It has as much or as little evidence as any other belief. The fact that is currently a very popular belief among those who consider themselves to be progressive thinkers makes it no more real or unreal than any other belief. Yet the tone used is distinctly similar to the tone of true believers of any age or persuasion. To those who hold such a belief (we created God in our own image), it is the One and Only Truth.


 
Well, James, it looks like you don't believe me..
Sure, it's my conviction as of now and either way there is no ultimate proof. But we can look at the evidence of history and anthropology, can't we? Such as the many phases the concept of deities went through until arriving at the 'modern' concept of God(in Western Culture and Islam), really only a tiny glimpse in human history?
Surely, I don't expect to convince a 'true believer' of anything else. You
only need to look at my sig, after all.


----------



## JamesM

We can look at the evidence of history and anthropology using many frameworks. If you _assume_ from the beginning that the God is an invention of Man, it can certainly be interpreted that the invention has changed over time. If you _assume_ from the beginning that God exists and that Man discovers the nature of God over time, then it can certainly be interpreted that, while the understanding has changed, the thing out there called God has not. The fundamental question is whether there exists something unmeasurable but real called God. Evidence can be amassed either way.

Simply because sub-atomic theory has radically changed over my lifetime does not necessarily mean that sub-atomic particles themselves have changed over that same time period. However, if I were to start with the assumption that sub-atomic particles only exist as an invention of Man to satisfy his desire to explain the universe, I could certainly argue that this concept has evolved independent of any reality outside the concept.  In other words, Man has invented particles in his own image of particles.  

But, as you say, I don't expect to convince a 'true believer' of anything else.


----------



## Bonjules

JamesM;162312
 
Simply because sub-atomic theory has radically changed over my lifetime does not necessarily mean that sub-atomic particles themselves have changed over that same time period. However said:
			
		

> You know of course already what I am going to say, don't you. For the particles we have evidence; if not, we discard the assumption. For the other we have a by now bewildering multitude of definitions and assumptions, some so nebulous that they are almost devoid of any meaning. Logic seems to help us little here; we are in the realm of magical belief, always a favorite for humans.


----------



## JamesM

It's true that faith and science do not mix well.  However, the "evidence" we have for the nature of particles changes, depending on our expectations, according to the most recent theories. This discovery supports your sig, doesn't it? 

We cannot talk about the "facts" of history and anthropology as if they are observations of particles. History and anthropology are all concepts developed by people to make sense of the world. They are no more real than the concept of God. And if the observable behavior of particles changes based on our expectations, are we really so certain of anything as "hard fact" disproving the existence of anything?

Your sig is "We don't see things as they are but as we want them to be."  The trick is to remember that the "we" is all-inclusive.   It's very easy for humans to flip that "we" into a "you", even when saying "we."


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> On the other hand, from how the title is written I'd say there is little doubt we are dealing with the 'One and Only', or, as you say so
> nicely, the 'big kahuna', not just any run-of- the-mill, street corner god.


G'day Bonjules,
I am a native speaker and I do not drop Capital Letters in the title of a thread such as this unless I wish to do so.
Your response contains both God and god so you are obviously aware that there is a difference and it is therefore disingenuous of you to play around with my thread title and derail the intent of my question.
You may believe in the 'One and Only' but that is only your belief and it is not shared by the majority of the population of the planet.
What is a run-of-the-mill, street corner god as compared to the 'One and Only'? Is the 'One and Only' a single entity or a trinity?



Bonjules said:


> Ah - I almost forgot: Could we rather talk about our need to create God (gods, goddesses, what have you)?


Could we rather talk about the possibility of having a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

. said:


> What is a run-of-the-mill, street corner god as compared to the 'One and Only'? Is the 'One and Only' a single entity or a trinity?
> 
> Could we rather talk about the possibility of having a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> 
> .,,


 
Actually, I was thinking of the Romans, who had statues of gods at the
street corners. 
Far from wanting to derail your intent, I tried to the best
of my ability(which might not be great) to interpret what your idea was.
Towards that end and judging by the absence of the article ('a god' might have been clearer) I felt the entity that rsweet decribed so succinctly in her contribution was the most likely. I think most people
in the Western world would see it like that when confronted with the
term used in this way.


----------



## .   1

We are discussing the current situation.
A reference to 2,000 year old practices does nothing to further this discussion.  The Imperial Roman practice has little to do with my question.
The article 'a' was not ommitted as it is not necessary.
The point of my question is that the concept of god is an internal one and is the root of what is described as altruism.
*altruism 1* the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. *2* the philosophical doctrine that the right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> The fundamental question is whether there exists something unmeasurable but real called God. Evidence can be amassed either way.



"*Evidence* can be amassed"? Surely you mean theories?
There is little "evidence" on the non-existence of anything.

I may believe that there are no bears in the woods in Ireland. Many experts say there aren't. But my _not seeing_ any isn't "evidence" that they aren't there. Nor is my not seeing the sort of traces they leave elsewhere. But these things can be built up to a theory.


Further, if I believe that there is a God and its attributes are X, Y and Z — and it turns out that there is a God but its attributes are A, B and C - have I been right or wrong in my belief?
Bearing in mind that the attributes are what define the thing, I think I've been totally wrong.
To cite a possible example - what will happen 'on the last day' if the first thing God says is "Hey you gays, over here. I love you guys - you've had it tough!"


----------



## rsweet

I think we've strayed from ..,'s original topic. We're not discussing the existence of God. The original question was whether or not it is possible to have a concept of a higher power (something holy, spiritual, mysterious) without accepting the teachings of a structured religion. I would say, "absolutely"! Others might say that those who believe in a greater power without religious teachings lead a conterfeit spiritual life—that this Lone Ranger, make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff is not the same as a true belief in God.


----------



## JamesM

rsweet said:


> I think we've strayed from ..,'s original topic. We're not discussing the existence of God. The original question was whether or not it is possible to have a concept of a higher power (something holy, spiritual, mysterious) without accepting the teachings of a structured religion. I would say, "absolutely"! Others might say that those who believe in a greater power without religious teachings lead a conterfeit spiritual life—that this Lone Ranger, make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff is not the same as a true belief in God.


 
Ah, but if we're sticking faithfully to the original question, there is no mention of "belief" in God, only having the concept of God.  The two are very different.

I think that question was answered several times already in this thread.  There are many examples of people having a _concept_ of God that do not accept religion or religious teachings.  There was no disagreement with that point that I saw.

If we are adhering strictly to that question as the topic, the thread's probably ready to be closed.


----------



## jess oh seven

one form of "religion" can't be more legitimate or valid than another, so surely creating one of your own based on your own personal beliefs, perceptions and values is perfectly legitimate.


----------



## JamesM

jess oh seven said:


> one form of "religion" can't be more legitimate or valid than another, so surely creating one of your own based on your own personal beliefs, perceptions and values is perfectly legitimate.


 
Still not related to the question, as I understand what's being asked.  The question says "Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?"  The undisputed answer at this point is "yes", as far as I can tell.  Can anyone say that it is impossible to have a concept of God without accepting religion or religious teachings?  I don't think anyone has argued from that position, or would be able to, frankly.


----------



## JamesM

maxiogee said:


> "*Evidence* can be amassed"? Surely you mean theories?
> There is little "evidence" on the non-existence of anything.
> 
> I may believe that there are no bears in the woods in Ireland. Many experts say there aren't. But my _not seeing_ any isn't "evidence" that they aren't there. Nor is my not seeing the sort of traces they leave elsewhere. But these things can be built up to a theory.


 
Yes, "theories" is a better word, but the post I was responding to was using "evidence" and I responded in kind. The "either side" I referred to was a) Man has re-invented God over time, or b) Man has discovered more about God over time.  Neither one was referring to something not existing.  



> Further, if I believe that there is a God and its attributes are X, Y and Z — and it turns out that there is a God but its attributes are A, B and C - have I been right or wrong in my belief?
> Bearing in mind that the attributes are what define the thing, I think I've been totally wrong.
> To cite a possible example - what will happen 'on the last day' if the first thing God says is "Hey you gays, over here. I love you guys - you've had it tough!"


 
Yes, your belief about the nature of God would be wrong, but your belief that God existed would not.


