Well it has millions but also one true God, but not always. So ehh????
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religiously Confused
- Thread starter JayToka
- Start date
Well when you find that religion be sure to let me know.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You may be onto something there. It might have been better to say many instead of most.
Below is a link by, of all people, Martin Luther King Jr. It was a paper he did in college in which he speaks of the "mystery religion" (Greek and Roman) influence on Christianity. I think he covers half a dozen different ones and every one has a form of trinity. That's what I was thinking about when I posted. Which Greek/Roman religions do you know of that didn't have a trinity?
"The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity" | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute
No, not really.
IMO that is a highly over-valued matter, anyway.
Apparently not, although I personally do agree - perhaps not for reasons much similar to yours.
Differenty people will define it in wildly different ways that can't really be reconciled.
My take is that religion is a human activity for social cohesion, mutual support, and development of morality and values.
Divinity-related concepts are entirely optional.
Most of them. There's some evidence of a triad of goddesses worshipped as one and other triads (like the 3 different forms of the Sun/light - Helios, Apollo and Dionysus). But people who claim that the Christian Trinity is a rip off of Paganism make exaggerated and false claims. Christianity was definitely influenced by Greek philosophy but the Christian Trinity is pretty unique in world religion. It's not true polytheism because the three have the same essence (sort of like having the same soul) but they're also not simply manifestations of a single entity since they are three Persons.
I'm a polytheist, myself.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Did you read the paper by MLK I sent you? Maybe you don't like that one. I understand. How about a Wiki page that lists no less than 3 dozen pagan trinities? I don't think Wiki is Christian, so maybe you'd like this one better:
Triple deity - Wikipedia
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
If you're talking about Abrahamic religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam), yes. If you're talking about other religions, then no.
Since religion is a system of faith and worship, God doesn't need one.
It's a system of faith and worship.
It's a defined set of guidelines for how we see God and how we relate to Him.
I read the Wikipedia page and I'm also going off my own knowledge of Greco-Roman religions.
It is also fitting, considering the subject matter.
I don't think it is even logically possible for humans to validate the proper number of identities for transcendent deities, even in the abstract.
My guess is that for every person who believes in a god or gods that god or gods exists in the mind of the believer.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Religion is the institutionalization of the belief in non-physical factors of life experience or of factors of life experience which transcend the mundane and the physical. The overall purpose of spiritual belief systems is to provide the individual with a sense of meaning in the context of the world they find themselves in and the tools to maintain that sense of meaning under a wide array of circumstances.
Specifically these beliefs serve to provide the following services to the individual who holds them (Campbell):
- Mystical - Allows the believer to experience the mystery and wonder of the Universe which gives them the experience of the value of the Universe
- Cosmological - Allows the believer to understand on their terms the nature of the Universe which gives them the experience of being able to relate to it and negotiate life on its terms
- Sociological - Allows the believer to know what is right and wrong in a collaborative context of the society in which they are a part
- Psychological - Allows the believer to know how to encounter the Universe when there are critical issues at stake as far as the believer and his/her survivability and thrivability in the Universe
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I would also argue that there is objective evidence in the field of psychology of the existence of an experience of God. My own informal study of God dreams and visions on another forum suggested that there are typical motifs involved when experiencing "god" which include the following:
- God is not (to be) seen
- Great fear
- Resolution to fear
- Presentation/Acquisition of a significant name
- Decisive action
- Lights in the sky
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I think most, virtually all, people who "know" what the Bible says have not actually ever read it let alone studied it. The extent of most people's knowledge comes from the churches. When I was younger I parroted the things I learned in Catholic school. Most of it didn't make sense, but I went along with it like most Catholics. Most Protestant religions are not much different.
Then I met someone who convinced me that the Bible says something quite a bit different that what the church institution teaches. I began to study it for myself. I wasn't going to let mainstream (orthodox) Christian doctrine influence what I read. Suffice it to say I discovered that the churches do indeed teach mystical impossibilities, fairy tales, and basically a bunch of lies.
I guess the point I'm making is that before someone rejects the scriptures that ought to at least spend some time studying them for themselves. You may need someone to get you started, but you should never ever believe what someone tells you about the Bible. The question should be, what does the Bible say about such and such a thing?
There is a record in the Book of Acts that address this idea head on.
Acts 17:11,
These (Bereans) were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
The Apostle Paul was telling these people things about the scriptures. The folks in Thessalonicia had thrown him out of town because they thought he was nuts. Never mind they never really checked for themselves the things he told them. They felt no need to actually investigate any of the things he said. They just "felt" he was wrong and that was that. The Bereans on the other hand, at least checked the scriptures for themselves. There are very few "Bereans" in today's world of religion.
I don't blame anybody for thinking the churches are messed up. Like I said, you don't need a PHD to know a son can't be his own father, but somehow the churches have convinced 99% of Christians that a son can be his own father. Never mind the fact that it makes language meaningless and the whole idea is nonsensical.
It doesn't take long before an honest study of the Bible will reveal something quite a bit different than the churches. But without an independent investigation of the scriptures people will be either gullible or turned off to the whole thing. Personally, I think the latter are wiser. Nonetheless, and honest individual will read and study the book for themselves or stay quite on what they really don't know.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I'd rather know what my bank balance is than guess. And that's a stupid bank balance. I'd be cautious about guessing things that may have eternal effects. I'd rather know. But that's just me. Many people are OK with guessing. Probably more are than not.
I agree, and I dare say that such is exactly the ideal situation.
I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. I think only Oneness Pentecostals believe the Son and the Father are the same. Trinitarians say nothing of the sort.
Considering that no valid evidence has ever been presented in favour of god or gods it seems to me that belief in god(s) is a guess
If it works for the religiously inclined and gives them personal comfort then it's good for them
Religion is the only possible way for humans to reach a future event.
Humans are such a kind of creatures with no direct access to both the past and the future. In order for humans to reach the past, a witness must write something we call history for later humans to get to know what could possibly happened in the past. The saying of this witness is hardly verifiable under most circumstance. For example, if an eyewitness wrote about what you said today but a year ago, will you or anyone be able to verify what the eyewitness wrote. It is hardly possible. So you need faith to believe what has been written down.
Similarly, humans are more futile about the future. The only way humans could possibly know what lying ahead, is the case when there is a God there who knows the future and for Him to tell His eyewitnesses such that you know what future is by putting faith in what has been written down.
Christianity is such a witnessing process. It is different from written history in 2 ways. First, history is the recording of human activities which fall into our comprehension. Christianity as a religion is the recording of God's activity which may not fall into humans' comprehension. Second, history is always a recording of the past, while religion may come with an advocate of the future.
Of course, a religion such as Christianity stands only provided that the God being witnessed has a good reason to hide behind from direct contact with humans. Or else, the God doesn't need a religion to convey the message, He can directly tell humans about His existence and what He wants.
A religion must be employed because only a religion is capable of bring forward a theology from God faithfully. For this reason, you can't compare a history book available today to its original document written 2000 years ago. Humans are not good keeper of original documents. However, you can compare the OT Bible available today to OT Bible published 2000 years ago (the Dead Sea scrolls). It is so because publication volume of history books are much less than that of a religious book such as the OT Bible. Moreover, every single Jew when jeopardized by life-threatening events such as the AD70 siege, he will bring the Bible with him instead of a history book. That's the survivability of such a religious document.
Last edited: