Featured God, Gods, & Societies Around the World

I'm much more tactful than that, but you're getting close!

Hey, I could have told you a long time ago that you know nothing. .

But seriously, the mark of a true thinker is knowing that you don't know something and maybe will never know some things, so I'll give you a big star on your forehead for that.

But even more seriously, the above tells me that you are using your religious belief as a form of enlightenment versus just blindly swallowing what you've maybe been told. For what it's worth, that's GREAT imo-- and I mean it.

But what about verses that say one must believe in order to be saved? How could the ancient Incas believe in Jesus prior to his birth? Are those verses wrong, iyo?

He was my son, so don't you dare make fun of his age!

Interesting, and I mean that in a good way.

Yep, and I'll wait with baited breath for your clarification.

BTW, why would anyone eat bait?

 

As some here know, I am an anthropologist, now retired for 18 years, and we as part of our studies in cultural anthropology study religions the world over, past and present. Religion is considered to be one of the "five basic institutions" that all societies have in one form or another.

The question about God(s), and what this was all about, puzzled me, especially since I grew up in a fundamentalist church that taught us not to believe in "evilution" and to believe in the Bible instead as if they were not compatible. Are all these other religions than Christianity wrong? Is the Bible to be believed and not the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran for examples, and what would I supposedly base my belief on? It's sorta like "if you have one clock you know exactly what time it is, but if you have several clocks you can't tell exactly what time it is."

[I have some computer issues going on right now, so I'm going to stop and reboot and get back shortly]

 

[OK, I'll continue]

These questions bothered me since nothing seemed to make much sense, so I pretty much left any decisions and beliefs up in the air, thus pretty much being agnostic. When I turned 30, I converted to Catholicism because I felt that at least I could do that as my wife was and is a very devout Catholic (but not at the expense of other faiths), and I had a strong feeling that I should convert as Something was pulling me in that direction.. I enjoyed the Church, but then after a while so many of my previous doubts resurfaced.

Then came the movie "Gandhi", plus a close friend of mine spent a summer in India studying him and his affect on Hinduism, and that really got me thinking again about how should I take him and Hinduism in general as compared to Christianity? For example, would God condemn him to "hell" because he wasn't a Christian? That didn't seem right. And is there even such a thing such as "hell"? [that was before I experienced RF ] So, I studied his teachings and came to tentatively feel that at least he maybe was on the right path that might solve my problem.

Gandhi often said at interfaith prayer rallies that "I am a Hindu; I am a Christian; I am a Muslim; ...", thus saying prayers compatible with each faith. But it was especially his teaching that "God is Love and Truth" that really influenced me because this tends to be the basis for most religions.

And then along came my studies of Baruch Spinoza, Albert Einstein, and Fr. Pierre Teihard de Chardin, which also fascinated me. So, I had to add that besides "Love and Truth" that God is also likely "Nature", used in the most broadest sense of the word, namely all the way from the universe/multiverse level down to the subatomic particle level.

Therefore, to sum this part up, this is the orientation that I lean towards, but I got tons of questions with far fewer answers.

I'll stop here for comments, plus I gotta get my walk in and then there's coffee or expresso-time with my wife.

 

I very much appreciate your bent on this. I have studied both Hindu and Buddhist theology for many years now, and so much of what they teach I use on a regular basis because they seem logical to me.

In Buddhism, the FNT and the EP just make so much sense, and the Hindu teaching of "We are That" I find, not only interesting, but it makes sense to me. OTOH, I'm not going to the extreme of saying that the latter must correct simply because it makes sense to me.

 

We're talking about "institutions", not whether those institutions are intrinsically correct or not. Every society in the world, at least since written history, has a majority segment of their society who do believe in a deity or deities, and attempts to eradicate religion has always failed, such as in the Marxist countries.

BTW, I got my information of such from the American Anthropological Association since I used some of their materials in my Intro to Anthro course. But, as anthropologists, we don't get into what's supposedly "right" or "wrong " on such matters. Here I can do that but not when I taught that course.

 

As oft been said, if there were to be no god(s), humans would have invented one/them anyway.

There seems to be something intrinsic in human nature that seems to push so many people in that direction, and some have even gone so far as to call it a "God gene". However, I'm not one of them.

But what I have posted in the past and still "believe" is this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much leave it at that". I don't pretend to know the answers--only some of the questions.

 

Let me just mention in my finishing off for today that even though I have a very loosey-goosey "theology", there is one thing that I'm adamant about for myself at least, namely that since I tend to believe that God (or the Gods) are likely to be Love, Truth, and Nature, I much prefer an activist role versus just a theological one. Namely, my need to try and put Love, Truth, and Nature into action and not just some nice thoughts.

Jesus' Sermon On the Mount, for example, is a call to action, not just some nice beliefs, and I long have felt this way even before knowing anything about Gandhi.

IMO, "Love" implies that I and we were made by Whatever whereas we didn't have to be made at all. One common denominator with most religions is what is called "the Golden Rule"-- do no harm. Unfortunately a lot of other stuff often got mixed in to sometimes obscure that very basic simple message of "Love".

IMO, "Truth" means for us to accept the facts as they are, not what we may want them to be. Therefore, using this approach, science offers no threat-- actually quite the opposite as they should be compatible even though they come from different perspectives.

And, imo, "Nature" is to realize what's in our world as it exists, but then try to improve upon it in our little area of the world to try and leave it at least somewhat better than it was when we got here. "Nature" is not always pretty, and we have to accept that this is the way it is. There's a commentary in Judaism that I long have felt is interesting, namely that when God made all He said it was "good", thus not using the word "perfect". If it were "perfect", the world would only be His, not ours, thus there are things we can do to make the world "better".

Anyhow, @KenS (and others), feel free to comment on my posts, and don't hold back so as to not try and hurt my feelings. Being married for 53 years now, I'm at used to being harassed!

 

I'm going to apologize in advance as I have to leave very shortly. For those items I don't address but you want me to, ask them and I'll get to them tomorrow.

But it wasn't clear exactly what this "Savior" was about in terms of an "earthly" one or a more "spiritual" one. That dispute is still on today.

I will deal with this shortly.

This is where you and I can definitely find common ground, with only some hesitation. For example, how does one know that it's God and not Gods?

Ya, I love being driven nuts! I think it's called "delirium".

I agree, and one thing that Gandhi used to say about all too many Christians is that "they elevated the man and forgot his message". One thing that's truly interesting about Jesus is how often he downplayed himself as being a humble servant as he continually preached his Message of "Love" and forgiveness-- sometimes referred to as the "law of love".

IOW, "it's the message" more than he himself, imo, that's so crucial for us to follow. Thus, I often find myself being more comfortable at times with secular humanists than some theists that can be as nasty as the day is long.

Gotta go, so thanks for your opinions, and I'll get back with ya tomorrow.

May God, or the Gods, bless.