----------



## maxiogee

jess oh seven said:


> one form of "religion" can't be more legitimate or valid than another, so surely creating one of your own based on your own personal beliefs, perceptions and values is perfectly legitimate.



If that one form of religion has it right, and their God(s) and the worship requirements required are "the" God(s), and the correct worshiip requirements, then it is more valid than any other.
All religions act from the understanding that they are worshipping the true God(s) and are doing so in the correct manner.

So, while all of them _could[/b] be wrong, one of them could be right._


----------



## Sallyb36

cuchuflete said:


> Hmmmm...Are you suggesting a correlation between escapism and religion?



I would suggest that religion is a form of escapism.


----------



## jess oh seven

JamesM said:


> Still not related to the question, as I understand what's being asked. The question says "Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?" The undisputed answer at this point is "yes", as far as I can tell. Can anyone say that it is impossible to have a concept of God without accepting religion or religious teachings? I don't think anyone has argued from that position, or would be able to, frankly.


well, in my opinion, it relates perfectly to the question. 
maybe this discussion should be locked lest anyone express an opinion or interpretation.


----------



## .   1

jess oh seven said:


> well, in my opinion, it relates perfectly to the question.
> maybe this discussion should be locked lest anyone express an opinion or interpretation.


G'day jess,
Your answer is extraordinarily close to the intention of the question.
I do hope that the thread is not locked before you and others like you are able to give me the range of opinions I am seeking.
Some of the answers posted here make no sense to me in relation to the thread question but they are stupifyingly revealing of the posters and their intentions.

.,,


----------



## Mei

Hi,

Do you ever thought how would be our world if it weren't any kind of religion? 

Answering the thread question... I do believe in something out there but I'm not sure if call It "God", "Light", "Inspiration" or... I don't know... maybe "Hope". I'm not sure of what I can't see or touch.

Cheers

Mei


----------



## florecia

Yes, one can have a concept of a "higher power" in the world and not have a concept of God and teachings. It might not  be the Christian God some of us are familiar but other people may practice other  form of spirituality. Think about natives in north and south america. The natives didn't have a Christian God. The Aztecs believe the Sun was a God. The Incas called the earth mother and the sun father.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Mei said:


> Hi,Do you ever thought how would be our world if it weren't any kind of religion?


 
if there would no be any kind of religion still there would be righteousness and unrighteousness 

there would no be rituals, beliefs in unknowable things, sacred books to fight about mine is better than yours, chosen humans to fight about my prophet, my saviour, my guru, etc

but if we take the word religion as its etymological origin _re-ligare_, then perhaps we were able to see the universe as a whole (re-unite what has been separated) and understand that we all are one (oneness) and that what we do to others we do to ourselves, for that reson I wonder why the meaning of the word has been changed during history.


----------



## JazzByChas

Well...I must say that "concept," "religion,"religious teachings" are all man-made notions. You can believe about God what you will. There are those of us who know Him personally, and He is a being, and not merely a concept. It is very freeing, IMHO, to have a relationship with the One who made you and the universe, and to be able to partake of His wisdom and love for you.

As others have said, "concepts of god(s)," "religions," and the like are man-made ideas, and offer little comfort. I would rather know a person than an idea.

My .02 USD


----------



## Bonjules

Certainly everybody is free to make up their own concept of life, the Universe, guiding or universal spirits, forces beyond our understanding and the like without being bound by coherent, structured belief systems that are shared by others.
Some say now that God is Love. Or altruism (agape?).
But I think those definitions tend to dilute the 'traditional' concept of an all-knowing, all-guiding force/entity to such a degree that it tends to become devoid of meaning.
Love and altruism are surely among the more hopeful, yet all too rare aspects of our disposition.  Are they all-encompassing forces? I am not
so sure; looking around, it doesn't seem so.
Are they 'glimpses' of the 'devine'? Maybe. They do give us hope at times.


----------



## geve

JamesM said:


> jess oh seven said:
> 
> 
> 
> one form of "religion" can't be more legitimate or valid than another, so surely creating one of your own based on your own personal beliefs, perceptions and values is perfectly legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> Still not related to the question, as I understand what's being asked. The question says "Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?" The undisputed answer at this point is "yes", as far as I can tell. Can anyone say that it is impossible to have a concept of God without accepting religion or religious teachings? I don't think anyone has argued from that position, or would be able to, frankly.
Click to expand...

It seems perfectly on-topic to me - perhaps even the most on-topic post of this thread!
If you have a concept of god, you have a religion... it has no name, no official structures, no legal existence, but can't it be called a religion nonetheless?

It all boils down to the definition of "religion" after all... Nun-Translator gave this definition in post #11: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". Don't we all have a such set of beliefs (regardless of our having a concept of god or not)?

The difficulty is that the thread question is "but not accept religion or religions teachings" - and I'm still not sure how to read "accept".


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> The difficulty is that the thread question is "but not accept religion or religions teachings" - and I'm still not sure how to read "accept".


In this case I was trying to convey that I do not follow any religion or religious teachings.  Others are welcome to believe as they feel but I have the impression that certain members of specific religions are attempting to take the moral high ground and by insinuation denigrate anybody who does not follow their particular form of religion and to condemn those who follow no organised religion as somehow being primitive or morally lacking.

.,,


----------



## geve

. said:


> In this case I was trying to convey that I do not follow any religion or religious teachings. Others are welcome to believe as they feel but I have the impression that certain members of specific religions are attempting to take the moral high ground and by insinuation denigrate anybody who does not follow their particular form of religion and to condemn those who follow no organised religion as somehow being primitive or morally lacking.
> 
> .,,


But isn't that a very common human trait? I mean, don't we have a tendency to think higher of people who hold the same convictions as us, than of those who don't?

I think that when you have convictions (be they religious beliefs or not) it's hard to understand the other side's viewpoint. You might have no problem with them holding a different belief but you can't see from their viewpoint. If you think you are right (which is what convictions are about) how can they not be at least a bit wrong?


----------



## LouisaB

In answer to the original question, I would give a resounding 'yes'.

In C.S. Lewis' book 'Mere Christianity' (and please - don't panic, what follows is nothing to do with Christianity, I promise!) he devotes his whole first chapter to this very subject. He argues for the existence of an inherent awareness of good within humanity, unless it has been actively perverted by someone else, and cites such examples as the way in which even very small children will argue, showing an innate dependence on a sense of fairness. For instance, Child A says 'You took my book'. Child B does _not_ reply 'Yeah, well I wanted it so I took it'. He says something like 'Yes, but you had it yesterday' or 'But it was my book first' or some such argument - but always attempting to justify his action by some kind of moral code which is obviously known to both of them. I'm not sure how well this holds up today, but as an ex-teacher it's something I noticed in children from even the most appalling (and criminal) backgrounds, so I think there's something in it.

Lewis also argues there's an inherent spirituality in everyone, regardless of differences in culture. The examples he gives include the way in which people respond to music (even if the kind of music which appeals to them is different) and also the sense of the _numinous_ which people often experience in nature, for example when high among the hills, or watching a waterfall. He describes how many people feel a curious sense of sadness mixed in with their enjoyment of these things - a kind of feeling of '_This_ is my home, _this_ is something I am somehow missing'.

He deduces from all these things the existence of a god - or otherwise where did all this come from? - but then unfortunately jumps straight to Christianity. But I don't think that's necessary. I don't think you even need to deduce the existence of a 'god' in the sense of any kind of personification. One can love goodness and aspire to spirituality without that - and many people do. Many of them are much more spiritual people than so-called religious ones.

I believe it's not only 'possible' to have a concept of god without accepting religious teaching, I suspect it's almost universal. Some decide to move from there into a formalised religion - which is not necessarily a step forward - while others prefer to have a more direct and personal relationship with whatever it is they've found. Others, unfortunately, choose to ignore it altogether, and that, I think _is_ sad.


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> But isn't that a very common human trait? I mean, don't we have a tendency to think higher of people who hold the same convictions as us, than of those who don't?
> 
> I think that when you have convictions (be they religious beliefs or not) it's hard to understand the other side's viewpoint. You might have no problem with them holding a different belief but you can't see from their viewpoint. If you think you are right (which is what convictions are about) how can they not be at least a bit wrong?


