Does any existing faith fit these criteria?

[Aupmanyav]

.. though I've been accused of trying to customize my religion. I'm trying to find an expression of what I believe the truth to be. Just because someone quoted in a holy book had a different idea of what that truth is doesn't make their belief more true than mine.

Hindus do that all the time. Hinduism does not tie you in fetters.

I believe we can all be personally inspired by God too. However, the manner in which God spoke to Moses or Jesus as being beyond that our capacity IMHO. If you believe God can speak to you in the same manner as He spoke to Moses and Jesus then why are you asking advice from us, when you can speak to God directly?

Whether to a theist or an atheist, heart speaks the truth (as they say). If one has been raised in a civil house-hold and educated well, then the person will know the right course of action by himself, no divine help needed.

And Paul wrote to "beware of those who may cause division", so he certainly doesn't buy into "just have you own beliefs and do your own thing" scenario. All of the epistles, as well as the Gospels, "teach with authority", and that's undoubtedly why they were written in the first place as books of faith.

Who caused the divisions? What has been the result of these messages from God / Allah? New religions, strife and cruelty. God's messengers have been the greatest misfortune for the mankind.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The above defies even basic logic based on what's written in the NT.

There is logic in the NT?

There's clearly no indication whatsoever that Jesus and the Twelve taught a "just do your own thing" approach.

Twelve disciples chosen at random from the least likely people to be quality disciples -- the worst choices for apostles in most cases with one or two potentially smart people. That's not any indication to you? What about John the Baptist's main message about lowering the high places and raising the low ones? That does in fact sound to me like a do your own thing approach, possibly. I don't think its such a stretch. What is the term Catholic to you? I doubt it means 'Conform' . What about that bit where the apostles are arguing about who will be greater, but Jesus shuts them down? Am I shooting blanks?

Nor did Paul believe they did as he refers to the Church as being the "one body" based on Jesus' teachings.

I am not the expert on Paul. I would be the last person to suggest that I had more expertise than you. That doesn't mean that I won't discuss this with you. For all I know you're humbly setting me up to make a point. Its one body with many members, and Paul writes (in Corinthians) that at communion people shouldn't divide over who is wealthy (not merely monetarily but in education). The conversation actually goes back to the beginning of the letter when Paul says they shouldn't be divided over their teachers, but Paul brings communion into it to drive home his point. They seek to show who has more of God's approval. That implies that Paul recognizes (in Corinthians maybe not in all letters) that there are teachers with differing opinions and accepts that they should share communion.

Now, as I posted on numerous other threads, one person's "faith" is another person's "heresy". I believe and accept that the Bible is something that can be questioned, and it should be imo. And my theology is about as loosey-goosey as one could likely ever be as I take almost nothing for granted. I can go to pretty much any religious service in any religion, which I have done a great many times, and feel right at home. Where I don't feel comfortable is with a denomination that takes the "my way or the highway" approach.

I do not think of your theology as loosey goosey but as a polished stone. The fact that you can go to any religious service and feel at home is a trophy the size of a two tiered fountain. You don't just walk into that.

 

[Nova2216]

Not that I can see.

The "Church" was to be "one body" that was started by Jesus and the Twelve as Paul repeatedly stated, and that "one body" has nothing to do with the "Apologetics Press".

Here: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

I do not need the link above, I have the word of God.

No one has seen or touched Jesus since the first century.

Therefore there is no succession of Apostolic succession.

There are no apostles today.



Qualifications for an Apostle.

Ac 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22)

1Jo 1:1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1Jn 1:1-3)

 

[metis]

I do not think of your theology as loosey goosey but as a polished stone. The fact that you can go to any religious service and feel at home is a trophy the size of a two tiered fountain. You don't just walk into that.

Thank you so much, and take care.

 

[metis]

I do not need the link above, I have the word of God.

No one has seen or touched Jesus since the first century.

Therefore there is no succession of Apostolic succession.

You should maybe actually study the early history of Christianity, so if you do that then maybe we can have a serious discussion. Here's a start for you, and scroll down to #2: History of Christianity - Wikipedia.

BTW, who do you think chose the "word of God" that you read?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whether to a theist or an atheist, heart speaks the truth (as they say). If one has been raised in a civil house-hold and educated well, then the person will know the right course of action by himself, no divine help needed.

