Thread: Are you religious?

What does it mean to be religious? Are you religious? Why or why not?

Can an atheist be religious? Or rather, can a religious person be an atheist?

What if I word the question differently?

Do you belong to a particular religious order, or a multitude of religious orders?

I like to say I'm religious, though probably more for the sake of starting a dialog. I study religion, in a roundabout fashion. I practice disciplines that some religions teach. I develop myself spiritually (I bet a load of you hate that word). I carry out some practices in a religious fashion. I've been referred to as a Buddhist, as well as being told I know nothing about Buddhism, and never claiming to be or have either ( actually I do know a bit about Buddhism, but I don't claim to be well versed).

What do you think?

forget the lifestyles...im all for peace and harmony.....as for a creator...someone once said' its better to believe in god,just in case he does exist'
still,i see no need for a god....isnt the kingdom within?

Originally Posted by brane wave

forget the lifestyles...im all for peace and harmony.....as for a creator...someone once said' its better to believe in god,just in case he does exist'
still,i see no need for a god....isnt the kingdom within?

hmmm... not sure that answered the question/s.

However, in response I would ask who/what is "a creator?" Also, what is "the kingdom?"

Lastly, I'm not sure I understand the statement "i see no need for a god." Is this to do with whether or not a person believes in god? Just because you see no need for a sushi pizza with wasabi mayo and stuffed crust doesn't mean you can't believe in it or that it doesn't exist. Still, this is besides the point. I was asking whether or not you are religious. Are you insinuating that to be religious is to believe in god?

I do believe in god, and think he's a power hungry dictator.

Actually, on second thought, I don't really understand what you are saying at all. My ability to read abstractly seems to be fading... what does all this about lifestyles, peace and harmony mean?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Can an atheist be religious? Or rather, can a religious person be an atheist?

Of course not. Can someone who doesn't play football be a footballer? Or rather, can someone who plays football be a non-player of the game?

My understanding is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in God or a god. One can be religious without believing in god.

I doubt it.

I also, as you suggested hate the word spirituality. I likewise hate words like wisdom, justice, etc. Not that I hate what they represent. I hate the fact that they have no clear meaning, except in the mind of the person using the word, and that the use of that word, due to its variable definition, obscures rather than clarifies communication.

When I realised that atheists were controlled by God, I thought, "heck, I'd rather know what's going on".

Originally Posted by skeptic

I doubt it.

I also, as you suggested hate the word spirituality. I likewise hate words like wisdom, justice, etc. Not that I hate what they represent. I hate the fact that they have no clear meaning, except in the mind of the person using the word, and that the use of that word, due to its variable definition, obscures rather than clarifies communication.

Maybe the goal of spiritualists is to quit trying to define everything. Just accept that it's a grand mystery and you're not going to reduce it to a few pages of text, or a Mussolini type strongman figure in the sky with a bureaucratic government under him that calls itself a "church", but really acts like a dictatorship and does what it wants (because its conveniently cut off from any clear line of communication with the boss).

Whenever I discuss my spiritual beliefs people are always like "why don't you start a church?". So I just quit discussing them after a while. I can't seem to get that one crucial point across....

Originally Posted by skeptic

I doubt it.

Why so skeptical? So, the question is, does a religious person required to have, or believe in, a God? And, if so, what is a God?

Originally Posted by skeptic

I also, as you suggested hate the word spirituality. I likewise hate words like wisdom, justice, etc. Not that I hate what they represent. I hate the fact that they have no clear meaning, except in the mind of the person using the word, and that the use of that word, due to its variable definition, obscures rather than clarifies communication.

By their very nature words are imprecise and layered with meaning. No single person uses words in the same way. In fact, I probably have the same reaction to the word religious as you do to the word spiritual. Maybe this has to do with the people we are with, or the mentors we learned from. Maybe the words are interchangeable.