Yes, you are correct, I think I am right but this does not mean that you are wrong to think in a different way to me.
Spirituality is a very personal thing and should remain personal.
I don't criticise any person holding religious view.
I am very aware of the personal contentment that can come from the holding of personal religious views.
I would never do anything that would break the faith of another person and I believe that to do so is one of the meanest most spiteful acts possible.
I have a difficulty with some religious people who feel the need to cram their views down my throat.
I only became aware of the word proselytize very recently and I believe that this practice is contrary to everything that I know about religion.
The concept that 'your god is not as valid as my God' is disgusting.
I am firmly of the opinion that every religion follows the same God.
I am firmly of the opinion that every 'Good Book' is basically the same and any minor differences are merely of semantics or poor translation.
My god of the self is no less valid than another's God of the Book.
I do not accept that religious people are better than non-religious people.
I do not accept that a discussion such as this has a right answer and a wrong answer.
I am not trying to prove that one system is better than any other system.
Just because you are right does not make me wrong in matters such as these.
Religion can be seen as a codification of behaviour patterns that are viewed as being condusive to minimising conflict between people living together in large groups.
In my opinion all religions are good for humanity and are to be admired but altruism is also a pretty good concept and does nothing to denigrate our species.
Altruism is not at conflict with religion but some members of splinter groups of some religions have twisted the altruistic nature of their religion to try to control the lives of others to their own private benefit and I find this repugnant.

.,,


----------



## ps139

geve said:


> I think that when you have convictions (be they religious beliefs or not) it's hard to understand the other side's viewpoint. You might have no problem with them holding a different belief but you can't see from their viewpoint. If you think you are right (which is what convictions are about) how can they not be at least a bit wrong?


And, what if you used to hold their viewpoint? What if you were one of the leaders of some belief system, and you switched to something else. I think you would _certainly _understand the other side's viewpoint.

This is not the case in every conversion/deconversion, but it happens frequently enough.


----------



## Mei

Ana Raquel said:


> if there would no be any kind of religion still there would be righteousness and unrighteousness
> 
> there would no be rituals, beliefs in unknowable things, sacred books to fight about mine is better than yours, chosen humans to fight about my prophet, my saviour, my guru, etc
> 
> but if we take the word religion as its etymological origin _re-ligare_, then perhaps we were able to see the universe as a whole (re-unite what has been separated) and understand that we all are one (oneness) and that what we do to others we do to ourselves, for that reson I wonder why the meaning of the word has been changed during history.



Hi Ana Raquel, 

Of course there wouldn't be rituals and all that but think about the history, the wars, the power of Church up to now or what the man had done in the name of God.... what would happened if there were no religion? 

Cheers 

Mei


----------



## maxiogee

Just a few thoughts



. said:


> I am very aware of the personal contentment that can come from the holding of personal religious views.


Yes, it relieves one of …
the need to ponder the meaning of life — "I don't need to worry, my God has a plan - even though I don't know what it is." 
the need to figure out how best to live this life — "I have a rule book, and if I obey it rigidly, everything will be okay."
the need to assess other people's beliefs in an balanced way — "If I'm right, they're wrong."



> I would never do anything that would break the faith of another person and I believe that to do so is one of the meanest most spiteful acts possible.


Can one break the faith of another? Is not one's strength of faith a matter for oneself. Events may shake it, or even shatter it, but can a person do so?




> I only became aware of the word proselytize very recently and I believe that this practice is contrary to everything that I know about religion.


Many religions believe that one must convert the un-believing. Many carry injunctions to do so.
But, apart from that, many religious people see the need to have their beliefs and values enshrined in the laws of where they live. One of the best ways to get the laws of anywhere changed is to have the electorate clamour for change, and there must be many of them to do this.




> The concept that 'your god is not as valid as my God' is disgusting.
> I am firmly of the opinion that every religion follows the same God.
> I am firmly of the opinion that every 'Good Book' is basically the same and any minor differences are merely of semantics or poor translation.


If "my God" is different from "your God", then - because there *is* only one for many religions - "mine" _must_ be the only one. This makes "your one" false. For me to believe otherwise means one of two things, (a) I'm worshipping a false God, (and we don't like to think that) or (b) my religion has lied to me in its injunctions as to how I must worship, and the dogma I must accept.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Just a few thoughts
> 
> 
> Yes, it relieves one of …
> the need to ponder the meaning of life — "I don't need to worry, my God has a plan - even though I don't know what it is."
> the need to figure out how best to live this life — "I have a rule book, and if I obey it rigidly, everything will be okay."
> the need to assess other people's beliefs in an balanced way — "If I'm right, they're wrong."


That is your opinion and it pertains only to some religions but other religions hold differing views so it is not logical to tar all religions with that particular brush.



maxiogee said:


> Can one break the faith of another? Is not one's strength of faith a matter for oneself. Events may shake it, or even shatter it, but can a person do so?


People can cause events. Events can break faith. People can break faith.



maxiogee said:


> Many religions believe that one must convert the un-believing. Many carry injunctions to do so.
> But, apart from that, many religious people see the need to have their beliefs and values enshrined in the laws of where they live. One of the best ways to get the laws of anywhere changed is to have the electorate clamour for change, and there must be many of them to do this.


Many religions do not feel this need.



maxiogee said:


> If "my God" is different from "your God", then - because there *is* only one for many religions - "mine" _must_ be the only one. This makes "your one" false. For me to believe otherwise means one of two things, (a) I'm worshipping a false God, (and we don't like to think that) or (b) my religion has lied to me in its injunctions as to how I must worship, and the dogma I must accept.


Many religions do not hold this dogmatic view and in any event you are missing my point. God is God but may be called Allah or whatever by men. I am told that the translation of Allah is God and that the translation of God is Allah. My point is that all of the 'different' names for God refer to the same concept.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> and in any event you are missing my point.



I think not. I have made the point before in this board that if there is only one God then all monotheistic faiths are worshipping the same entity, albeit with a different set of rites and rituals.

My point was that although there may be only the one God, many of the monotheistic religions themselves don't agree that they are worshipping the same entity.
The last time I spoke about all monotheistic concepts of God being just different aspects of the one being I was sent many PMs from followers of different religions telling me I was wrong, and making a special case for their God, and how it cannot be the same God as worshipped by XYZism.


----------



## LV4-26

geve said:


> If you think you are right (which is what convictions are about) how can they not be at least a bit wrong?





maxiogee said:


> If "my God" is different from "your God", then - because there *is* only one for many religions - "mine" _must_ be the only one. This makes "your one" false. For me to believe otherwise means one of two things, (a) I'm worshipping a false God, (and we don't like to think that) or (b) my religion has lied to me in its injunctions as to how I must worship, and the dogma I must accept.


I agree with the above.
Let us not confuse 
(1) being open to other's arguments (which I support)
(2) thinking others are "as right as you are" (which I don't)

(1) makes language a tool not merely of expression but also of *communication*. It leaves open the possibility of being influenced, and potentially convinced by others, of confronting (in a mild sense) each other's views. 
Without this communication perspective, each one would express their own ideas for the sake of...what? displaying their own personality or maybe.. bashing others; 
I think, if there's absolutely no intent and no hope of convincing or altering the other's view at least a tiny little bit or making them see the issue from a new (for them) angle, communication is egotistic, autistic and disrespectful.

However -  and here I agree with geve and Tony.
(2) seems fairly paradoxical to me. I don't understand how one can blame others for "thinking they're right". If I'm convinced of something it means I think it's right. Would you want me to say "Here are my convictions but I think they're wrong"?
No, I think your own convictions are not the right ones until you manage to convince me of the opposite (this "_you_" is a general impersonal _you_).


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I think not. I have made the point before in this board that if there is only one God then all monotheistic faiths are worshipping the same entity, albeit with a different set of rites and rituals.
> 
> My point was that although there may be only the one God, many of the monotheistic religions themselves don't agree that they are worshipping the same entity.
> The last time I spoke about all monotheistic concepts of God being just different aspects of the one being I was sent many PMs from followers of different religions telling me I was wrong, and making a special case for their God, and how it cannot be the same God as worshipped by XYZism.


