The Glade 4.0

After years of being Agnostic, I've come to the conclusion that I am going to explore aligning myself with a religion again.

What I have settled upon is that I admire the basic message and goal of Christianity, but I do not necessarily agree with the current interpretations of the message.

So that said, here is a basic outline of my current pursuit:

I am going to accept that the Christian God/Jesus is the true path. BUT, I am not going to simply accept all aspects of the Bible at face value. I still very much think that the Bible was written by flawed Humans (abridged and translated so many times, that the true message/meaning was lost long ago). When I come across a "What Would Jesus Do" moment, I won't necessarily consult the Bible or generally-accepted thought for an answer. Instead, I will ponder the question logically based on the concept that the Christian God is one of love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and then arrive at a solution. In other words, my goal of becoming a person like Christ will not be based on popular thought or simple regurgitation of scripture, but one based on logical deduction. The message of God is a good one, but unfortunately it's been muddied and clouded by layers of dogma. And it is my pursuit to strip away those layers.

The results of this pursuit are as of yet unknown, but I think the journey will be worth the risk.

I have almost the same belief as you, but I find it is easier for me not to align myself to a religion as it gets too complicated.

From your description, have you thought about researching into buddhism? You don't need to believe in a god in order to do good and better yourself.

Good luck.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Consider Unitarian Universalism. No dogma, but an honest exchange about ideas. I truly believe that we're here to seek Truth (capital T), but not necessarily to find it. There are lots of Christian Unitarians, but if you're willing to be open minded and willing to be a seeker, you might feel at home there.

Rodahn,

Good call and good luck in this endeavor.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I think its great you want to look into it. But at the very least, read all four gospels. Pay attention to the red letter text and don't focus only on just the Sermon on the Mount. Understand His sacrifice for you and why you need it. If it doesn't resonate with you then I think you need to reevaluate why you're doing this.

If it does resonate with you, then count the cost. "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Christ said you have to deny yourself, pick up your cross (or electric chair, or noose, or whatever form of death you prefer) daily and follow Him. There's more to it than just trying to be a "Good Person."

If you can't accept the Bible or at least the gospels to tell you who Jesus is, then you are not accepting "that the Christian God/Jesus is the true path;" you are making up your own Jesus to fit what you want to believe.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I don't really understand , not taking the book at face value is what made me agnostic.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I don't want to sound discouraging or judgemental, but what you're really doing is just starting fromt he assumption that anything you don't like must be "illogical" and anything you come up with will be "logical". Seeing as you've posted this in Hellfire, I assume you do not want us to pussyfoot around. It sounds like you've already made up your mind that dogma is wrong just because it's dogma. Dogma is a tainted word; there's nothing wrong with dogma per se; the term has just taken on connotations of unreasonablility. All dogma is, is doctrine, and any pursuit you come across will have doctrine associated with it. There's doctrine in the military, there's doctrine for lawyers and doctors, there's doctrine for how to care for horses, surf, or pretty much anything else.

That said, you are right to not take Scripture at face value. There are thousands of different denominations with lots of different ways of looking at the sme verses. Some of them will tell you that they have the only right answer because they take everything "literally", but mysteriously they disagree with others taking the same things "literally". Not everything is literal; the Pslams for example, are clearly not literal.

Getting into this idea though, of "I'm just going to toss out the parts I don't like because they're written by "flawed humans."" is just unwillingness to question yourself. You're a flawed human too.

As an aside, Unitarian Universalist is not truely a Christian denomination, like LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses. It's Quasi-Christian.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If indeed you think that the teachings of Christ are good, but come with too much baggage, then I would suggest checking out Buddhism.

I don't have much to add that wasn't pointed out by shy and DE. Thus I'll stick to wishing you well and letting you know that I prayed and will pray for you to find understanding and peace.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Thanks for the input, all.

To clarify some things:

I think dogma may not necessarily be the correct term. What I mean to say is -- the current interpretation and execution of God's/Christ's message has (IMO) been clouded by Human faults and desires.