I think statements obscure communication, and questions clarify. The words used then become trivial. This is the reason I'm here. I am trying to clarify, to myself what religion is, or at least what it means to be religious. Maybe my next thread will be on spirituality. Don't really have the stamina for both right now.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

When I realised that atheists were controlled by God, I thought, "heck, I'd rather know what's going on".

I know, right! But, whatever happened to the first rule, of not talking about it? Now everyone's going to know!

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe the goal of spiritualists is to quit trying to define everything. Just accept that it's a grand mystery and you're not going to reduce it to a few pages of text...

But then, what does it mean to develop yourself spiritually? We can save that question for a later time if you like.

Belief in a divinity is what, in my mind, separates religion from philosophy. Theravada Buddhism is often unassociated with belief in any divinity, and appears to be more a philosophy, albeit a practical philosophy in that it tells the adherent how to behave.

A non believer then is not religious. Of course, we could argue semantics, and you might come up with another definition for the word 'religious'. As you said, such words often obscure communication.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Belief in a divinity is what, in my mind, separates religion from philosophy. Theravada Buddhism is often unassociated with belief in any divinity, and appears to be more a philosophy, albeit a practical philosophy in that it tells the adherent how to behave.

A non believer then is not religious. Of course, we could argue semantics, and you might come up with another definition for the word 'religious'. As you said, such words often obscure communication.

What about polytheism? Hindus have a whole pantheon to worship. How is defining divinity a hundred different ways different from not defining it?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe the goal of spiritualists is to quit trying to define everything. Just accept that it's a grand mystery and you're not going to reduce it to a few pages of text...

But then, what does it mean to develop yourself spiritually? We can save that question for a later time if you like.

Good question. If it has no clear direction, then how do you develop in a given direction? Or maybe that's the answer?: choose a direction for yourself.

I feel like what it's coming down to is that to be religious in the literal sense (rather than the figurative sense) you must have faith, or belief in God, or some otherwise divine or spiritual being. Is it necessary to worship this being? Or, do we merely need to see it as an idol or power greater than ourselves? Must this being somehow affect how values, morals, actions, etc?

If we try to take this into the East, could the spiritual being in Buddhism be the self? In philosophical Daoism the being could be represented as the Dao, which is something more like nature and karma mixed together. My Confucianism isn't too good, but I do know that there are rituals performed more for the sake of discipline and keeping morals and ancestors in mind. In this case could we assign the role of a spiritual being to humanity, or humanity's ancestors, or could we be obedient to the idea of a supernatural being without literally believing in one, for the sake of developing a moral structure?

I've been discussing elsewhere the difference between an atheist, agnostic, and someone who simply does not acknowledge a greater being rather than being unsure or flat out denying it. In any of these cases could the person still be religious in that they acknowledge some power out of their control which somehow or another influences their fate (or for example, in the case of Buddhism where there are idols but the real spiritual being lies in each individual)?

Say we believe there to be a greater being that is sort of searching for itself and in the process has manifested this world around us. We could call the being God, the Dao, or Jack. Doesn't matter. We don't worship it, and we don't define our morals off of it, we simply believe in it. Would this be religious?

Can we call Science a greater being, which people put blind faith and belief in. Relatively speaking, there are few scientists, but still so many people are quick to say Science says so, without checking the procedures themselves. Few people actually analyze what proof means and the actual nature of reality in the eyes of science. Actually, I see things being sold more through Science in China than in the U.S. Food and cosmetics will be advertised with an older white man with a white beard and white lab coat. There is even a drink called 0PA which is supposed to lower your stress level (PA being pascals). Sometimes I just want some plain ol' peanut milk but all I can find is protein drinks (which are actually the same thing). One can appreciate science or be a scientist but one can also have faith in Science (by that I don't mean the methods but more the meaning that the word has developed, which indicates some kind of intelligence which may or may not actually be present).

I don't think of myself being 'religious'. Probably most people who know much about me think I am.

