• 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!

Another thought on seeking

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I believe there are differences between

1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)

2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)

3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)

Before someone were to find religious practice, path, or practice, they need to know their deal breakers.

I.e. your deal breaker is something you know us true without question:

Giving charity is who I am
Expressing love defines me as a person
I cannot exist without freedom of expression
My identity is lost without knowing where I came from

and so forth.

If a religion or practice conflicts with your identity, there is a conflict and not a religion to adopt.

i.e. the Buddha's Dharma says we have no identity. All is a product of change. If you know you have an identity, the Dharma may conflict with your value.

Likewise, if having an origin or finding the source of all things and people is irrelevant, believing in a creator would not be an ideal path to look into.

You can believe you have a creator, but, we can accept anything is true when it may not be.

You can hope that a creator exists is true, but if someone challenges your experiences, you may have some dissonance and doubt.

If you know a creator exist, like two and two, it is a fact. You will not budge, no matter what.

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

Enjoy
 
Last edited:

Bird123

Well-Known Member
I believe there are differences between

1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)

2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)

3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)

Before someone were to find religious practice, path, or practice, they need to know their deal breakers.

I.e. your deal breaker is something you know us true without question:

Giving charity is who I am
Expressing love defines me as a person
I cannot exist without freedom of expression
My identity is lost without knowing where I came from

and so forth.

If a religion or practice conflicts with your identity, there is a conflict and not a religion to adopt.

i.e. the Buddha's Dharma says we have no identity. All is a product of change. If you know you have an identity, the Dharma may conflict with your value.

Likewise, if having an origin or finding the source of all things and people is irrelevant, believing in a creator would not be an ideal path to look into.

You can believe you have a creator, but, we can accept anything is true when it may not be.

You can hope that a creator exists is true, but if someone challenges your experiences, you may have some dissonance and doubt.

If you know a creator exist, like two and two, it is a fact. You will not budge, no matter what.

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

Enjoy



your quote:
Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

My Answer: Well, OK. I can go along with that. I just have to add a bit more. Knowledge can be fixed, however Discovery of new knowledge can change how one views and understands that fixed knowledge. The journey toward knowledge must continue.

Knowledge must always be questioned and never merely accepted. There was a time when the knowledge said the smallest part of an element was the atom. Science later discovered there is much more out there.

If we continue to question, we will Discover knowledge we thought was fixed turned out to be no more than a belief. The atom is a case in point. Real Truth and Real Knowledge doesn't change regardless of how or how long it is questioned.

Still, generically, you make a very good point. Regardless of our journey or path, we should all seek knowledge and truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I believe there are differences between

1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)
2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)
3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)

Before someone were to find religious practice, path, or practice, they need to know their deal breakers.

I.e. your deal breaker is something you know us true without question:

You can hope that a creator exists is true, but if someone challenges your experiences, you may have some dissonance and doubt.

If you know a creator exist, like two and two, it is a fact. You will not budge, no matter what.

Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.
3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)

Nobody can ever know for a fact that God exists since facts can be proven and God can never be proven to exist.
We can know facts about a religion and from those facts we can form a belief as to whether the religion is true or not. That is where I am and have been for over 50 years with the Baha'i Faith. I know without question it is true because of the facts about the religion. I also know without question that God exists because of the religion is true, God exists.

I also know God exists because I have thought my way through it. Thus it is not really a matter of faith.

3 Ways to Know Something

However, it is a matter of faith as to whether I am willing to believe that God has certain qualities that have been attributed to Him in scriptures, such as loving and benevolent. I am conflicted as to whether I can believe that because my own suffering and all the suffering I see in the world runs contrary to what the scriptures say. I cannot just believe it, my logical mind has to accommodate it. I have to find a reason for the suffering that makes sense to me. I see some reasons for some suffering but not enough reasons to explain undue suffering, which is suffering that is not caused by our own free will decisions.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Aware self just a human looks at other humans naturally.

I see pain and suffering.
I see inequality.
I know by self presence I am natural to my owned form. As is everything else.

Records memories of the past living lived life advise me in life why without listening to human coercion for self want. The now.

Groups.

I belong to a family but it is dysfunctional. My family human.

I need to be alone. I am alone. Self.

So my self needs to advise my family why I see it's dysfunction. The group reality.

I say spiritual advice is natural advises me why.

I see groups saying quality is acceptance of balances which is mutual.

This informer word user men. Human. Memory says man invented word use for manipulation of natural.

