A Belief

[Kemosloby]

I'm personally not religious, but the answer a lot of religious people, especially Christians would give, is that there is no death, only transition into an after-life that is eternal.

We wouldn't need a constitution for that.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I'm personally not religious, but the answer a lot of religious people, especially Christians would give, is that there is no death, only transition into an after-life that is eternal.

I'm not religious either.
I find religion to be very disappointing.
But I do believe in Jesus and I believe that His Father is my Father and that he works in my life.
Too many things have happened to me the last few years which go beyond coincidence and also stretch mathematical probabilities.
But I think a true believer must accept that he does not know all there is to know and may never know. I can believe what I do while admitting I do not know. Does that make me an agnostic?

 

[Lester Tryon]

Actually, I believe that no actual Christians participated in the crusades. But that's another conversation.

Hmmm, so the all the men in armor with red crosses on their chests that went around Europe for 196 years from 1095 a.d. to 1291 a.d. on direction of the "Pope" (whichever one was current during particular campaigns) and "taught" Christianity at the end of a sword, were not Christians? Try Googling "The Crusades." Then pick which source you trust the most to inform you of history. I guess, you could get into a theological debate as to whether Catholicism is a Christian faith or not, but considering it is considered to be the first religion to be named as such, you may have a bit of large group who would disagree with you. Yet, then again, I guess, your view of history could be tainted by what your individual definition of being a Christian is.

 

[Lester Tryon]

We wouldn't need a constitution for that.

Is there some poignant point here, other than the difference between secular and religious views? I believe I said, that was how religious people would answer that question. Which, considering what forum this discussion is on, seemed relevant. The bottom line, with regards to that statement, is fundamental to the OP, and goes to how a person's individual beliefs or faith, leads them to interpret words and statements.

 

[Lester Tryon]

I'm not religious either.
I find religion to be very disappointing.
But I do believe in Jesus and I believe that His Father is my Father and that he works in my life.
Too many things have happened to me the last few years which go beyond coincidence and also stretch mathematical probabilities.
But I think a true believer must accept that he does not know all there is to know and may never know. I can believe what I do while admitting I do not know. Does that make me an agnostic?

No. It only says, you have questions regarding what path you will choose to follow in relation to your beliefs. An agnostic, like me, simply states, that since there is no tangible evidence either way regarding the existence/non-existence of "God" to not try to stand firmly on either side of that debate. There are many things that are still to be explained by science. I personally have seen and experienced a number of these, including healings. So I think there is something, but what that is I have no way of proving. If there is, and that being is even close to the claims made by the faithful, then I would think that it would be pretty arrogant of me to assume that I could define it (name implies form), let alone speak for it.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Nirvana. Do you not experience when you write the words, do you not experience understanding? I don't think there is a beyond, but an awareness that now that frees one from the gravitational pull of concepts
Did you know that the natural state is the mind is at rest?

Is this last statement interrogatory or rhetorical? Because if you're stating it as a fact, then that is a fact based on the supposition of some alternate reality, such as Nirvana, Heaven, or other conceptual ideal. From a purely secular/physical/scientific standpoint, nothing is at rest. If you are referring to "mind" as a separate entity from the body, then, who knows? But, if you consider the mind to be a function of the brain, then the best you can hope for is a state of calm focus. Energy is in constant motion, and that is what travels through synapses from one neuron to another to form thoughts. To be at a complete state of rest, would imply both absolute nothingness with no energy, and a complete lack of consciousness or death.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Christians paid my rent, gave me clothes, furniture, and food. Further up north a christian yelled at me. In another area a christian fussed at me. Where I live, a christian wants me to come back to christ. While when I first moved here, two christians and I had a sane discussion about differing beliefs with no evangelization. I see christians picket once a year against anti-abortion. I see christian's lives changed by their belief.

I can't judge christianity (body of christ/people) based off their history. If I generalized, then I'd probably throw the book at all Catholics. That's not me.

There are a lot of nice people out there. I'm very happy they were there for you in your time of need. I personally believe we should help each other, because that's the point of having a society in the first place. The more positive deeds, generosity and kindness, that people contribute to that society, the better off we all are as a whole.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Perhaps, if everyone, would accept the reality we currently inhabit, with the physical constraints thereof as a basis for this "belief", then it might be feasible. If all of humanity, could somehow agree to a set of laws, that have nothing to do with faith, but only work to improve the quality of life as we know it.
The problem, as I see it, with "beliefs" in the context of religion, is the need for proselytizing and imposing the constraints of the given "faith" upon others. Remove that aspect, allow people to hold their spiritual ideas however they want, but keep them private when it comes to impinging upon others'. Unfortunately, to a lot of these faiths, the very idea of other people not living by their given set of rules, is anathema. As long as that is true, humanity will never reach the Utopian society proposed.