In all the religions of the world - save one - the participant has to 'do things' to make himself acceptable to the deity or deities involved. Usually, it means one must follow a set of rules or at least guidelines. Normally, one must offer some form of sacrifice, to include a set portion of one's income or some form of community labor. Forms of worship are highly defined and certain rituals must be followed. All these things make the participant acceptable to the deity and the participant then gets a reward of some sort, based on the participant's labor or effort.

The one exception is Christianity. Christianity teaches God has already done all the work of making the participant acceptable to Him. All the participant has to do is to accept what has already been done.

Other distinctions between Christianity and all other religions is the underlying motive. Most religions will say the point of being a Whateverian is to become a better person, save the planet, feed the poor or somehow change the world for the better - according to the precepts of Whateverism.

Christianity's primary purpose is to heal the rift between God and man caused when man revolted. Being a better person, feeding the poor and so on are all side effects of a human being getting reconciled to God. One does 'good deeds' because one is forgiven and rewarded to begin with, not to curry favor.

So no, I'm not religious. I do very little to polish my halo or earn my wings or whatever. On the other hand, I attend church regularly, I always pray over meals, I spend a good deal of the day in prayer - although many would not recognize it, I don't kneel or wail or anything showing. So by some meaning, I am religious.

Originally Posted by Archie

In all the religions of the world - save one - the participant has to 'do things' to make himself acceptable to the deity or deities involved.

真的马？ How do you back this up (specifically the "all the religions" part)?

Originally Posted by Archie

So no, I'm not religious. I do very little to polish my halo or earn my wings or whatever. On the other hand, I attend church regularly, I always pray over meals, I spend a good deal of the day in prayer - although many would not recognize it, I don't kneel or wail or anything showing. So by some meaning, I am religious.

By my current idea of what it means to be religious, and I suspect by most people's idea, you are religious.

Are you praying to someone? Do you believe in God or a god? Why do you pray?

Is Buddhism a religion, in your perspective? Do you know anything about Buddhism?

I feel like I've heard people say the same exact thing about Christianity that you just accused "all" other religions of.

The word in the Greek...religious
NT:4576
is sebomai (seb'-om-ahee); middle voice of an apparently primary verb; to revere, i.e. adore, to worship, devout
also NT:2357
threskos (thrace'-kos); probably from the base of NT:2360; ceremonious in worship (as demonstrative), i.e. pious:

Truth speeks of being religious as being able to tame the tongue and to keep one's spirit unspotted from the worlds system of power helping those who are in bondage to it: refer James 1:26-27
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

But not everone wants to recieve this Help being Truth because of there own religious belief [whom they worship], the rise to power that was marked by treachery and deceit of there own heart which is empty and void of Truth having listened to the devil and eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil having one's eyes open to self awareness i.e the Ego having recieved knowledge from another sourse other than Truth Him-self, believing the lie and the father of lies-satan, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of Truth, the Tree of Life.

The above is not my opinion for I did not come of my self for I come in my Fathers name, you may say it is my opinion and that would be your opinion of which you have a free-will to express, yet if ye are of the Truth then ye would agree for as it is written ''I AM the Truth" this is how we know who is of God and who is not, simply to understand as even a child recieves Truth, there is a way to man that seems right but a false witness speaketh lies and his end thereof is death.

I'm not religious. I've been most expose to Christianity, a bit of Islam while living with them for a year in Iraq, and Buddhism and Wicka from several people I know. (differences between Christianity and Islam are almost superficial). While I see some benefits, I think on the balance we'd be much better finding comforts in ourselves and in those around us when we can rather than adopt the superstitious dogma and baggage associated with religion--much which traps us and limits our personal growth. I do think most people are hardwired for spirituality, emotionally prone to believe we're connected to others and the universe, and amazed by the enormity and realizations that reality is beyond any one humans comprehension--and society needs to fulfill that spirituality even if there is no religion--To do otherwise would be an empty culture.

