If there is one true religion...

Sandie33 said:
Isn't history fun?

Thank you for the link. I'll have a look.
Click to expand...

If I can butt in.

That axial age label has been attributed to when the non supernatural thinkers, Confucius, Buddha and Socrates move people away from supernatural thinking the led only to speculative nonsense to using logic and reason to explain reality.

This link speaks of how well that worked until Christianity reversed our progress and helped usher in a 1,000 year Dark Age where freedom of thought was denied all within their sphere of power and murder.

As is my way, I have imbedded it in with an opinion. The Big Think link is all you need view. Nice and short.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.


Regards
DL
 
dragulagu said:
That's an interesting description. Kind of interested in the history now. :p



The moment you as a follower put your own religion above any other, you already lose the essence of your religion. It's not a competition on who has the best one...what's the point in that.
It's about which religion you are most comfortable with...that's also the point on what is the one true religion: there isn't one.



Religions are restricted in the context of the time period they were made though. Pretty sure that religion 2000 years from now will be completely different from religions now. Especially with a Space Age (phenomena beyond earth). I think if there were to be one true religion it would be one that describes the flow of the Universe itself without the constraint of time. (think origin point of Universe, the evolution, the end). Which would be in co-existence with an Universal law or set of laws of physics.

@Sandie33 @Ren @Vendrah have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age (don't ask, came randomly up on this while googling on "period bound religion")

Personally I follow Taoism by the way, as a way of understanding life rather than specific guidelines that I have to follow. It's relaxing.
Click to expand...
dragulagu said:
That's an interesting description. Kind of interested in the history now. :p



The moment you as a follower put your own religion above any other, you already lose the essence of your religion. It's not a competition on who has the best one...what's the point in that.
It's about which religion you are most comfortable with...that's also the point on what is the one true religion: there isn't one.



Religions are restricted in the context of the time period they were made though. Pretty sure that religion 2000 years from now will be completely different from religions now. Especially with a Space Age (phenomena beyond earth). I think if there were to be one true religion it would be one that describes the flow of the Universe itself without the constraint of time. (think origin point of Universe, the evolution, the end). Which would be in co-existence with an Universal law or set of laws of physics.

@Sandie33 @Ren @Vendrah have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age (don't ask, came randomly up on this while googling on "period bound religion")

Personally I follow Taoism by the way, as a way of understanding life rather than specific guidelines that I have to follow. It's relaxing.
Click to expand...

I think the word "religion" was a bad choice of a term in my part; Universal religion perhaps would be a closer term.

I do think that the description of the flow of the universe without the constrain of time would be more like a science thing than a religious thing.

I read the article you link and find it interesting.

I actually had made some very few progresses in my original line. It happened that, in the end, I have been associating this as it were Fi stuff although Fi is might just a one of some possible keys to the same thing, or might be just some sort of lens that I made to see things easier. Im thinking that this is quite a possibility: Perhaps God, "fearing" that people would follow him only for the sake of ambition, just to buy a seat in heaven with calculated actions, might have choose to hide e self from the people, and, instead, did find a solution to that absence. I do think that, deep down, all or almost all of we do know what is right and wrong, and, deep down, we do know what is the right path to follow. Of course, personality is something that can have interference: Some personalities might shut that voice down and some others might give some great attention to that voice, and some people are in the middle. That "deep down voice" (that is indeed not literally a voice), or, in Jung terms, underlying image, must not be something terrible aloud to the point of attracting people that follow the code rather for ambitions than the code for itself. So, in the end, God can say that, deep down, we knew what was right, and that nothing external - including religion - would really prevented us from the correct choice. I imagine like the argument: "But, you, God, told us to kill these " "heregians"/atheists/ etc.."; "No, none of these religions proved for certainty that was really my word; And deep down you know my word and you had an inner voice telling you that you were going against my word, but you still picked the wrong path". Of course, if that was done for real, then by architecture/design we should never be able to track God or do a deduction of what I said - but rather, an induction or some sort of speculation.