I am female. I now understand.

What you say is extended outwards from self first. Your mistake.

You do not own the condition word implied it was chosen.

As a female I see not really the equal no matter where I look. What is it that is preached. Mutual and equal.

Ownership was that realisation by word implication. Inequality.

I learnt. I realised. Maybe you now might see yourself brother. When you ask why. State most highest man men realisation but missed non use of words as highest self truth.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think religion relies heavily on the assumption or certitude that there is depth and substance to the world of our own inner experiences. That what the inner experience is communicating self to self, and self to others is no accident, no mistake, and is a reality of great eternal worth.

Religion has a certainty that purpose is inherent to life.

Not all intuitions are false, a lot of them have relevant truth to them. I'm not talking about erroneous perceptual intuitions. I'm talking about intuitions derived from inner experiences of self to self, and self to others.

Religion is all about trusting inner experience intuitions that are very strong to the point where it is knowledge to the follower.

Religious conviction draws connections, and associations from deep subjective experiences as a reality knowable by those experiences.

So accepting that there is the reality within, and then there is the reality outside ourselves we can develope our convictions in opposite ways. The reality within can be known subjectively. The reality outside ourselves can be known objectively.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
your quote:
Finding a religion should not conflict with what you "know" is true. Belief can change. Faith can be broken. Knowledge is fixed.

My Answer: Well, OK. I can go along with that. I just have to add a bit more. Knowledge can be fixed, however Discovery of new knowledge can change how one views and understands that fixed knowledge. The journey toward knowledge must continue.

Knowledge must always be questioned and never merely accepted. There was a time when the knowledge said the smallest part of an element was the atom. Science later discovered there is much more out there.

If we continue to question, we will Discover knowledge we thought was fixed turned out to be no more than a belief. The atom is a case in point. Real Truth and Real Knowledge doesn't change regardless of how or how long it is questioned.

Still, generically, you make a very good point. Regardless of our journey or path, we should all seek knowledge and truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

That would mean that we can challenge people's belief in god and regardless how much they know god exist, their beliefs can still change?

Edit. In other words, you can believe god exist (or truth exist or whatever the case may be for some people) 100% but because we can still discover a person's truth, then their discovery can change their conviction?

People's conviction can be 100% fixed in any religious belief or practice, but since knowledge isn't fixed (assumingly via your post?), how much are they taking for granted their practice or belief can change?

(Even though they may be strong willed that it won't, they don't consider it a fact)
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Nobody can ever know for a fact that God exists since facts can be proven and God can never be proven to exist.

I also know God exists because I have thought my way through it. Thus it is not really a matter of faith.

I see these kind of the opposite end. If nobody knows, in this case, god exists as a fact, than it seems that your knowledge and conviction that god exist is not 100% true regardless the strength of your conviction, observation, inquiry, and experience.

Unless knowledge for you has a lower standard of considering what is knowledge in god's existence than another person, I don't see how those two statements support each other.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I see these kind of the opposite end. If nobody knows, in this case, god exists as a fact, than it seems that your knowledge and conviction that god exist is not 100% true regardless the strength of your conviction, observation, inquiry, and experience.

Unless knowledge for you has a lower standard of considering what is knowledge in god's existence than another person, I don't see how those two statements support each other.
I said that nobody can ever know that God exists as a fact that can be proven, but that does not mean they cannot have inner certitude. I know 100% that God exists but I cannot prove that to anyone else so I would never expect anyone to believe what I do. Everyone has to come to believe on their own; otherwise it would not be their own belief. And it is because we are all responsible for our own beliefs that we are all held accountable for them on Judgment Day.

“If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself. Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)

2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)
For me:

1) I believe in something I have never seen before

2) I have Faith in someone I have met before

So:
1) I believe in God
2) I have Faith in Sai Baba
@stvdvRF
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think religion relies heavily on the assumption or certitude that there is depth and substance to the world of our own inner experiences. That what the inner experience is communicating self to self, and self to others is no accident, no mistake, and is a reality of great eternal worth.

Religion has a certainty that purpose is inherent to life.

Not all intuitions are false, a lot of them have relevant truth to them. I'm not talking about erroneous perceptual intuitions. I'm talking about intuitions derived from inner experiences of self to self, and self to others.

Religion is all about trusting inner experience intuitions that are very strong to the point where it is knowledge to the follower.