Originally Posted by Archie

In all the religions of the world - save one - the participant has to 'do things' to make himself acceptable to the deity or deities involved.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

真的马？ How do you back this up (specifically the "all the religions" part)?

By looking at what those religions say about themselves. Show me one example to counter the claim.

Originally Posted by Archie

So no, I'm not religious. I do very little to polish my halo or earn my wings or whatever. On the other hand, I attend church regularly, I always pray over meals, I spend a good deal of the day in prayer - although many would not recognize it, I don't kneel or wail or anything showing. So by some meaning, I am religious.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

By my current idea of what it means to be religious, and I suspect by most people's idea, you are religious.

As I noted, sir.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Are you praying to someone? Do you believe in God or a god? Why do you pray?

Already answered, if you bothered to read my post.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Is Buddhism a religion, in your perspective? Do you know anything about Buddhism?

Yes it obviously is, by any definition. Yes, I do.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I feel like I've heard people say the same exact thing about Christianity that you just accused "all" other religions of.

You may have so heard. If so, those claims were made by people who know very little about Christianity other than the superficial aspects. If you knew any more about Christianity than I do about Buddhism, you'd know those claims are erroneous.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Say we believe there to be a greater being that is sort of searching for itself and in the process has manifested this world around us. We could call the being God, the Dao, or Jack. Doesn't matter. We don't worship it, and we don't define our morals off of it, we simply believe in it. Would this be religious?

Can we call Science a greater being, which people put blind faith and belief in. Relatively speaking, there are few scientists, but still so many people are quick to say Science says so, without checking the procedures themselves. Few people actually analyze what proof means and the actual nature of reality in the eyes of science. Actually, I see things being sold more through Science in China than in the U.S. Food and cosmetics will be advertised with an older white man with a white beard and white lab coat. There is even a drink called 0PA which is supposed to lower your stress level (PA being pascals). Sometimes I just want some plain ol' peanut milk but all I can find is protein drinks (which are actually the same thing). One can appreciate science or be a scientist but one can also have faith in Science (by that I don't mean the methods but more the meaning that the word has developed, which indicates some kind of intelligence which may or may not actually be present).

I think religion really is about looking for direction, purpose, and all that. If Jack doesn't have any advice or instructions for us, then probably religious people won't trouble themselves to learn about him. After all, when would that knowledge ever prove useful?

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

Even Archie's religion conforms to that definition, because the task of "reconciling" or "accepting" or whatever is still a task. It may leave some areas of the practitioner's life alone, and be less specific than some of its competitors but it's still directing part of their life.

Kenanyahuw Parah, that is an interesting post. You cited a dictionary entry - more or less the correct one, by the way - then you quote without citation the words of Jesus and paraphrase other statements of Jesus.

I'm curious about a couple things: From what dictionary or lexicon did you retrieve the entry regarding 'religion'? Strong's Lexicon shows the word 'religion' in James chapter one as thrēskeia, meaning "religious worship, esp. external, that which consists of ceremonies; religious discipline, religion."

The second point piquing my curiosity is why did you paraphrase Jesus making it sound as if you were the speaker?

Yes, certainly I am only happy to explain but as for you recieving me that is up to my Father, there are only two instances for the english word 'religious' used in the authorised english version of the Word of God that being the King James Version, knowing this when one uses the Lexicon i.e Strong's as you suggest one finds the two that were quoted above NT:4576 is sebomai (seb'-om-ahee); middle voice of an apparently primary verb; to revere, i.e. adore, to worship, devout also NT:2357 threskos (thrace'-kos); probably from the base of NT:2360; ceremonious in worship (as demonstrative), i.e. pious:
What I am not suprised by is the comments of man when they say 'then you quote without citation the words of Jesus and paraphrase other statements of Jesus.' or words to the effect of there intent to contend with the flesh. If you knew my Father you would know and understand what was said in the last comment that was printed 'The above is not my opinion for I did not come of my self for I come in my Fathers name' my Fathers name is YaHshuVaH, you may not know him as Jesus Lord and Savior of we who are IN Christ, Members of His Body but more to the point does He who is IN Him know you.
If you are From Above and not from the world you would be renewing your mind with the Mind of Christ not conforming to this worlds point of view or opinion for out of the Heart your mouth would speek and even as Jesus said of himself I can do nothing and the words that Jesus spoke said he they are the Word of my Father, if you were One with us you would hear the Words that I speek are not mine but His that sent me and to recieve me is to recieve Him for He and I are One, joint-heirs IN Christ for it is written 'as He is so am I in this world'.
The one thing satan hates is we who know who we are for he cannot touch us who are From Above seated at the right hand of God far above all who are from beneath where satan dwells.
As for paraphasing as you say, as Christ is God who do you think it is that speaks to you when you hear the Word of God if as it is written 'I no longer live but Christ that now lives IN I', you may not understand Truth as the carnal man cannot understand the Spirit for he is not From Above, ye must be Born Again in order to perceive the things of God.
As I said before I am not suprised by is the comments of man for as Jesus said on earth 1979 years ago they 'they hated me with-out a cause and they will do the same to you'
I do not make it sound the way you hear it, it is the way my Father has you to hear for you to judge your-self worthy of recieving the sound or rejecting Truth, I do not judge you, your own piquing does that either by stimulating interest by curiosity to have what God freely gives being His Son or feeling irritated and resentful that which satan charges man for at the cost of his life eternal.
I know I AM not like everyone else who is of this world and therefore do not think the way man thinks and for that I Am excluded from so-called humanity but as it is written my Kingdom is not of this world and whence I AM is where I shall return. Peace and Blessing to those who have ears to hear, be as I AM and ye shall be the Kingdom of God.

Originally Posted by Archie

Show me one example to counter the claim.

I don't really care to counter your claim. I am only surprised at your tone of authority. Buddism, however, would be one example. There are no deities.

I reread your post and do not see any direct answers to my questions: Are you praying to someone? Do you believe in God or a god? Why do you pray?

However, this is your personal business. I'm only asking for those comfortable discussing it to say something. I don't need you to answer the questions, I am only curious so that I can better understand how or why you define being religious the way you do.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I feel like I've heard people say the same exact thing about Christianity that you just accused "all" other religions of.

You may have so heard. If so, those claims were made by people who know very little about Christianity other than the superficial aspects. If you knew any more about Christianity than I do about Buddhism, you'd know those claims are erroneous.

Well, actually I wasn't attempting to say the claims were anything or imply that I knew the claims to be true. I was trying to make a point that I think your understanding of all religions may be a bit off, just as other people's understanding of Christianity may be off (or at least in some viewpoints). The example being Buddhism, which does not fit into your criteria for all religions. Doesn't really matter though because I'm interested in what it means to be religious, not what it means to be Christian.

Originally Posted by Archie

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

It could. Remember, I'm not just talking about science or the scientific method. I'm talking about the image or prestige science has gained. Science could be used to argue that our bodies should be re-used for some function after death. It could give us the answer that because death is not observable that we don't know what's after so we should be prepared for anything. We should live more environmentally friendly is another example. In all of these examples we see interpretations of science, rather than what science really is. Religion is often the same. People interpret and change it over time. Science can be used just like religion, to give people meaning, purpose, direction, security, hope, fear, etc.

---

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm not religious. I've been most expose to Christianity, a bit of Islam while living with them for a year in Iraq, and Buddhism and Wicka from several people I know. (differences between Christianity and Islam are almost superficial). While I see some benefits, I think on the balance we'd be much better finding comforts in ourselves and in those around us when we can rather than adopt the superstitious dogma and baggage associated with religion--much which traps us and limits our personal growth. I do think most people are hardwired for spirituality, emotionally prone to believe we're connected to others and the universe, and amazed by the enormity and realizations that reality is beyond any one humans comprehension--and society needs to fulfill that spirituality even if there is no religion--To do otherwise would be an empty culture.