There are indeed some stuff that are close to universal values, although one movement or another might will claim that for itself. Stuff like (or underlying images), perhaps, empathy, trust and authenticity (not telling lies), Freedom, and etc (what the Exotic Christian guy calls "the golden rule" could be one of them, grouped with empathy perhaps).. Are likely native values that can appears in different places and can re-appear again if disappears or go on scarcity for a while. However, in no doubt these could be justified by some Darwinist lens (that says that these are shaped through evolution, natural selection, or environment feasibility). I dont think the why makes them less valuable, but it makes them less cool (these things being shaped by natural selection is way more boring than the idea that a God came and implanted these things to make us grow).

I can say that my line of thinking isnt at all fully original, it is likely to be old, and thats very positive, it just makes it stronger actually.
 
Gnostic Christian said:
Gnostic Christianity is better than Christianity because it is based on what can be know and not the supernatural that cannot be known.

I have never spoken to an atheist who was into mysticism although I suspect they are out there given the following.


Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.

These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.

First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”

Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.

The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.

America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.

Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...theists-religious-european-christians/560936/

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

Ok, so basically still no answer to my objection.

It appears you're now banned so I don't expect to get it anytime soon. Shame!
 
Mr gnostic christian said the Buddha's teaching moved people away from supe-rnaturalism with logic,not to focus on the now banned gnostic but picking up on this idea that Buddhism is logical I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this, for instance.... how can the Buddha's concept of no-self in any way logical? Buddhism, at least Mahayana Bhuddism, holds that Mind is the the only reality and that what we ordinary people perceive as real is not real...where is the logic in that (asking for a friend)?
 
Sandie33 said:
Isn't history fun?
Click to expand...
It is, especially in regards to ancient history. It has some mysticism into it. Love these grand time cycle religions. I also checked the Axial Age article,
something to further research as well. It seems these specific ("modern") religions seem to coincide with an evolution of society during that specific period.

Ren said:
It appears you're now banned so I don't expect to get it anytime soon. Shame!
Click to expand...
+1, The videos that Gnostic posted are interesting as well, pity he got banned though (understandable), wanted to further discuss the topic with him.

Vendrah said:
I do think that the description of the flow of the universe without the constrain of time would be more like a science thing than a religious thing.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the thing now though. Science is shifting towards a more philosophical terrain already. Step further to religion in the future.

And another read: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
 
Gnostic Christian said:
Yes I know what it means, and it never literally happened.

What can I say to a literalist who does not read his bible the right way?

I know. Please listen to this guy for just a few minutes and you will have my reply.


Regards
DL
Click to expand...

1. It did happen.
2.If you don't like the Bible, you don't read it in the right way.
3. "Why don't you use your own words?" Those were your words. I'm cautious of what cans of worms I open.
 
In my understanding from life thus far, I think the universal religion includes two cores:

- The belief in God: The Creator of all things, The First.
- Love: Love of the Self and others, which ultimately heightens one's love for God and brings one closer to Him

I've tried to simplify it down to the most basics, and in my opinion as I am right now in life, this is it.

What do you think?
 
Jonah Caan said:
In my understanding from life thus far, I think the universal religion includes two cores:

- The belief in God: The Creator of all things, The First.
- Love: Love of the Self and others, which ultimately heightens one's love for God and brings one closer to Him

I've tried to simplify it down to the most basics, and in my opinion as I am right now in life, this is it.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think its good, although too simple.

Truly tracking some without associating it with anything at all directly (despite its own concept) is really difficult. I had been doing it with Fi although (or rather IXFX or XXFP in dichotomy).
I recognized more or less these:
- Trust and Honesty
- Compassion/Empathy (its more or less love)
- Freedom
- "Equality" (in the sense of respect and not dis-humane inequality)

I dont think freedom and Trust/Honesty are, necessarily, a product of love (equality could be although, inequality can be seen as a product of systematic lack of love). Through Fi, the God value is undetected (XSFJ are generally the most on believing and being into religion), but I do think that God is real at least as a human innate concept. It could be that God exists or that it is just a innate idea of humanity, just an idea product of nature. The same goes to these values: They can be God's will and God's most essential images, or, in a less cool way, just a product of nature. In both ways they are real, although abstract.

Some of these things are somewhat present in the holy books, in one or another. You can see some traces of them in both Islam, as it seems, Christianity in some realms, and perhaps even in Gnostic Christianity as well.
 