I am totally confused by you and will defer to your greater knowledge on the subject.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

. said:


> I only became aware of the word *proselytize* very recently and I believe that this practice is contrary to everything that I know about religion.


(my emphasis)
I realize the end of paragraph (1) in my previous post *almost* leads to condoning proselytism. Still, I stand by my opinion that I don't mind someone trying to convince me if it means that person judges me "worthy" of it.


----------



## Nunty

I am astounded that anyone who knows me could say (as a couple of people who know me have done) that religion is the easy option because it relieves one of the necessity to think things out for himself.

However, as we used to say elsewhere, YMMD or "your mileage may differ", meaning everyone has his own opinion and welcome to it.


----------



## Victoria32

LV4-26 said:


> I agree with the above.
> Let us not confuse
> (1) being open to other's arguments (which I support)
> (2) thinking others are "as right as you are" (which I don't)
> 
> (1) makes language a tool not merely of expression but also of *communication*. It leaves open the possibility of being influenced, and potentially convinced by others, of confronting (in a mild sense) each other's views.
> Without this communication perspective, each one would express their own ideas for the sake of...what? displaying their own personality or maybe.. bashing others;
> I think, if there's absolutely no intent and no hope of convincing or altering the other's view at least a tiny little bit or making them see the issue from a new (for them) angle, communication is egotistic, autistic and disrespectful.
> 
> However -  and here I agree with geve and Tony.
> (2) seems fairly paradoxical to me. I don't understand how one can blame others for "thinking they're right". If I'm convinced of something it means I think it's right. Would you want me to say "Here are my convictions but I think they're wrong"?
> No, I think your own convictions are not the right ones until you manage to convince me of the opposite (this "_you_" is a general impersonal _you_).


I think that just as language cannot be private, religion can't either (though spritiuality can, of course,) 
I know at least one person who says quite adamantly, that she rejects religion and all who believe in it, yet she has what she calls her own 'God concept'... which she calls "Fred". So it is perfectly possible. 

But if she was to convince one other person of her experiences of "Fred" and "convert" that person, there's the beginnings of a religion...

I do not think that telling someone else of my religious convictions need (necessarily) be proselytising, nor do I think proselytising is wrong. After all, whatever I tell you, you are free to accept or not. By laying the possibility before you, I do you no harm.
(I of course am using a general "you", not a particular one.) 

VL


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I am astounded that anyone who knows me could say (as a couple of people who know me have done) that religion is the easy option because it relieves one of the necessity to think things out for himself.



I think your mileage is very different to that of many religious believers, Sister.
Many Christians I come across in Ireland seem to feel that they're following the rule book, and that inquiring into philosophical or theological concepts is not necessary, and ultimately only confusing anyway. Ask most Christians if they believe in God and they will answer in such an emphatic way as to show that they have never disbelieved, not even pondered the possibility of their God's non-existence.


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> I think your mileage is very different to that of many religious believers, Sister.


Well, yes. I suppose it is. But I also believe that most (all?) of us get to the same place by way of different paths.



maxiogee said:


> Many Christians I come across in Ireland seem to feel that they're following the rule book, and that inquiring into philosophical or theological concepts is not necessary, and ultimately only confusing anyway. Ask most Christians if they believe in God and they will answer in such an emphatic way as to show that they have never disbelieved, not even pondered the possibility of their God's non-existence.


That is unfortunate. 

I am a nun, and since we are well past the days of families shuffling off their embarassing daughters on monasteries, it is safe to assume that this is of my own free choice. I got here on a path of rigorous and sometimes heart-breaking questioning. Anyone who studies bible or catechism with me faces the same difficult path, but they will have to find their own answers to their own questions. (Sometimes finding the question is the hardest part.) However, I know there are "softer, easier ways", and these are not necessarily wrong for those who choose them. What saddens me is people who act as if they have no choice.

Am I on topic? I'm not really sure. I just want to add that I do believe that the construction of human beings includes an obligatory spiritual component. People do not necessarily express it through God or a god or religion, but it's there. Of that I am convinced.


----------



## Victoria32

Nun-Translator said:


> .........
> 
> I am a nun, and since we are well past the days of families shuffling off their embarassing daughters on monasteries, it is safe to assume that this is of my own free choice. I got here on a path of rigorous and sometimes heart-breaking questioning. Anyone who studies bible or catechism with me faces the same difficult path, but they will have to find their own answers to their own questions. (Sometimes finding the question is the hardest part.) However, I know there are "softer, easier ways", and these are not necessarily wrong for those who choose them. What saddens me is people who act as if they have no choice.
> 
> Am I on topic? I'm not really sure. I just want to add that I do believe that the construction of human beings includes an obligatory spiritual component. People do not necessarily express it through God or a god or religion, but it's there. Of that I am convinced.


I understand what you say, Nun-Translator... I was brought up by an atheist father and an unconcerned mother - (both of whomm changed their views before they died - well they could hardly do it afterwards could they?)

But I went through the same kind of questioning, before happily adopting my religion... 

I feel advantaged not to have been brought up with one.


----------



## cuchuflete

Not too many years ago I became aware of the spiritual component Sr Claire Edith mentioned.  It didn't come from, nor does it require, a religious component.  A religious component might help nurture it, or, in the case of some religious components, might crowd it out with the un- or a- or even anti-spiritual aspects of some religious practices.  

My acceptance of the existence of a creator does not imply automatic understanding of the nature of that creator, but acceptance is quite a lot in itself.  I wonder if those who are able to tell me all about God (or Fred or whatever name makes you comfortable...) are not being ...I've been staring at the screen for quite a while, trying to think of a friendly, neutral, uncontentious way to say 'arrogant'...just a little bit presumptuous.   To be able to "explain" a god is to put oneself in the position of being as knowing, and I haven't yet come across a person who can tell me what's on the other side of either infinity or the Mobius strip.


----------



## .   1

LV4-26 said:


> (my emphasis)
> I realize the end of paragraph (1) in my previous post *almost* leads to condoning proselytism. Still, I stand by my opinion that I don't mind someone trying to convince me if it means that person judges me "worthy" of it.


I did not take any flavour of proselytism from your post.
Being open to or inviting dialogue is not cramming it down someone's throat.
A healthy dialogue is a wonderful thing between two consenting adults.
To my understanding the act of proselytising requires non-consent on the part of the receiver.  This is the repugnant part.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Whilst I don't want anyone trying to sell me their religion, I have no problems with proselytising.
It seems to me to be a natural thing to do if you really believe that you know the truth, to try to spread it.

Don't most religions tend to advocate that living their way is the key to happiness both here and, if they believe in one, in an afterlife. It seems to me that the logical conclusion of believing this is that if everyone was of the same beliefs then this would be an ideal world and our troubles would be minimised, if not totally banished.

Who wouldn't want to do whatever it took to achieve that?


----------



## cuchuflete

Maxiogee said:
			
		

> ...if everyone was of the same beliefs then this would be...


 a boring world.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Whilst I don't want anyone trying to sell me their religion, I have no problems with proselytising.


So what happens when both parties are sure that they know the one true path?
Religion should be a private and personal experience. I have no problems with someone living their life to their spiritual beliefs as long as they leave mine alone. I know that I have the right path and I am not in the least interested in converting another to my path. My path fits me due to my life experiences and I do not know the life experiences of another.
Sister Clair Edith and I have wildly divergent life experiences and we walk a different spiritual path but hers is not wrong to her and mine is not wrong to me. My spiritual life would not suit her and her spiritual life would not suit me but this does not stop me from respecting her decisions.
Proselytising seems to be inherently a lack of respect for the beliefs of the recepient and a hubris on the part of the deliverer of the 'truth'.
The harder that some mug tries to cram something down my craw the harder I will gag.

maxiogee I must ask you this question.
You say that you don't want anyone to sell you their religion but you have no problem with proselytising.
This seems to be a contradiction in terms.
Are you saying that you are happy to proselytise yourself but not happy to be the recepient of proselytising?
I just can not reconcile your statement.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm sure Tony will answer for himself, but I have no trouble with those who proselytize in the spirit of putting something on offer for my consideration.  If they tell me that their view/faith/belief system is the one and only correct one available from God, I close my ears and say, "No thank you.  I couldn't possibly accept any notion of God that excludes most of humanity, and no religion on earth includes, even nominally, more than about a third of living people."