I wouldn’t negate for one moment the importance of being raised in an environment of civility amongst family members and being well educated. The Baha’i Faith places great emphasis on both. Do you have any evidence that atheist families are more civil or result in higher levels of education for their children?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did I ever claim that? There is a need for atheists to be humble.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whether to a theist or an atheist, heart speaks the truth (as they say). If one has been raised in a civil house-hold and educated well, then the person will know the right course of action by himself, no divine help needed.

I wouldn’t negate for one moment the importance of being raised in an environment of civility amongst family members and being well educated. The Baha’i Faith places great emphasis on both. Do you have any evidence that atheist families are more civil or result in higher levels of education for their children?

Did I ever claim that? There is a need for atheists to be humble.

You implied it.

There is a need for 'any' person to be humble, not just atheists. It is a fundamental human virtue IMHO.

There is no rigorous scientific evidence that I'm aware of to establish a person will be more virtuous as a result of being raised by theist or atheist parents. So while its possible divine assistance is not required to enable one to know the right course of action as you suggest, we can not reliably determine whether or not divine assistance is required.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You implied it. There is a need for 'any' person to be humble, not just atheists. It is a fundamental human virtue IMHO.

There is no rigorous scientific evidence that I'm aware of to establish a person will be more virtuous as a result of being raised by theist or atheist parents. So while its possible divine assistance is not required to enable one to know the right course of action as you suggest, we can not reliably determine whether or not divine assistance is required.

I implied nothing like that. And yes, while all people need to be humble; as an atheist, I would say that atheist need to be more humble than the theists. Otherwise they incur blame.

And what you say in the second paragraph is a canard. I do not know from where have you picked it up, I have never said such a thing. If the only criteria that makes an action right or wrong is approval of your 19th Century uneducated (as I am told by a Bahai) Iranian preacher, then I beg to differ with you. I have a brain and I can think for myself. No one has offered me any proof of existence of God / Allah or the truthfulness of his prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.

 

[rational experiences]

Taking religion quizzes isn't helping. I'm wondering if there's a faith tradition other that:
1. Acknowledges and worships the Creator
2. Has clear moral standards based on universal principles (including not supporting abortion-on-demand)
3. Is accessible universally, not depending on being literate (any faith based on a holy book as the source of truth), or going through a human institution (a learned representative of the faith who interprets the faith for everyone as a way to get around the literacy component)
4. Acknowledges eternal life (meaning being conscious of one's continued existence after death)
5. Isn't ethically-based (bc how does that help me if I wasn't born into that culture)

I think I'm looking for a needle in a haystack, but it might just be there, and if it is, I'm sure you fine folks can help me find it.

I am especially interested in eastern beliefs, as I think I've exhausted my study of Western religions. But I sense these are either atheistic or polytheistic. I know I probably just need to embrace focusing on my own personal spiritual practice and accept that it won't ever include a faith community that fits the above criteria.

I'm looking for suggestions other than Quaker or Unitarian/Universalist (to my knowledge they generally support abortion).

I'm pretty sure I'm looking for a non-Christian system of belief, since there's either a dependence on the Bible alone (which begs the question, how did Christianity spread before near universal literacy and the printing press) or on Bible and church tradition (which depends on the church hierarchy to interpret the Bible for everyone, literate and illiterate alike).

Similarly with Islam, since the Quran is central.

Similarly with Judaism, since the Torah is central. And while I know gentiles can convert, it's still ethno-centric with the idea of a chosen people.

I'm probably also not looking for Hinduism, due to the ethnic centrality.

I am not sure if Buddhism fits the bill or not, bc I've read that not all Buddhists are atheists, but I don't think there's much of a worship component even among those who believe in the Creator. And the idea of happiness being found in ceasing to exist doesn't sit well with me.

I'm not sure if Taoism might be what's left. Or Zoroastrianism. Or maybe Baha'i, but not sure.

Please don't respond at all if you are just going to tell me to believe whatever I want and not worry about finding a group that believes the same thing.

Please also don't respond if you're going to tell me I'm going to hell unless I join your preferred faith.

Thank you to anyone who has read this far! Blessings

What about humanity and being an extended family member in natural union, in a natural life, supported historically by all states natural and finally accept that we cannot all be born from just one pair of human beings as Mother/Father....yet Mother/Father makes everyone united and a family by extension of that multi presence?

Seeing science quotes that human life as parent history once all owned the same DNA presence in their human body, and UFO irradiation of the ground mass, sporadic changed the life of Nature on Earth as what was against us our communal and Universal acceptance?