And I think that the Bible is a good reference, but there are some things in it that just do not strike me as something God would really want us to believe (ex. the Earth only being 6k years old, homosexuals are people living in sin). One notion that particularly bothers me -- let's say you are a person that spends his/her entire life doing things like clothing/feeding the poor, or teaching others to act out of love for their fellow man (i.e. doing the Lord's work), but never actually accepting God as their savior. So when that person dies, despite all the good they have done in the world, they will go to Hell? I have real problems to that. It just isn't logical.

God gave us a brain as well as a soul. The only logical conclusion to this, is that He wanted us to use them both, and come to a consensus.

As far as picking and choosing what I like and do not like goes -- it will be a learning process. In my pursuit, I may find that there are some things that I would previously have thought easy to cast aside as making sense, and vice versa.

I don't have all the answers right now by any means. Suffice to say, there are certain things that I just feel God did not want us to do and attribute to Him, and we ended up doing so anyway.

I can give you a run-down of some basic beliefs I have:

You do not need to go to Church to be a Christian. If I want to talk to God, I can do it standing still (i.e. my church is whatever room I am in at the time).

The Earth is not ~6,000 years old. The evidence to the contrary is all around us.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Various bio-chemical processes in the brain that manifest themselves at some point in your life tell you that you are attracted to the same sex as opposed to the opposite one. God does NOT hate fags (I'm lookin' at you, Westboro Baptist Church )

The seven deadly sins are only wrong if partaken of in excess. If you control your vices, you've won.

Way too many others to get into, but I basically feel that God wants us to use our intelligence as well as our beliefs to solve problems and make decisions. I just don't think that the Bible and the sermons you hear in Church are necessarily "the Truth." It's really hard to describe, but I remember my father (a former minister, and current devote Orthodox Christian) telling me once that Christianity is one of, if not the, only religion where God strives to find you, instead of vice versa.

As far as Buddhism goes, I'm not sure. If in my pursuit I find that what I believe falls less in line with what God really wants and more about what I really want, then perhaps it is worth exploring further. I believe that there are problems that come up that are out of our control and need a higher power to intervene. Buddhism seems more about the self.

Something to think about: If being a good person were enough to get into heaven, God never needed to send Jesus to die. That's why I said you need to understand Christ's sacrifice and why He said He was doing it.

_________________
The Dude abides.

By injecting logic and ignoring faith, you're not really giving your OP any credit. Kinda like saying you want to be vegan, but don't see the point in not eating meat.

Many agnostics are agnostic because they simply could not accept on faith alone things claimed by other religions, and until you could exert faith in the teachings of a religion (even the silly ones), you're still agnostic (regardless of what you want to label yourself).

Buddhism is actually full of gods, kinda like the greeks, and these gods have very interesting lives... think monkey magic. But you are right in that Buddhism believes in the bettering of ones' self through meditation and prayer, and you can be 'saved' as long as you do good.

This is true, but the problem here is that you're just as human and have faults and desies just as everyone else does.



Ok, why do those things strike you as something God would not want you to believe? Because we've observed considerable evidence that the Earth is older than 6,000 years? Ok, fine, that indicates that the early parts of Genesis are at least partly allegorical, up to Abraham or so. But we also can't just disregard them. Why do you think God wouldn't want us to think homosexuals are living in sin? Becuase you are uncomfortable with it? So what? Because it doesn't seem loving? God is loving, but He is not only loving. Because a careful reading of the relevant Scriptures reveals we can't actually be sure that's what He's saying? Now you're onto something. Look up some of the disputes I had with Bery if you want to read more on that specific issue.

However, there's nothing "illogical" about a person who has done a lot of good in the world going to hell, because the basic concept of Christianity is that you can never do enough good to merit Heaven. You need faith in Jesus for that. Heaven requires perfection and no one is perfect, hence the need for a savior to satisfy this requirement. The fact that you have a problem with it doesn't make it either illogical, nor does it make it not the case. God does as He does regardless of who has a problem with it.

The specific issues of never accepting Jesus as savior and how that affects people who never learn about Christianity is long, complex, and the subject of denominational dispute. The bottom line, however, is that none of us ever know where another stands in that regard. God says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy."



That is true. However, that does not mean we should just arbitrarily toss out parts of Scripture we don't like. (Actually there is a way that canon can be revised but it has been essentially impossible for over a thousand years)



Quite so.



No one has ever had all the answers, and in many matters we must be content to say "it is a great mystery." However, just "feeling" that God didn't want us to think a certain way is pretty weak. Why do you think that? It just makes you uncomfortable? Or because you're not sure that we've been following a teaching correctly? If not, why not? Is it a matter on which there is muc controversy or much consensus?



You do not, strictly speaking need to go to church. In many parts of the world it is exceedingly dangerous to do so, and there may not be one. However, it is good for you to do so. Ifg you're not going because of how people at church behave, well, they're people. They're going to church because they're imperfect (even if they don't recognize it.)



I agree with this, but I do not disregard the early parts of the Bible. They are allegory, and tell us that God is responsible for what is, not how He went about creating it.



You need to think carefully here. Homosexuality is probably not a sin in and of itself, but Paul said "all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable." If you think that you just can't deal with being so "intolerant" as to think that homosexuality is anything other than completely equal to heterosexuality in God's eyes (which it may be; we really cannot be sure from Scripture. The biggest problem we have is that people have made it out to be a much bigger issue than the Bible ever does) then you really need to examine why anything would be sinful. You are right, however, that God does not hate fags. God does not hate anyone, although He hates many of the things we do.



Not sure why you're concerned with the Seven Deadly Sins at all, or why you've come up with this.



The Bible is definitely the Truth. You pretty much have to believe that, or you're not a Christian. Sermons, on the other hand, are sermons and may or may not be. That's not to say that a surface reading, or "literal" reading of the Bible is the truth; it is possible to misuse Scripture, and the truth it contains can be very very hard to discern. In other words, there is no "literal" reading of it, except int he most superficial way, such as when it describes events like "Jesus wept". Never let someone confuse you into thinking their interpretation is "literal truth".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, and I guess this is what really doesn't compute with me. Further input needed before consensus can be reached.




Well, I'm not talking about discrediting ALL matters of faith, just questioning the ones that make zero sense. Like if the flood waters are rising and I am on my roof, I'm not going to just repeat "The Lord's gonna save me," and expect to be miraculously saved. I'm going to accept the help of the rescue workers in boats and helicopters.



Yes, but part of the pursuit is to eventually shed those faults through logic.



What I mean by this is -- there are certain things that just seem too illogical to believe, that it seems to me that God in some cases wanted you to use your brain instead of your faith, simply because it is codified in the Bible. Now, what you said about ambiguity may be true, in fact that's kind of at the crux of it for me -- we just simply can't know for certain what a supreme being like the Christian God really wants. All we can do is interpret and use our best judgment, based on various factors.



True, God does as He does regardless, but I'm not so sure I or any other Human alive is really qualified to know what exactly He is doing, or the meaning behind those actions. On thinking of this subject more, I can kinda see the savior acceptance thing. If God wants you to become one with Him (spiritually), the only way to do that is to accept Him as the savior of your soul, because He is a perfect spiritual being.



I agree in that nothing should be done arbitrarily. Exclusions should be done only after coming to the same conclusion on different occasions, when presented with the same problem.



I think it starts with a feeling, based on observed data, then moves toward more assurance once multiple situations of the same problem yield similar results (see my previous reply). Right now, I just feel that God put things in place to help make us see the Truth, but not everyone will see it (at least not right away) unless they rely on their natural intelligence in addition to faith.



I agree that people have made it out to be a much bigger issue than the Bible (and thus God) does. As for the nature of sin -- well, more brilliant theological minds than I have pondered this since Humans first started believing in God. I cannot know with 100% certainty what God truly considers a sin, but again, I believe I can logically surmise what could be a sin based on certain situations.



This may be more of a Catholic thing than anything else, but they obviously hold some weight with many people.



I've avoided concretely labeling this pursuit of mine Christianity, because I'm not so sure there is a totally accurate definition anymore. If, however, you define a Christian as one who accepts Christ as their savior, then yes, my pursuit is a Christian one. That definition doesn't say anything about having to accept all of His teachings, just Christ Himself. But to say someone is wrong for calling themselves a Christian for not accepting some aspect of Christianity that you do (not aiming this at anyone specific here, just saying in general), then no denomination of Christianity fits the description. The views are just too varied.