 

[Lester Tryon]

I can't judge christianity (body of christ/people) based off their history. If I generalized, then I'd probably throw the book at all Catholics. That's not me.

I don't either. I was just replying to the; "I honestly feel it's more than just that because if not, everyone would be christian." , part. As in, why Muslims etc., aren't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't either. I was just replying to the; "I honestly feel it's more than just that because if not, everyone would be christian." , part. As in, why Muslims etc., aren't.

I honestly can't find that post. Do you have the number?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Hmmm, so the all the men in armor with red crosses on their chests that went around Europe for 196 years from 1095 a.d. to 1291 a.d. on direction of the "Pope" (whichever one was current during particular campaigns) and "taught" Christianity at the end of a sword, were not Christians? Try Googling "The Crusades." Then pick which source you trust the most to inform you of history. I guess, you could get into a theological debate as to whether Catholicism is a Christian faith or not, but considering it is considered to be the first religion to be named as such, you may have a bit of large group who would disagree with you. Yet, then again, I guess, your view of history could be tainted by what your individual definition of being a Christian is.

It hardly matters to me what 1.2 billion people claim to be.
Jesus says we will be known by our fruits.
Also, a "crusade" against anyone for any reason is absolutely, positively not His way. I don't need "google" to give me truth when I have "eyes to see"
Jesus is the Christ, and a true Christian will have His character.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus is the Christ, and a true Christian will have His character.

A true Christian should, then:

1. Dishonor parents for little to no real reason given
2. Vandalize other people's property/livestock
3. Assume foreigners don't have faith
4. Be a hypocrite

 

[Lester Tryon]

I honestly can't find that post. Do you have the number?

Yes, it was from #75.

 

[Lester Tryon]

A true Christian should, then:

1. Dishonor parents for little to no real reason given
2. Vandalize other people's property/livestock
3. Assume foreigners don't have faith
4. Be a hypocrite

I imagine that is based on what many Christians do? Or are you saying that the four things listed reflect the character of Jesus?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Lester Tryon

I guess it would depend on this one belief is. I mean, I wonder if a christian would give up his belief it the "one belief" offered the same result as his belief just by a different method of deliverance.

Christianity helps a lot of people out of suffering, takes care of people who are neglected, help people so they won't be homeless, and so forth. I honestly feel it's more than just that because if not, everyone would be christian.

I got it.... I feel the problem is more than just the crusades. If it were that and say the Inquisition, Id throw the book at christians. The people that helped me, the Legion of Mary are a small organization of the Church. They have small funding over here but help people in need.

I feel the problem with some religions goes beyond their history of killing. If it were just the history, then many people today would be christians because of the good they do today. They changed so much. But there is a deep seeded issue with the christian mindset.

I wonder if a christian can give up his individual religion if the One Religion agreed on offered the same destination but different path of deliverance.

Other than that, I dont know what I meant by that statement in relation to your replies.

 

[RedDragon94]

Oooohhh. Yeah, that's basically a universalist position. I'd see it more giving up our individuality to believe as a whole. It's not something I'd do; but, if that's what the OP means, I can see why it makes sense to some people.

It's interesting how one person's interpretation can differ from another's even while they read the same material.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's interesting how one person's interpretation can differ from another's even while they read the same material.

True, so true.

 

[Pudding]

Well pudding, it seems to me that you really understood my whole post so lets do this piece by piece. You got the first sentence, I think, by your response "okay", the second one kind of gave you a little problem but it appears as though you figured it out.

Okay.

Now the third sentence seems to be confusing and its probably because there is no specific answer, it was a take your pick from all the problems in the world that you could relate with, maybe there are none in your life.

I can relate to many problems in the world, it's that i want to understand what problems you're referring to in your statement. You can't just say there is some vague problems and ask me to insert any random problems i can relate with into your statement. Can you list some example of problems which fit the settings of your statement?

Enough for now, questions

These three questions are also very important in order for me to understand your op otherwise it's too vague.

What beliefs are you referring to when you say it essentially divide us?

I have many beliefs, which one of my current beliefs are you referring to in your question?

Please elaborate the belief which you say would satisfy everyone.