"But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon ‘another plane’. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by ‘vibrations’ which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that ‘spiritual science’ has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as ‘vibrations’, we have said just as little. Since, what are ‘vibrations’? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent — they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions. [p. 446]"
Carl Jung on Te description.
 
Vendrah said:
It would be good to start saying that I am agnostic. I do think in two ways: What if God exist/what if dont? Same for afterlife and stuff related to that.
I have been philosophically thinking into "what if one of these religions is right?" and this started to make me conceptualize what one true religion is.

This is may sound weird but I had tried to put myself into the God shoes, even if, of course, no human can truly do that. First thing, sorry if this sounds a little offensive to religion people, but God printing his wills into one bible at a specific language for a specific people didnt sound a wise decision to me. Then I actually already brainstormed into how I would pass my message to the humanity if I were a God, by what means. This is a good think to be thought at. There are some possibilities, instant shared dreams is one interesting thing (a dream everybody has), and after some thought I realize that God could write a Bible into our own intuition and create a sense of right and wrong printed into our own intuition. I think, at least from my own ideas, that would be the best form of it. That was months ago.

In my life I have been observing that there are some stuff that happens that I can only explain by a ghost... I mean, some behaviours and stuff seem to quite repeats themselves, patterns repeating themselves despite the place and time being completely different and disconnected with each other. Different and independent sources carrying the same spell. I have been calling, but not speaking much about it, the thing that generates these things as "Ghost". Some years ago I even questioned myself if it was the product of some secret agency of some sort, bbuuuttt I realized that perhaps not, I always were unsure of.

Then, two or three weeks ago, I had some strange dream being bitten by a snake in the afternoon and dying in the evening. Looking for the meaning of this dream on the internet, since dreams with snakes does have some meaning for Freud and for Jung (but none truly convinced me and I dropped the quest), I got introduced to the concept of Jung Archetypes and Jung collective unconcious (Im not talking about the Ne-archetype, Ni-archetype, but archetypes popularly known as "the trickster", "the ruler", "the wise old man", etc...). And I am also not refering to the misuse of that concept into cognitive function stack, so Im not talking about the demon function that is on the 6th position of "the stack", not at all like that. For those who doesnt know, I read partially from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes

Someday perhaps Ill read right into the original source that it is difficult to get in my native language (that isnt english).
But continuing, even reading a very poor resumes of the critiques of the concept, I realized that Jung actually catch something at that, even if it is not at all collective unconscious but some product of genetics. He got my ghosts. It was the first explanation so far connecting repeteable patterns of behaviour in completely disconnected places and context.

I realized that Jungs archetypes can be anything: Collective unconscious, genes, ancient powerful souls, Gods (in a religion with multiple Gods like on the Greek one) or my ghost I was so looking for, but at least they should be something. And they explain some disconnected behaviours: People subscribing to the same archetype, and to be honest, thats not something I would link to a behaviour from MBTI or enneagram type.

This seems like a derail but it isnt. What I realize is that people, at least in Jungs point, subscribe to something without realizing they are doing it. And thats exactly what I think the true religion, if there is one, should be.

I think the one true religion, the real truth in a quite literal way of speaking it, must be universal, like the Jungs archetypes are supposed to be (universal at least from an human point). It doesnt need to spread: It should be something we adhere to by our own choices without even realizing it. It must be something that you are free to adhere whenever you lived your whole life in the forest in the middle of the Amazon in 1300 ac or in Europe or in Asia or 21st century in America, basically, anywhere.

The one true religion should be universal and my strong case against religions we know is that they arent universal. For many religions, an indian that lived his whole life isolated (not the country of Asia, Im talking about the indians in the Amazon forest) cant be saved because he didnt passed through some sort of process in some building mediated by some sort of institution and didnt read and follow a certain holy book. I dont think a reasonable God would reserve the salvation to some small fraction of humanity, some folk in the middle of somewhere or nowhere in the earth while leaving the rest of the humanity (perhaps more than 90%) in the dark while waiting the priviliged folk that received his words to spread them and start translating the holy book in other languages. I think that, instead, the religion is rather universal, and that anyone in anywhere anytime can, without even realizing, subscribing to sub-aspects of it or create his/her own salvation (if there is really such a thing like that). This may sound weird at first, but just look into Jung archetypes: We more or less subscribe to a few of them, without even knowing it. One possibility is, instead of going into a heaven or hell, we would go to the same place where the subscribers of our favorite archetype goes, and depending on that, that place could be one kind of heaven, hell, or something different than that.