As I said, I've definitely bitten off a sizable chunk to ponder in my pursuit. This is an experiment -- both of faith and science. Can the logic in scientific discipline and the faith of spirituality co-exist to make oneself one with the Christian God? I'll either have an epiphany and succeed, or wander too far off the path and fail. But it's the path I choose to explore nonetheless.


BTW, did we just have a deep religious discussion in Hellfire without it becoming inflammatory? Wow . . .

Consensus has already been reached. Jesus was pretty much explicit on this.




Obviously not. There's a joke about this, where a guy does precisely that, dies, goes to Heavan and God says "I sent a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?"



Yes, but part of the pursuit is to eventually shed those faults through logic.[/quote]

You're not going to shed your faults through logic. That's not something anyone has ever achieved. If you're intent on getting rid of your faults with logic, it sort of brings up the question of why you'd be interested in Christianity.



Well, the problem there is that you're leaving out faith. We have to have some of that too. As for things being too "illogical to believe" the fact is that a lot of things that seem "illogical" really aren't, once you stop trying to constrict God with your own ideas. We can't know for certain what God wants about a lot of specifics, but we can come to some general conclusions.



You're absolutely right that no human has ever been qualified to know exactly what He is doing. A great deal is hidden, or simply beyond us. However, I should point out that Jesus did promise to be there when two or more are gathered in His name. It's generally good not to dismiss ideas that have broad consensus across many denominations and schools of thought. That's sort of like saying "My faith is better and more true than all these millions of others, and God gives me the right answers." Not that you're doing this, I'm just pointing it out because others have done it.



Exclusions should pretty much never come at all, unless you have an ecumenical council, and that has already pretty much been done well over a thousand years ago. I think you may be confusing rejecting interpretions of Scripture with rejecting Scripture itself. The bottom line is that you cannot toss any of it out completely. What you can do is reconsider what people say that it means, but this must always be done with an eye that you may be wrong, even if being wrong would lead you to a conclusion that is very hard to accept.



I basically agree with you that we should rely on our intelligence which God obviously gave us for a reason. However you're being exceedingly vague here so I can't say more than that.



I don't think you can logically surmise what would be a sin based on situations. You can surmise what you think would be a sin based on your own assumptions, but you are correct only insofar as those assumptions are valid. You should check them against Scripture.



It is a Catholic thing, and they have roots in the distant past when the words may not have meant exactl what they do today. It also gets into the different beliefs bout the mechanics of sin between Catholics and Protestants. However, they are all pretty much sins in their own way. You can't do them in moderation; what you can do is the behavior that becomes one of them in moderation, but in that case you aren't doing the sin. For example, eating is not gluttony. Gluttony is overindulging, especially as a habit.



Except that definition does include having to accept all of his teachings. If you're not, you're just accepting a caricature of Christ. Moreover, in order to be a Christian, one must also accept the doctrines of the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds (which pretty much all major denominations do; those that don't are, by definition, quasi-Christian, such as LDS and JW.).

There are certain areas where there is room for debate about what exactly we are going to believe. There are a few, however, where there is not. Accepting everything Christ taught is one of them. We may debate exactly what He was teaching, or why, or the nature of it, especially when it is difficult, but we cannot say "well, we're just going to not accept this one part". It is not true that because there can be differnces between Christians on some points that all points are acceptable for difference. By that, we could call Muslims Christian.



I'm unclear on why you are so concerned with trying to integrate science and logic into this pursuit. It seems like you are saying you're not going to have faith unless there are no parts you aren't comfortable with.



It's amazing how you can do that when no one needs to get their cheap shots in, on either side of the issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I got a lot to ponder, that's for sure.

It's like part of me sees the Christian belief system as right, but another part simply cannot accept all of it as is.

Although, I think DE's comment on separating rejection of the interpretation of Scripture and the rejection of actual Scripture itself is one of the keys, as is separating rejection of the meaning of Christ's teachings and rejecting that those teachings happened at all.

