Are you religious?

[clarion]

Rev, while you are right about the lack of divinity of Buddha (the whole point is that he was a man!), I cannot accept your point about atheist Christians.

I am, as I have said before, overtly a follower of Jesus' teachings, and am a Quaker. But I am not Christocentric, and would not call myself a Christian. I am an atheist. It's a very different thing. It just isn't possible to honestly be an atheist in one of the monotheistic religions. Quakerism stands apart as a spiritual movement in contention - traditionally Christian, certainly, but increasingly led by individual conscience into diversity.

User is right on this occasion. Christianity is predicated on the belief in a God. Islam is predicated on the belief in a God. Judaism is predicated on the belief in a God. Hinduism is predicated on the belief in at least one God. Sikhism is predicated on the belief in a God. So, while you are correct that it is possible to be 'religious' or 'spiritual' without that belief, it's pretty much a marginal thing. And I live in that margin.

 

[tyred]

I had read parts of the Bible at school and at church, but never read it from cover to cover, well I have just done that........and I'm still none the wiser

I've read the New Testament from cover to cover quite a few times now and enjoy doing so.

I've tried to read the Old Testament many times and usually get stuck somewhere in Leviticus or Numbers. I find them somewhat disturbing to be honest and cannot gain any useful meaning from it.

 

[Rev]

I may re-join a discussion that is less about assumption and unilateral definitions. I do not presume to have the knowledge or experience to be able to say who is authentically of any religion, after all many of the most famous mystic's have walked a very thin line between heterodoxy and heresy, many questioning the divine as phenomenological including those both in the protestant and catholic traditions to say naught of the eastern trads! I can give you a huge reading list? yet you presume to say this precludes the religious's inclusion in heterodoxy? (not that the question was about heterodoxy and heresy anyway) the op asked about a personal consideration of religion!
The whole point I have been trying to make is that it would appear that all those posters who condemn and malign religion are doing so from a assumption as to what religion is!!!!!!! And that it is some homogeneous whole which it most blatantly is not!
Religion (for many) maybe some thing very different and if so, you are doing the religious a huge disservice by your imagined restrictive demeaning definitions.

 

[Thomk]

Would attributing personality traits like pride to non belief make sense? Or has one missed part of the point?

Yes you have missed the point. This is what you actually said:
The fact that it has not and you have been highly judgemental, definitively arrogant, unquestionably rude and frankly confrontational would suggest that your Atheism (of which you are so proud) has done you few favours.
The fact that you attribute pride (among many other things) to a non belief does not make it so and it is not so in my opinion.

 

[Rapples]

I am, as I have said before, overtly a follower of Jesus' teachings, and am a Quaker.

I'm a Buddhist, lay of the Tiep Hien (Interbeing) Order. It's more like Zen. I've never understood the chanters. It doesn't seem to have much relation to any of the rest of Buddhism.

Glad we sorted that out

 

[Rev]

Sorry clarion you are incorrect!
[QUOTERev, while you are right about the lack of divinity of Buddha (the whole point is that he was a man!)][/QUOTE]
Which Buddha? and which school of Buddhism do you refer?

I am, as I have said before, overtly a follower of Jesus' teachings, and am a Quaker.

Lovely my Grandmother was Quaker, I have also worked with a few over the years

[QUOTEIt just isn't possible to honestly be an atheist in one of the monotheistic religions.][/QUOTE]
I am sorry but I can point you to any number of source material that would indicate a tradion/school of disbelief in a phenomenological divinity in many of the Monotheistic faiths!

[QUOTEHinduism is predicated on the belief in at least one God. ][/QUOTE]

Incorrect again their are quite a few trads in Hinduism that negate the idea of God although i would be happy to hear your definition to see if it does preclude such a belief?

[QUOTESikhism is predicated on the belief in a God][/QUOTE]
Sorry again you are incorrect! there are schools of Sikhism where Ek Onkar indicates non dual awareness (no divinity) I am happy to give you the relevant information both from the scholars and from the Guru Granth SahibJi.

So, while you are correct that it is possible to be 'religious' or 'spiritual' without that belief, it's pretty much a marginal thing.

Not as marginal or unusual as you presume.

And I live in that margin.

.

 

[swee'pea99]

Without wishing to get tangled up in private squabbles (that clearly matter a lot more to others than they do to me) it does seem to me a little odd to deny that Christianity is a deist religion. It's named after Jesus Christ - the 'son' bit in 'God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Ghost'. You can be a Buddhist without believing in the existence of God, because Buddhism is not a deist religion. But I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian without believing in the existence of God - and I mean that in the 'usual' sense; not as metaphor or whatever.

 

[Rev]

[QUOTEYes you have missed the point. This is what you actually said:
The fact that it has not and you have been highly judgemental, definitively arrogant, unquestionably rude and frankly confrontational would suggest that your Atheism (of which you are so proud) has done you few favours.
The fact that you attribute pride (among many other things) to a non belief does not make it so and it is not so in my opinion.][/QUOTE]

Oh dear sorry friend look back.......I am quoting where a poster (not me) attributed his pride to atheism (are you still with me? I was not the original attributer of pride....get it? it was the other poster. Therefore this attribution you question should be directed elsewhere....yeah? If it was you may illuminate a point you may have missed. I am sorry if I was unclear but I thought you would pick it up faster.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Strictly speaking, they are then not in communion with the Church.

In Canon Law they may not be. But practically speaking they are and always have been, provided they keep their heads down about their views or work in academia.

 

[Rev]

[QUOTEBut I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian without believing in the existence of God ][/QUOTE]
Why should you understand this if a) you are not a Christian and b) it is not you who has decided to label yourself such?
The question here was not one of who considers what to be Heterodox! It was who is religious, surely it was a question about self definition. Why would anyone else want to define another's faith?
I honestly don't get it?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Well that one came as a suprise, I thought the essence of religion was a belief in a "supreme being or force".

So please explain what religion without a god entails

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Jainism.

 

[Rev]

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Jainism.

I spent quite some time in Northern India inc Bihar and met some Jain Monks while I was staying at a monastery (vajrayana Nyingma) They were very lovely people!!!!

 

[Thomk]

Ah Rev my confused friend. It would firstly help if you learned how to quote other posters properly so that one can see who you are attributing your bile to. It's not too complicated, I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually (are you still with me?). I take it you are not claiming that the "other poster" attributed being "highly judgemental" or "definitively arrogant" or "unquestionably rude" or "frankly confrontational" to him/herself though are you? That was you wasn't it?

Are you aware that your posts appear high handed, insulting and arrogant (as well as astonishingly deluded). This is you berating another poster:

I am sorry but I am fully aware of 'scientific method'. I do know sciences and I am fairly conversant with how many of the accepted mainstream ones work. There is no need to be high handed, insulting or arrogant as I have neither taken that tack nor that tone with you

Notice anything?

 

[Rev]

You've got it bang on the nail. You cannot call yourself a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew) without believing in God, irrelevant of how much flaky philosophy or theology you try to use to justify it.

Thanks Pontiff of the world

The flaky philosophy and theology you take exception to is surprisingly respected in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Your out of hand disregard for it and your self elevation to Grand inquisitor and protector of the faithful in all three Abrahamic faiths and their multifarious lineages says much about the ridiculousness of such a grandiose assumptions and their ill-informed basis.

 

[Rev]

Ah Rev my......blah blah blah

missed the point again, sorry I will not continue to reiterate because It becomes tedious for me and the simpler I put it the angrier you will become and the more irrelevance and misdirection you will post.
Sorry