It started as just a thought but as week passes I become more and more strong convinced to. I hope I was clear enough. So, thoughts? Despite me being agnostic, im also growing a belief that there is life after death, but of course I am no sure of eat. I would bet for life after death.
Click to expand...


First of all let me get my biases out of the way; I am a Catholic Christian. Second of all, I just joined this forum so I may repeat points because I did no take the time to read all 13 pages. Yet I find the question your asking very interesting. Basically you're asking If you were God and wanted to create one true religion, how would you do it. You go on to argue that religious principles should be something universally discoverable by everyone. I actually agree with you. I think and believe in a universal law that's written on everyone's heart. The basic principles of morality we all have testified to a lawgiver. But wait, don't Catholics believe in the institutional church and the bible? How can I reconcile that with my belief that people are saved by adhering to the universal law written on people's hearts? For me, it relies on a concept known as ontological soteriology. The idea that Christ's existence is enough to save a person even if they have no epistemological knowledge of him. God reveals himself fully to a select group of people because he wants to establish his the kingdom, but he reveals himself partly to every human through the inner moral law.
 
An INFJ cannot have a religion, religion has no moral, only god is moral! and god is inside him, starring through his eyes the hearts of other's, he believes in God.

A pure INFJ has no religion
he is religion

Most people that claim they are infj they are not, their EGO is but not them.
God has no EGO, god is everything(chameleon)
The depression comes from feeling, almost touching the fact that something can change and yet nothing happens.
An INFJ struggles to reach God, to be pure!
He is fighting his own EGO (headaches) and this is exhausting.
If this huge force exceeds Logic he becomes Mahatma Gandhi or Adolf Hitler.

Be careful out there the few ones, the lines are very thin
 
Themis said:
An INFJ cannot have a religion, religion has no moral, only god is moral! and god is inside him, starring through his eyes the hearts of other's, he believes in God.

A pure INFJ has no religion
he is religion

Most people that claim they are infj they are not, their EGO is but not them.
God has no EGO, god is everything(chameleon)
The depression comes from feeling, almost touching the fact that something can change and yet nothing happens.
An INFJ struggles to reach God, to be pure!
He is fighting his own EGO (headaches) and this is exhausting.
If this huge force exceeds Logic he becomes Mahatma Gandhi or Adolf Hitler.

Be careful out there the few ones, the lines are very thin
Click to expand...
I'm feeling very precognitive about your fate here, my man.
giphy.gif
 
Religion is just another little box people force themselves and others into regardless of the consequences. At best there is some though limited spiritual growth while at the worst it is dust and dry bones where there is not only little or no spiritual growth but real harm being done.
 
ah, the truth. .but who's truth? yours..mine. .that person lurking over there? it gets rather murky if we are honest about truth. . .(begins to put on flak jacket , preparing for the onslaught)
 
Aneirin said:
ah, the truth. .but who's truth? yours..mine. .that person lurking over there? it gets rather murky if we are honest about truth. . .(begins to put on flak jacket , preparing for the onslaught)
Click to expand...

Indeed.

If we take truth to mean correspondence to the facts, you'll notice that a lot of our forum prophets conveniently avoid telling us what 'the facts' are supposed to be.

It's easy in these circumstances to go on about 'the truth'—but I suspect there is literally no content behind the claim.
 
Roses In The Vineyard said:
Religion is just another little box people force themselves and others into regardless of the consequences. At best there is some though limited spiritual growth while at the worst it is dust and dry bones where there is not only little or no spiritual growth but real harm being done.
Click to expand...

Aren't you referring to the 'established church' (the institution) rather than religion itself?
 
Themis said:
An INFJ struggles to reach God, to be pure!
He is fighting his own EGO (headaches) and this is exhausting.
If this huge force exceeds Logic he becomes Mahatma Gandhi or Adolf Hitler.
Click to expand...

Can you give us an example of a force that 'exceeds logic'? What does it look like? Can you describe it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top