Still, I'm unperturbed at the offer of a viewpoint.  I learn by listening to it.  When the offer speech is over, I can consider whether I've found a few good questions by listening.  

There is the other form of proselytizing, the ugly threats of hell if one doesn't wholeheartedly embrace every last droplet of what the speaker says.  That's too silly to be bothered about, after the initial annoyance such arrogance provokes.


----------



## .   1

My good book (The Collins Dictionary) gives the troubling definition as;

*proselytize* to convert (someone) from one religious faith to another.

An offer of a viewpoint is not necessarily obnoxious.
An attempt to convert from an already established religious faith to another religious faith is repugnant and smacks of the most arrogant hubris possible.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

The Cambridge definition is a bit less obnoxious:

(_*my emphasis*_)

to_* try to persuade*_ someone to change their religious or political beliefs or their way of living to your own:


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> The Cambridge definition is a bit less obnoxious:
> 
> (_*my emphasis*_)
> 
> to_* try to persuade*_ someone to change their religious or political beliefs or their way of living to your own:


I agree that this is only slightly less obnoxious but that certainly does not make it polite or positive.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

I'll play devil's advocate.

The slightly less obnoxious person who would persuade me may be any of—
-thickheaded
-brainwashed
-totally sincere and altruistic, and concerned for the well-being of my soul
-rude and inconsiderate
-arrogant and narrow-minded
-kind-hearted

In short, motive and context, as usual, come into play.

The would-be convert may be any of—

-quite secure in my own belief, and uninterested in the sales pitch
-floundering and uncertain in matters spiritual, and interested in hearing any and all propositions
-dissatisfied with my current religion, which is
...too liberal, changing at a pace that makes me uncomfortable
...too conservative, changing little, if at all, thus making me uncomfortable.

Obviously some combinations from the lists above could be felicitous, while others could lead to bloodshed.

Sellling a belief system isn't that different from selling soapflakes or automobiles:

An effective seller points to features and benefits, while an intelligent customer may comparison shop, with a notion of value, veracity, and a healthy cynicism in mind.  Caveat emptor?


----------



## .   1

This is a very fine line to tread in such a discussion.
I generally have little time for the devil's advocate.
I would prefer to discuss such a matter directly and know what the other is saying.
Caveat emptor is all well and good for a willing purchaser but has litle or nothing to do in the case of a person who has no wish to buy.
Soapflakes and automobiles are not connected in any way to spirituality.
Soapflakes and automoblies are luxuries and spirituality is a necessity.
Soapflakes and automoblies are consumed or wear out and require constant replacement.
Soapflakes and automoblies can be bought and sold.
Proselytising is dangerous for all concerned not the least for the proselytiser.
Venditor emptor!

.,,


----------



## Nunty

There was an intriguing story linked to my Google sidebar about Einstein being a deeply spiritual man who did not believe in God. This ties in so nicely to my earlier post about the unified field theory... but the link has disappeared and no amount of googling the various bits that I thought I remembered can bring it back. Such a shame. It really was interesting. Anyone see it?

Why did I not post it right away? Because the forums were inaccessible for quite some time. But that is a topic for another forum...


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> maxiogee I must ask you this question.
> You say that you don't want anyone to sell you their religion but you have no problem with proselytising.
> This seems to be a contradiction in terms.
> Are you saying that you are happy to proselytise yourself but not happy to be the recepient of proselytising?
> I just can not reconcile your statement.


Anyone is welcome to come to my door and try to seel me on their beliefs - if they're lucky and catch me on a good day I may even listen for longer than usual before I tell them that I am happy with the spiritual aspect of my life and that I won't be buying.
At that point they are expected to leave.
My objection arises when they won't take no for an answer.

As for the concept of my proselytising (can one prosletyse for agnosticism), I only ask people to examine what they believe and ask themselves on what ground is their belief standing.
As their belief nearly always rests on inexplicable and unlikely foundations, I ask that my inexplicable and unlikely be left in peace.


----------



## cuchuflete

I think it's fair to say that *.,,* is proselytizing, though not in any spiritual sense.  He is trying to persuade cuchuflete to adopt the firm position that religious proselytizing is a bad thing.  

This is generally known as an argument, and it's based on a common logic, different starting points, and differing interpretations.   Throw in a little emotion to propel the argument forward.

A biographical note:  A few years ago, before I came to the realization that I had what Sister CE called a "spiritual component", and that it mattered to me, I might well have held exactly the position that *.,,* is expressing today.  When  proselytizers came to my door, which they did frequently, I  was either brusque, or worse.  I felt offended that they were trying to sell me snake oil, at best, or shove something down my throat.  

Today I am at peace with my own spirituality, and thus unthreatened by others' attempts to persuade me to their religious viewpoints.  I think many of them are sincere people, who have discovered something of great personal value to themselves, and they want to—as part of their own belief system—"share the good news".  That I may find their news totally unconvincing, and even offensive, or think it's built out of thin air (aren't all spiritual belief systems built of something intangible?), does not prevent me from ascribing good and even generous motives to the proselytizers.

The earlier analogies I offered were not between soapflakes or automobiles and religion.  They were about the sales process employed for all.  Steel mill furnaces are sold with the same techniques as liquid soap, and yes, one is a consumable. 

Back to the folks at my front door:  I can, as a fellow human, appreciate that they are out trudging around in an uncomfortable dark suit and starched shirt on a hot summer day, because they are acting out a part of a belief system with which I have no known reason or grounds for agreement.
No offense intended, and none taken.  

Can I make use of those folks and their message?  Yes.
When I was indifferent to matters spiritual, I found in the proselytizing/sales pitch and the underlying product description good confirmation that it was wise to have nothing to do with such stuff.  Today, I can still find the sales pitch technique instructive (though it usually collapses when prodded with logic), and I learn from watching it (standing back from myself as a participant) that many, maybe most, people need group reinforcement of their (sometimes shakey) beliefs and social instincts, hence join organizations and engage in communal rituals.  Not so different from Boy Scouts or the junior soccer teams I coached for many years.  Finally, as I try to listen for essence, which is often obscured by clumsy, overbearing sale technique, I sometimes discover a question well worth pondering.  

In sum, unless the technique is browbeating or unbelievably stupid, and yes, I've been subjected to some of that, I take the sales call as an opportunity to learn, and the message as
something to put up along side of my own beliefs for comparison.  I figure that the latter will either be reinforced or, if flawed, properly exposed.

To the final point *.,,* raised:  The danger to all concerned. 

I am not endangered by being open to the possibility that somebody else has a useful way of looking at things.  If the seller wants to take the risk of being given discomfitting questions, that is their right.  If things turn ugly because of rotten sales technique, I hold the high ground, and can close my door or walk away, letting it be somebody else's tension. 

If I want even more protection from the intrusion of bad technique, I don't have to engage, and can read books about other belief systems.  This protects the authors from unanticipated questions for which they have no answers, while I can take on their message without distraction from the gravy spots on the tie of the seller.  

Final note: I do not proselytize for my spiritual beliefs.  Those beliefs do not include any requirement for, or perceived benefit from, persuading others to see or do things as I do.  
There are thousands of forms of spiritual indifference, acceptance, agnosticism, religion, atheism.  I'm not bothered by the variety.  Nor do I mind that some of those forms suggest or require efforts at conversion.  







			
				. said:
			
		

> I would prefer to discuss such a matter directly and know what the other is saying.
> Caveat emptor is all well and good for a willing purchaser but has litle or nothing to do in the case of a person who has no wish to buy.
> Soapflakes and automobiles are not connected in any way to spirituality.
> Soapflakes and automoblies are luxuries and spirituality is a necessity.
> Soapflakes and automoblies are consumed or wear out and require constant replacement.
> Soapflakes and automoblies can be bought and sold.
> Proselytising is dangerous for all concerned not the least for the proselytiser.


----------



## .   1

Thanks cuchu.