I think what you may be missing is that there is no complete system "as is". There are literally thousands of variations. Those variations do, however, have some essential elements in common.

You don't have to accept any one of thoe variations in it's entirity, contrary to what many of them claim. I will caution you, however, that not all variations are equally valid. Some are simply batshit crazy; some have evolved over trivialities like whether Adam had a belly button or whether to re-pave the parking lot.

The main advice I would give anyone is: don't fall in love with your own ideas. If you're comfortable with everything you believe, it's a sure sign you've arranged your beliefs around comfort, rather than truth.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sounds like an interesting hobby. Best of luck to you.

If the pursuit is Christ, this must be where you start. Christianity is Jesus. Learn about Jesus by seeing who He said He is. What you believe about creation or end times is unnecessary at this point because that belief isn't where salvation lies.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

_________________
The Dude abides.

This is something I've been mulling for years.

I grew up devoutly religious. My grandfather (mom's side) was a Presbyterian minister. My folks raised me in the Catholic church, though - they were Carmelites - and I was an altar boy for years. I didn't just serve in mass, either. I sat around, talked to priests and deacons about faith. I was seriously interested in the priesthood as a calling, as a child. In high school, I was very active in a church youth group. It wasn't until young adulthood that good old cynicism came creeping in.

This is hardly unique, but my main issue is that I perceive a big gulf between faith and religion. Faith is easier to get a handle on; I have an unshakable belief in the existence of something bigger than myself. How to put that in a box and make it something I can relate to in a meaningful way? I mean, does God do cognition the same way I do? I doubt it. I'm going to be around probably around 80 years. I'll learn some stuff, forget some stuff. I find it laughable that I could ever fathom the nature of God the Father - something eternal, omniscient and omnipotent.

That makes Christ sort of necessary, doesn't it? Religion doesn't do anyone much good if it's solely based on dedication to something incomprehensible. Anyway, I didn't start out writing to talk about that. It's mainly the disconnect I have between faith, and organized groups practicing faith. Groups tend to focus their energies on perpetuating the group, and I'm not sure where that leaves me with regards to organized religion. Do I need other viewpoints, connections to other people who are interested in spiritual growth? Absolutely. But I start getting a little trigger-shy when it comes to the concept that faith without works is nothing, and the works tend to be pretty much doing the work of the church, as though the church and faith itself were synonymous. That seems to me a little presumptuous. It's mainly to do with my lack of faith in other people, and repeated exposure to hypocrisy.

On that note, man I'd love to stumble across a group of people who actually live the ideas they admire, on a consistent basis. If anyone finds 'em, lemme know

"They" say there's no such thing as a perfect church. But if you find one, don't join it because you'll ruin it.

It sounds to me like you've been in the wrong kinds of churches. My pastor has always said that our church isn't about him and his ministry. He says their goal is to equip everybody there for their own ministry. Yeah, we have similar programs and things other churches have like missions and a children's ministry. But it's our belief that the primary ministry should start in our lives and the places we live.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Consider this not a religious pursuit, but a spiritual one.

Religion tends to define, set the lines, do the social control process, tell you what to believe and how to check off the boxes to get to heaven. Look up what Catechism means.

Spirituality is more about your personal journey, your relationship with the world and the powers that exist that we do not understand. It gives you the freedom to explore the alternatives, walk down the lesser trod paths and find the answers for yourself.

I explored several paths myself, but kept coming back to Christ. While I am not comfortable within the teachings of any one church, I still default to knee-jerk Catholicism in my belief system. I still cross myself when I pass in front of an altar, still automatically respect those who have taken Holy Orders, no matter which version or church, and i still love the Latin mass. Sometimes I realize it is the comfort of the familiar.

However, my journey does not invalidate the need for you to take yours.

Wander, explore, think, and find something to believe in.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Trying to mix logic and religion is typically a recipe for failure. Religion is not logical.

Ok... then what beliefs are logical?

Everything is based on information flowing through your 5 senses anyways. Trying to apply patterns to the chaos doesn't make it "logical".

edit:

Figuring out what to believe in is an interesting hobby, but I would rather just run around having fun.