religious agnostics

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's pretty clear in scriptures that one absolutely needs to be believe in God in order to reach heaven.

Do You Have to Believe in God to Go to Heaven? | The BibleMesh Blog

There should be no doubt.

Oh, please. Saints from Peter, Thomas to Mother Teresa have doubted. It's not black and white. I doubt, myself. I like to believe that there's something that cares about us, but I can't be totally sure there is in objective reality and it's not just my own imaginings. But I hope to find out one day.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

agnostics can be very religious, and they can have strong faith in god. they are agnostic when it comes to knowledge of god by scientific standards. they simple say ''we don't know'' in my opinion. agnostics can be devout christians, when it comes to the teachings of christ.

I wish there were more religious agnostics, but most aren't.

 

[shunyadragon]

I consider myself a philosophical agnostic and Socratic skeptic I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but everything is one the table and in pencil.

 

[PureX]

I wish there were more religious agnostics, but most aren't.

I think there are, however, a lot of theistic agnostics that are not drawn to any particular religious ideology.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think there are, however, a lot of theistic agnostics that are not drawn to any particular religious ideology.

This comes close to my view, because I believe any religious ideology that tries to describe what God(s) is or is not, is flawed from the fallible human perspective. The belief in the undefinable 'Source' in Taoism and the Baha'i Faith are more reasonable from my perspective.

 

[PureX]

This comes close to my view, because I believe any religious ideology that tries to describe what God(s) is or is not, is flawed from the fallible human perspective. The belief in the undefinable 'Source' in Taoism and the Baha'i Faith are more reasonable from my perspective.

I've always been somewhat puzzled by the human desire to "nail down" the gods, so as to control them. As it seems to me that they are far more useful to us (versatile, applicable, etc.) when left undefined.

 

[Kfox]

I've always been somewhat puzzled by the human desire to "nail down" the gods, so as to control them.

I don't think anybody attempts to "nail down" the Gods in order to control them, I think they attempts to nail down Gods in order to understand them; to know what someone is talking about when you speak of them; this is necessary for anything that exists.

As it seems to me that they are far more useful to us (versatile, applicable, etc.) when left undefined.

How? How is something you cannot understand, communicate with, or even describe useful?

 

[Kfox]

This comes close to my view, because I believe any religious ideology that tries to describe what God(s) is or is not, is flawed from the fallible human perspective. The belief in the undefinable 'Source' in Taoism and the Baha'i Faith are more reasonable from my perspective.

If you can't describe it, how is anybody supposed to know what you are talking about when you speak of him?

 

[shunyadragon]

If you can't describe it, how is anybody supposed to know what you are talking about when you speak of him?

By the spiritual attributes of the 'Source' some call God(s) in human existence. The problem becomes with ancient religions that define the 'Source' from a limited ancient cultural tribal perspective and the value of the spiritual attributes is lost.

God is not a 'him.'

 

[Kfox]

By the spiritual attributes of the 'Source' some call God(s) in human existence.

Not everybody has that spiritual attributes of the Source

The problem becomes with ancient religions that define the 'Source' from a limited ancient cultural tribal perspective and the value of the spiritual attributes is lost.

Which seems to happen all the time because those who claim to have this spiritual attribute, it seems to vary from person to person; resulting in everybody talking past each other, and nobody getting an understanding concerning God.

God is not a 'him.'

In post #28 you said

“ I believe any religious ideology that tries to describe what God(s) is or is not, is flawed from the fallible human perspective. ”

Judging from that, how do you know what God is or is not?

 

[shunyadragon]

Not everybody has that spiritual attributes of the Source

Which seems to happen all the time because those who claim to have this spiritual attribute, it seems to vary from person to person; resulting in everybody talking past each other, and nobody getting an understanding concerning God.

In post #28 you said

“ I believe any religious ideology that tries to describe what God(s) is or is not, is flawed from the fallible human perspective. ”

Judging from that, how do you know what God is or is not?

We do not know what God is or is not, again we cannot describe God as him.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with 'agnostics' is the vague and diverse nature of 'What is an 'agnostic?' Many people have a degree of an agnostic perspective of questioning belief even though they believe in God or Gods. Then there are many who are stoically in denial that it is faith that they believe in God, and not evidence nor certainty.

 

[Kfox]

We do not know what God is or is not, again we cannot describe God as him.

Depends on the God you are talking about. Some people's concept of is known what he is or is not, and some concepts of God are described as a he or she.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

agnostics can be very religious, and they can have strong faith in god. they are agnostic when it comes to knowledge of god by scientific standards. they simple say ''we don't know'' in my opinion. agnostics can be devout christians, when it comes to the teachings of christ.

If I don't know means "I believe god exists but I won't confirm" then yes, they can be christian. Same as if they said "I believe in god even though I have my doubts" one can be christian.

Someone said to me once, "why don't you believe just in case." If salvation is more about belief or faith (which can be agnostic position-I trust something exist but I can't prove it does objectively), then yes. One can be agnostic and christian. If one doesn't believe god exists because he or she doesn't know, then no, that's a contradiction.

If I remember correctly: blessed are those who believed but have not seen. So, by definition, if you haven't seen god to know he exists by your earthly senses, it would make sense to say one doesn't know. Though many agnostics don't follow christianity because they don't know rather than follow christianity despite they can't know everything.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which makes me wonder if most abrahamics are agnostic. They say "god is above human knowledge." So, if god is too big for them to conceptualize, they basically, don't know it exists in respects to conception and language. You're left with subjectivity-which, I guess in that sense, no matter how much experience one has as long as they hold the concept of god is greater and a mystery, they don't know. (My insight)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

in my opinion not believing in the existence of god or having doubts is not a sin. sin is if you don't follow the teachings of jesus. for example an atheist who accepts jesus's teachings is not a sinner.

I would disagree. Someone who doesn't believe god exist breaks the first commandment (and basically all of them) because without a conception of god, they aren't following god (jesus' father); they may be following something else "instead" of god. Jesus was a human but if they don't believe in god, following jesus (in my opinion) is pretty much irrelevant. If there were something in his own words, then maybe there'd be even better insight.

 

[Kfox]

If I don't know means "I believe god exists but I won't confirm" then yes, they can be christian. Same as if they said "I believe in god even though I have my doubts" one can be christian.

Someone said to me once, "why don't you believe just in case." If salvation is more about belief or faith (which can be agnostic position-I trust something exist but I can't prove it does objectively), then yes. One can be agnostic and christian. If one doesn't believe god exists because he or she doesn't know, then no, that's a contradiction.

If I remember correctly: blessed are those who believed but have not seen. So, by definition, if you haven't seen god to know he exists by your earthly senses, it would make sense to say one doesn't know. Though many agnostics don't follow christianity because they don't know rather than follow christianity despite they can't know everything.

Gnostic and Agnostic is about having/not having knowledge of God, Theism and Atheism is about having/not having belief in God; a completely separate issue.

 

[Kfox]

in my opinion not believing in the existence of god or having doubts is not a sin. sin is if you don't follow the teachings of jesus. for example an atheist who accepts jesus's teachings is not a sinner.

I believe Christianity defines sin as transgression against God's laws. If God's laws require you to believe what the bible says about Jesus, to reject this would be considered a sin.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Gnostic and Agnostic is about having/not having knowledge of God, Theism and Atheism is about having/not having belief in God; a completely separate issue.

Gnostic? I thought were talking about agnostic?

 

[Kfox]

Gnostic? I thought were talking about agnostic?

Gnostic and Agnostic are opposites in the same way Theism and Atheism are