.,,


----------



## FrenchFriend

Hello..,
To respond to your religious question, without taking any religious side, but being an honest sceptic person (first with myself then towards others). I believe that we must investigate and look at all kind of evidences to answer your question. For example, can I mention to you that one of the oldest and most tested book, the Bible might precisely be talking about your question. Genesis 1:27 tells us that God made the first two humans in His own image. He did not do this for any of the animals – only humans. In other words, humans are very special. They are of far greater value than animals. If we are made in his own image, wouldn't it be normal to have a concept of the one who made us? A sens of belonging whether we are religious or not (meaning whether we are with God or far from God). Take for example adopted children, they feel and/or know about their genetic parents, even if they have not seen them. It is part of their DNA. As they grow, some feel a stong or growing desire to look for their genetic parent, and some don't. It is also interesting to read in Genesis 1:24 that the first man was made by God who specially formed him from the dust of the ground. God breathed into Adam. Notice that God did not just command the dust to produce a man as He did for the animals -- God himself formed man directly from dust. God did not breathe into the animals, but He certainly did for man. In other words, God imparted something special to the first man. _'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind': and it was so." _This passage also shows that it is important to understand that we are *not* animals. 
That's it, just wanted to bring additional source and feedback to your question. Hope this help and widen this interesting discussion.


----------



## maxiogee

FrenchFriend said:


> For example, can I mention to you that one of the oldest and most tested book, the Bible might precisely be talking about your question.



Do you now acknowledge, FrenchFriend (Welcome, by the way) that the Book of Genesis is a human document - written by people who were trying to make some sense of their world and to bring so order and law to the behaviour of the tribe/nation/people they belonged to.

It is humans who say that God formed humans in his own image.
Acknowledging that the birds, fishes and other animalsn were alln made by the same creator that made man, they needed to create a distinction which set us apart from our 'beastly' natures. (Not for nothing is the Bible referred to as "the Good Book" - it is intended as a manual for human goodness)

I wonder at your use of "most tested book"? I can 'test' something, but it doesn't mean I get meaningful answers. What 'tests' have proved anything about the Book of Genesis?


----------



## LV4-26

FrenchFriend said:


> . In other words, humans are very special.





> If we are made in his own image, wouldn't it be normal to have a concept of the one who made us?


Yes, we're very special indeed. And that's precisely why we're bound to be religious, whether we want it or not. We're those bastard, hybrid creatures, sort of halfway between animals and gods, knowing too much and knowing not enough, animals in the biological sense but at the same time very different from them because possessed with and "haunted" by that sign of divinity, i.e. the Word (Logos). 
This bastard, and therefore anxiogenous, status once led us to "create" all sorts of pagan demiurges, good and evil, related to nature (and, in some cases, it still does). Until we understood that if we were to find God, we were to find Him in what makes us so very special, that "Logos" that enables us to transcend our animal condition. 
In that sense, I think (I don't know to what extent this would be considered out-and-out heretical by the Dogma* - see Edit) that, if God exists, He didn't only make us : He's continuously in the process of making us.

Just a few thoughts I had in mind...Feel free to disagree.
__________________
* Edit : According to some helpful information provided by PM, it appears it is not.


----------



## Maja

. said:


> Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?
> .,,


Of course it is!!! Not only possible, but it is very frequent occurrence. Even the people who "belong" to a certain religion do not fully accept its teachings.

I think there are no real atheists, they're agnostics at most! Almost everyone believes in smt. Some higher power, destiny, luck, soul, karma... and all that could not exist without some deity.


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> Of course it is!!! Not only possible, but it is very frequent occurrence. Even the people who "belong" to a certain religion do not fully accept its teachings.


The question is not about accepting "all" of a religion, it is about accepting the concept of 'religion' and the teachings that go with it. That is very different than being a partially-committed believer in XYZism.




Maja said:


> I think there are no real atheists, they're agnostics at most! Almost everyone believes in smt. Some higher power, destiny, luck, soul, karma... and all that could not exist without some deity.


I disagree. I don't see why there needs to be 'controller' of luck or of karma. Luck is generally understood to be purely random chance, and karma could turn out to be a law of nature just like gravity or even an property of life, as radioactivity is a property of certain atomic nuclei.
Also, to say that "almost everyone believes in something" is to make a very generalised statement. I know many people who don't believe in something, and who are definitely not merely agnostics.


----------



## Maja

maxiogee said:


> The question is not about accepting "all" of a religion, it is about accepting the concept of 'religion' and the teachings that go with it. That is very different than being a partially-committed believer in XYZism.


I said EVEN, didn't I??? 
Thank  you for explaining "the topic" to me , but I said exactly what I wanted to say!!! Now, if .,, or moderators think it is not topic-related, they can delete my post. 
I don't think that it is "very different" to be "partially-committed" member of an organized religion because it only shows that people are not ready to accept or understand the church doctrine in full. The only difference to smo who doesn't accept it at all, is in percentage!!!
I  know many people who declare as "Christians" but they go  to church only a couple of times a year (usually only to lit a candle), and don't know first thing about Christianity. To me, such a person believes in God, but belongs to an organized religion only because he/she was burn into it!


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> I said EVEN, didn't I???



Yes, you did. And what did you mean by it?



> Even the people who "belong" to a certain religion do not fully accept its teachings.



This implies that none of the people who belong to this "certain" religion you speak of fully accept its teachings. That's a very broad statement which I'm sure you can back up with some sort of evidence.


----------



## .   1

Maja said:


> Of course it is!!! Not only possible, but it is very frequent occurrence. Even the people who "belong" to a certain religion do not fully accept its teachings.
> 
> I think there are no real atheists, they're agnostics at most! Almost everyone believes in smt. Some higher power, destiny, luck, soul, karma... and all that could not exist without some deity.


G'day Maja,
I am of the opinion that you are right on topic and have remained on topic throughout the thread.
I believe in karma but perhaps not in the same way that you may believe in karma.
I do not believe that good things come to good people just because they are good people and have done good things for other people and are therefore entitled for good things to happen to them.  This is not the way things work.
My belief is that good things happen to good people simply because good people try to look at the glass as being half full all the time.  A person stalking about in a foul frame of mind should not be surprised when noone steps forward to help them if they stumble.  I am aware that less pleasant things seem to be attracted to me when I am in a blue funk because I am looking for any excuse to blame for my bleak mood but when I am seeing sunshine and roses on an overcast day you can be sure that my karma is letting me see beauty that is absent from the soul of a bleak mind.


.,,


----------



## FrenchFriend

maxiogee said:


> Do you now acknowledge, FrenchFriend (Welcome, by the way) that the Book of Genesis is a human document - written by people who were trying to make some sense of their world and to bring so order and law to the behaviour of the tribe/nation/people they belonged to.
> 
> It is humans who say that God formed humans in his own image.
> Acknowledging that the birds, fishes and other animalsn were alln made by the same creator that made man, they needed to create a distinction which set us apart from our 'beastly' natures. (Not for nothing is the Bible referred to as "the Good Book" - it is intended as a manual for human goodness)
> 
> I wonder at your use of "most tested book"? I can 'test' something, but it doesn't mean I get meaningful answers. What 'tests' have proved anything about the Book of Genesis?





> Do you now acknowledge, FrenchFriend (Welcome, by the way) that the Book of Genesis is a human document - written by people who were trying to make some sense of their world and to bring so order and law to the behaviour of the tribe/nation/people they belonged to.


Hello again,
First, I wonder if answering your questions is appropriate in this discussion as we might go away from the subject...but may be not...will see at the end? I do not want to offend the main line but at the same time you also deserve an answer... I was noticing that the Bible claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for mankind so that we can know where we came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.



> I wonder at your use of "most tested book"? I can 'test' something, but it doesn't mean I get meaningful answers. What 'tests' have proved anything about the Book of Genesis?


To answer your question, many Scientists have tested or done researches on things of the OT & NT. Today's Science also shows evidence of events & things recorded in the Bible or Torah... I believe that the most-asked questions about the book of Genesis are probably as follow:first does God exist? Did God really take six days to create everything? What about Carbon -14 (radioisotope) dating? How can we see distant stars in a young universe? How did ‘bad things’ come about? What about arguments for evolution? Cain's wife—who was she? Were the ‘sons of God’ and/or the ‘nephilim’ extra-terrestrials? Was Noah's flood global? What about ‘continental drift?’ Noah's flood—what about all the water? How did all the animals fit on the ark? How did fresh/saltwater fish survive the flood? Where are all the human fossils? What about the Ice Age? How could animals get to places like Australia? How did the different ‘races’ arise? What happened to the dinosaurs? 
I do not intend to answer them all but simply want to show you that what I meant by "most tested Book" was true. It is indeed the most wondered about and tested Book by individual believers and non-believers, evolutionists and creationists, and scientists. For example, geologists have always wanted to know and answer about the great Flood (one of the question people wonder about). To test the compatibility of any harmonization of the Bible with the GUC (global uniformitarian column) researchers did it by reference to the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin (NGOMB) sedimentary wedge. Their study was to compare several proposals made by young-earth creationists for the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary (based on applying the GUC) to the NGOMB stratigraphic column, widely considered relatively complete in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic erathems. The NGOMB provided an excellent setting for testing various Flood/post-Flood boundaries because of its robust sedimentary representation of the Mesozoic/Cenozoic erathems. Here is one test that I recently read about - To see the process and their results please do your own research, I did not make this my goal but rather wanted to show you a first example. 
Another big tested question is about the dinosaurs...I personnaly wonder about this one myself...Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine or hypothese that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However (this could prove something...hypothese shall not become too quickly a theory), many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record. 
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually,there is also a lot of evidence for this as well. But...What Did the Dinosaurs Eat? The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants. Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (I guess that this mean you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death. 
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God. 

Here we come back to "*It is possible to have a concept of God? Being religious or not? *". 
My answer: *How could we not? *as* LV4-26 *said in this discussion 





> He didn't only make us : *He's continuously in the process of making us*.


 Another good question will be "*Why*?"... Is there something that still need to be changed or done in us? Does this make sens from what we know? And is that, why we seems to agree about a concept of God, believers or not?

I hope this shortly answer Maxiogee's questions remembering that to talk about God, religion or the Bible could take pages.
Others interesting discoveries of archaeology since the mid 1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the OT Bible narrative. Here are just a few more that you can search online. If you want to discuss them I would suggest to open a new discussion: 

Discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology


----------



## maxiogee

I feel swamped by the post, but don't see the divine veracity of the bible as being supported just because some historical evidence is found to prove the historicity of people and events mentioned. These are primarily, we must remain aware, documents of a tribe's history, and during times in which they were written there would have been many who knew their own part of that history.
Folklore in many countries is found to be broadly accurate. That these books exist is more than many peoples have, as they either didn't havge writing at the time, or because no written records now exist to corroborate the oral tradition.

If you truly believe that no meat-eating animals existed pre-dating the Fall, then I would find little point of similarity between us. The fossil records show many species which had teeth which could not have been used by vegetarian creatures to feed themselves. Their teeth were for eating flesh.


----------



## Roberto097

cuchuflete said:


> -totally sincere and altruistic, and concerned for the well-being of my soul. Caveat emptor?


 
Hello
This describes Jesus, he is truly concerned for the growth of your soul, all souls.

Caveat emptor? 
He is still selling very well.  

R097


----------



## Roberto097

Hello Maxiogee  


maxiogee said:


> The question is not about accepting "all" of a religion, it is about accepting the concept of 'religion' and the teachings that go with it. That is very different than being a partially-committed believer in XYZism.


 
What if there is a personal religion qualified by experience. I could accept my personal concept of religion and all the teachings derived thereof. 
What could have more value than your own experience?

R097


----------



## maxiogee

Roberto097 said:


> Hello Maxiogee
> 
> 
> What if there is a personal religion qualified by experience. I could accept my personal concept of religion and all the teachings derived thereof.
> What could have more value than your own experience?
> 
> R097



Can one have a personal religion? Is not the very nature of religion that it is a shared - if it is a personal belief then it is not a 'religion' in the usual use of the word. What "teachings" can there be with a religion based on a personal experience?


----------



## petshopboy

Yes, and not for lack of caring to have a religious belief, but because the religions of the world are so left behind in their ideas, and the modern world is totally different as any religion tries to specify in "their" rules. It's sad though. But hey, I believe in God, I was born a catholic but no way I believe in their structure anymore (specially as I live in Mexico, a country that is ruled by false morals pushed by the church, the government and the media). Capitalism gave us what we deserve I guess, our own private purgatory.


----------



## Roberto097

maxiogee said:


> Can one have a personal religion? Is not the very nature of religion that it is a shared - if it is a personal belief then it is not a 'religion' in the usual use of the word. What "teachings" can there be with a religion based on a personal experience?


Hello Maxiogee 
1.- _Can one have a personal religion?_
Yes, anyone can. I have one. One qualified by my own experience. I experience then I believe. Don't the scientists do the same, experiment (experience) and then they state(believe)?
2.-_ Is not the very nature of religion that it is a shared_ 
Religion for me is just about meanings and values, customizing them (qualifying them through my own experience) it works for me.
What is actually shared with others is the fruits of the spirit. Or the fruits of selfishness.
3.- _if it is a personal belief then it is not a 'religion' in the usual use of the word._
You are quite right, it is not. It is easier for free people to agree with goals rather than beliefs. Just imagine anyone trying to make others believe exactly what they believe! 
4.- _What "teachings" can there be with a religion based on a personal experience?_
That is something that only *your own* experience can tell you. I cannot lend you my experience, even if I wanted to. Can I?

Thank you for thinking and making me think. 
R097


----------



## maxiogee

Roberto097 said:


> 1.- _Can one have a personal religion?_
> Yes, anyone can. I have one. One qualified by my own experience. I experience then I believe. Don't the scientists do the same, experiment (experience) and then they state(believe)?



No, they don't. Religion is the belief in, and worship of, a super-human controlling power.
What you describe scientists doing is just a practice for investigating the unknown. What they experience can be detailed, analysed and repeated by others and they will experience the same results. This is not true of a religion. I can repeat the thoughts, words and deeds (if they are sufficiently knowable) of anyone and still not achieve the same results.




> 2.-_ Is not the very nature of religion that it is a shared_
> Religion for me is just about meanings and values, customizing them (qualifying them through my own experience) it works for me.
> What is actually shared with others is the fruits of the spirit. Or the fruits of selfishness.


I don't know what religion you adhere to, but I can say quite confidently that many religions do not allow one to customise. One buys the total package or one isn't truly in the club.





> 4.- _What "teachings" can there be with a religion based on a personal experience?_
> That is something that only *your own* experience can tell you. I cannot lend you my experience, even if I wanted to. Can I?


No, but the concept of "teachings" is that someone passes on their 'knowledge' and advises on the correct mode of practice of the religion in question. If your religion is particularly personal, then it cannot have teachings unless you pass them on to someone. Teaching requires a recipient (or at least potential recipient).


----------



## Roberto097

Hello Maxiogee  
Thank you for your answers.
1.- 





maxiogee said:


> No, they don't.
> Religion is the belief in, and worship of, a super-human controlling power. = Relationship
> What you describe scientists doing is just a practice for investigating the unknown. What they experience can be detailed, analysed and repeated by others and they will experience the same results. This is not true of a religion. I can repeat the thoughts, words and deeds (if they are sufficiently knowable) of anyone and still not achieve the same results.
> .


Yes, we do. Religion is just a relationship between the creature and the Creator. It can be personal. You don't need middlemen as many make you believe. Do you need a third person to relate to your father o mother?
Experience can be similar but not identical. Can it? I am talking about inner knowlege (experience, scientist as a person) in contrast with facts (experiment, science is not a person).

2.-





maxiogee said:


> No, they don't.
> This is not true of a religion. I can repeat the thoughts, words and deeds (if they are sufficiently knowable) of anyone and still not achieve the same results.
> .


Are you saying that you cannot qualify religion with experience? Think twice. 
3.- 





maxiogee said:


> I don't know what religion you adhere to, but I can say quite confidently that many religions do not allow one to customise. One buys the total package or one isn't truly in the club.


 
I just said that I have a personal religion, with one member, me  no more are admited, it is not necessary, you can call religion of the experience if you like. And I have been customizing it all the time, through experience. About the club that is to monopolize God and to say that is a only way to get to him/her. As I see it you can get to the top of the mountain for any of the 360 degrees.

4.-





maxiogee said:


> No, they don't. Religion is the belief in, and
> No, but the concept of "teachings" is that someone passes on their 'knowledge' and advises on the correct mode of practice of the religion in question. If your religion is particularly personal, then it cannot have teachings unless you pass them on to someone. Teaching requires a recipient (or at least potential recipient).


It is a teaching, do you better teacher than experience itself. And regarding to pass sth on, well the spirit always spiritualize my thinking and gives me back to pass on others wether it is a teaching or not, I don't know but it works, I can assure you that.

Sorry for the long answer, but you made think a lot.

R097


----------



## JamesM

I think the question is more of semantics here, at least as I perceive it, and a good one.  One can have a personal belief system or a personal faith, but that does not qualify it as a religion.  I think that's a good distinction to make, and I'm very glad that Maxiogee posed the question.

If we do not distinguish between "personal belief system" and "religion", the question posed by the thread originator becomes very muddy.

That was a striking question, maxiogee.  I really appreciate that contribution to the discussion.


----------



## ps139

I disagree with maxiogee. I believe everyone has a religion, because I define it as a worldview/set of rules that will influence/direct how you think and act. 

I do not believe that a religion must be an institutional thing, or have a large number of members. If you take a religion like that, you are just not going to get everyone 100% agreeing. Maybe 99% in a very small religion, but not 100%. It is just like language in that respect... everyone has their own "idiolect." This is why it is so hard to truly determine boundaries among languages, dialects, varieties. No one knows where to draw the line. 

With people and beliefs, it is the same framework. Each person has their own religion. They are extremely close to some, extremely far away from others. But if you probe deep enough, they will understand things their own way... at the same time as "accepting the doctrines"... in my analogy, doctrines would be like "grammar."

I hope that made a bit of sense. It is clear to me but I am not satisfied by how I expressed it.


----------



## emma42

ps139, you made your point clearly.  There is obviously a problem of definition here.


----------



## JamesM

Given your definition of religion, then, ps139, I would take it that your answer to:

"*Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?* 

...would be "No". If each person has a personal religion then any concept of God that they had would be a part of that religion.


----------



## Victoria32

ps139 said:


> ....................
> 
> I do not believe that a religion must be an institutional thing, or have a large number of members. If you take a religion like that, you are just not going to get everyone 100% agreeing. Maybe 99% in a very small religion, but not 100%. It is just like language in that respect... everyone has their own "idiolect." This is why it is so hard to truly determine boundaries among languages, dialects, varieties. No one knows where to draw the line.
> 
> With people and beliefs, it is the same framework. Each person has their own religion. They are extremely close to some, extremely far away from others. But if you probe deep enough, they will understand things their own way... at the same time as "accepting the doctrines"... in my analogy, doctrines would be like "grammar."
> 
> I hope that made a bit of sense. It is clear to me but I am not satisfied by how I expressed it.


Very well put, PS139! I agree...


----------



## cuchuflete

Roberto097 said:


> Hello
> This describes Jesus, he is truly concerned for the growth of your soul, all souls.
> 
> Caveat emptor?
> He is still selling very well.
> 
> R097



Hello Roberto,
He may be selling well or badly, depending on your definition of the target market, rate of initial sales, rate of renewed contracts, and percentage of unhappy customers who reject the product.  Clearly some customers such as yourself are fully satisfied, and willing to offer voluntary endorsements.
That leads me to a preliminary conclusion that the product is good for some customers, as it meets their needs in a beneficial way.  I would not extrapolite to the majority of living persons, who have not bought the product.  They may have had some exposure to it, and selected an alternative product, or not been exposed at all.  Draw what conclusions you please about the sales management that doesn't put the product in front of all potential buyers.  You may come to believe that there is not a single product, rather a product line, and that the essential product components are shared, with the differences of a somewhat cosmetic nature.  

Your first sentence is an example of the sort of proselytizing I observe briefly, neither bothered nor persuaded.  It is a conclusion based on withheld premises, so it gives me no reason to accept or reject the conclusion.  It tells me no more than that you have a belief.   

Were I in the market, I would discount your product on the basis of a less than interesting sales presentation.  As I am not in the market, I would not agree to a more in-depth sales call.  

I'm glad that you like your product, and that it seems to address your requirements.  

regards,
cuchu


PS- Have you considered that there are DIY (do-it-yourself) kits available, for those who, for whatever reasons, choose not to purchase any fully assembled product?   They may receive basic components, and customize these to suit particular needs and tastes.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Hello Roberto,
> Draw what conclusions you please about the sales management that doesn't put the product in front of all potential buyers.
> I'm glad that you like your product, and that it seems to address your requirements.
> 
> regards,
> cuchu


Ah, but is not putting the product in front of all potential buyers, "proselytising", which many find unacceptable?


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> Ah, but is not putting the product in front of all potential buyers, "proselytising", which many find unacceptable?


'
If you have been reading this thread, you will find that I have no objection to proselytizing, but am put off by sloppy and ineffectual sales techniques.   In any event, the reference I made was to a "factory direct", in-house sales organization, not manufacturer's reps.  No intermediaries to muck up the product presentation...just let it stand on its own merits.


----------



## ps139

JamesM said:


> Given your definition of religion, then, ps139, I would take it that your answer to:
> 
> "*Is it possible to have a concept of god but not accept religion or religious teachings?*
> 
> ...would be "No". If each person has a personal religion then any concept of God that they had would be a part of that religion.


True.... very true. But if you accept my definition of "religion," then this question need not be asked... as the definition itself answers the question already.

You may wonder why I answered "yes" to the original question... it is because I took the OPs use of "religion" to mean an institutional belief-system.


----------



## emma42

I see little point in insisting on a definition this late in the debate which negates all previous discussion.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> I see little point in insisting on a definition this late in the debate which negates all previous discussion.


sorry, just saying my piece.


----------



## Roberto097

cuchuflete said:


> Hello Roberto,
> He may be selling well or badly, depending on your definition of the target market, rate of initial sales, rate of renewed contracts, and percentage of unhappy customers who reject the product.


 
Hello Cuchu  
*You just did hit the nail on the head with this markenting analysis, I will make send it as a report. *

_Your first sentence is an example of the sort of proselytizing I observe briefly, neither bothered nor persuaded._

_Ooops! _  I think I just broke the rules about no proselytizing. Sorry, I couldn't help it. That will not happen again. But then when it comes naturally.  

_PS- Have you considered that there are DIY (do-it-yourself) kits available, for those who, for whatever reasons, choose not to purchase any fully assembled product? They may receive basic components, and customize these to suit particular needs and tastes._

As a matter of fact, I have done my homework but everything kept leading me to the first and original cause, and to tell you more I do have a DIY


----------



## Roberto097

cuchuflete said:


> Hello Roberto,
> He may be selling well or badly, depending on your definition of the target market, rate of initial sales, rate of renewed contracts, and percentage of unhappy customers who reject the product.


 
Hello Cuchu  
*You just did hit the nail on the head with this markenting analysis, I will send it as a report. *

_Your first sentence is an example of the sort of proselytizing I observe briefly, neither bothered nor persuaded._

_Ooops! _ I think I just broke the rules about proselytizing. Sorry, I couldn't help it. That will not happen again. But then again when it comes naturally.  

_PS- Have you considered that there are DIY (do-it-yourself) kits available, for those who, for whatever reasons, choose not to purchase any fully assembled product? They may receive basic components, and customize these to suit particular needs and tastes._

As a matter of fact, I have done my homework but everything kept leading me to the first and original cause, the First Source and Center and the best concept about this, was explained by this guy called J... you know, and to tell you more I do have a DIY (base on experience, doign it myself ha ha ha), no institutionalized religion. What is interesting though is that I haven't finished yet, still trying to put together the puzzle, but I am having a lot of fun. Customized Jesus? Yes, there is. Oh! I am doing it again. Aren't, I? 

Read you soon
R097


----------