Religious conviction draws connections, and associations from deep subjective experiences as a reality knowable by those experiences.

So accepting that there is the reality within, and then there is the reality outside ourselves we can develope our convictions in opposite ways. The reality within can be known subjectively. The reality outside ourselves can be known objectively.

I'd say if we knew something is a fact there wouldn't be a subjective/objective divide. If you really believe a said value defines who you are (a fixed value) it's no longer subjective (which is subject to change) but pretty fixed. Regardless if your conclusions came from inner experiences or from scientific, they would still make up a value that can't be changed. Therefore, if you find a religion that challenges that value, than unless that value isn't part of who you are (or you want to change your identity to adopt a new religion), that religion isn't a good path to follow.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I said that nobody can ever know that God exists as a fact that can be proven, but that does not mean they cannot have inner certitude. I know 100% that God exists but I cannot prove that to anyone else so I would never expect anyone to believe what I do. Everyone has to come to believe on their own; otherwise it would not be their own belief. And it is because we are all responsible for our own beliefs that we are all held accountable for them on Judgment Day.

That's why I was saying in the OP, if someone doesn't "know" that a said value of theirs is who they are or their identity, they can believe whatever (which can change) or have faith in whatever (which can be broken), but never come to a conclusion "I know..."

Whether you can prove it to others are not is irrelevant here.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
For me:

1) I believe in something I have never seen before

2) I have Faith in someone I have met before

So:
1) I believe in God
2) I have Faith in Sai Baba
@stvdvRF

Beliefs can change and faith can be broken.

Is your conviction strong enough to consider it knowledge (to drop the belief and faith)?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Beliefs can change and faith can be broken.

Is your conviction strong enough to consider it knowledge (to drop the belief and faith)?
I have Faith that Sai Baba can break my Faith, as He is a Poorna Avatar and I told Him that I fully Surrender to Him, and He can do whatever He wants with me.

When I had this thought, Sai Baba walked up to me, and placed His Feet on my feet. No coincidence, this I know for a fact (not believe nor faith).

Belief is usually not something I think about. Faith, knowledge and especially Wisdom are more my thing; belief not so much.
@stvdvRF
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That's why I was saying in the OP, if someone doesn't "know" that a said value of theirs is who they are or their identity, they can believe whatever (which can change) or have faith in whatever (which can be broken), but never come to a conclusion "I know..."
Believe and know are just words and they re not mutually exclusive. A person can believe and know at the same time. If a person is convinced or certain that what they believe is true then they know it is true (see 2a).

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1)
: to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b
: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Believe and know are just words and they re not mutually exclusive. A person can believe and know at the same time. If a person is convinced or certain that what they believe is true then they know it is true (see 2a).

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1)
: to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b
: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

I'm going by the OP context.

I know I am typing on a computer
I believe that Trailblazer is on the other side (I accept it even though I have no proof)
I have faith that Trailblazer will return this post, but I am not sure. My faith could be broken.

Some people know god exist as they know they are fixing coffee in the morning
To those who are seeking, it is best they know their value(s) as to make sure if they are seeking a religion, that it doesn't conflict with what they Know is true. Beliefs can change. Faith can be broken.

I hope you get the context. Semantics and bible/dictionary are really not my thing.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
1. I believe (accept X is true without evidence)

2. I have faith (hope/have trust that X is true, even though not 100% sure)

3. I know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information as a fact)
I don't think you need more than two really, if we want to keep it very simple.

1. I believe/know
2. I don't believe/know

You can believe something... because this and this show that it is like that. Whether that is facts or you guessing (having faith in something being true), it can still make you believe it. And the same goes with not believing something, you might refuse the facts or not have a good enough guess to convince yourself about it.

Like for instance, "What does the inside of a black hole look like?"

For me, I wouldn't even have a guess, I know nothing about black holes, except that everything gets ripped apart, but to even imagine what it might look like on the inside, I have no clue. And therefore I don't really believe anything in particular about it.

The biggest issues between these two or three, if you prefer that, as I see it, is that people often assign "their knowledge" to the wrong category, because they have convinced themself that they know the answer. Like, if I convinced myself that I knew what the inside of a black hole looked like, without having the slightest proof or knowledge to make such guess.

Obviously I might say that I believe that it's more likely that its completely black in there, rather than there living smurfs... BUT, that it is just me guessing, which again would be the second option, as im not really convinced whether it is in fact black in there, simply that it is more likely than smurfs :)
 
Top