I like this quite a lot. So, would you consider yourself spiritual? You don't need to define what that means. I'm curious because you've made a distinction between being religious and being spiritual.

---

Kenanyahuw Parah,

I don't really care for outsourced definitions, but thank you anyways. I want your opinion, not HIS. Satan thinks for himself, and he choses to deal with the subsequent consequences; a task few are capable of.

I take it you consider yourself religious?

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

Ya, it doesn't deal in superstitious make believe.

Originally Posted by Archie

Kenanyahuw Parah, that is an interesting post. You cited a dictionary entry - more or less the correct one, by the way - then you quote without citation the words of Jesus and paraphrase other statements of Jesus.

I'm curious about a couple things: From what dictionary or lexicon did you retrieve the entry regarding 'religion'? Strong's Lexicon shows the word 'religion' in James chapter one as thrēskeia, meaning "religious worship, esp. external, that which consists of ceremonies; religious discipline, religion."

The second point piquing my curiosity is why did you paraphrase Jesus making it sound as if you were the speaker?

The word used is 'religious' as in James 1:26a not 'religion' as in James 1:26b both these words are used to discribe the heart of man and in James 1:27 the Heart of God consecutively by the intent of there use. For instance James 1:26 is in the context of as man thinks, seemingly empty thoughts: James 1:27 in the context as God is, Pure and undefiled. There is a difference in there implication as in the Strong's with NT 2356 and NT 2357 also ther is another use of the word 'religion' in Scripture that of the Jewish mind set, NT 2454: Ioudaismos (ee-oo-dah-is-mos) i.e the Jewish faith and usage: the Jew's religion and again cross referencing to the Pure and Undefiled religious Faith IN and OF God Whom be Christ OT529 & OT 530 when applied as God intention was linking back to James 1:27 it is Pure and Undefiled as in Truth, Faithful, stability, set office, hence Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober[of a sound mind], and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ IN you.

Kenanyahuw Parah,

I don't really care for outsourced definitions, but thank you anyways. I want your opinion, not HIS. Satan thinks for himself, and he choses to deal with the subsequent consequences; a task few are capable of.

I take it you consider yourself religious?[/QUOTE]

The Son of God has no opinion, only that which is written and those that seek the opinion of man will face the same subsequent consequences as the one who blinded the eyes of humanity and Yes I AM of that which is Pure and Undefiled, by the Finger of God. All definitions in man are outsourced and come from within the self for the Ego is formed from that which is without God for all who are not the Son of God are of the son of perdition for the road to death is wide and many that be are on it, the task that few are capable of is finding Christ the narrow way for as it is written I AM the Way..and few there be that find me.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

Ya, it doesn't deal in superstitious make believe.

Science or so called, is in actual fact dealing in or trying to deal with that which cannot be seen since before the tower of babel and in these last days trying to find the so called God Partical and quantifing dark matter or anti-matter, you must understand all that science builds on is a theory not unlike evolution, superstitious make believe they attribute to by chance what kind of certainty of direction is that apart from certain death, total seperation from the sourse of all Life eternal. Its all about choice and you have a free will to make yours and it appears ye have done so. One person takes the lead and few there be that follow.

Science is observation. It is not strange that things cannot be seen, and something unseen is not supernatural, though it may be misunderstood. The very nature of the meaning of nature is that it includes everything. Science studies nature. Therefor, if God exists in nature science will potentially explain it, or bring about a better understanding of it.

Originally Posted by Kenanyahuw Parah

superstitious make believe they attribute to by chance what kind of certainty of direction is that apart from certain death, total seperation from the sourse of all Life eternal.

Completely lost track of you here.

I also don't really understand the purpose of your contribution here.

Originally Posted by Kenanyahuw Parah

The Son of God has no opinion, only that which is written and those that seek the opinion of man will face the same subsequent consequences as the one who blinded the eyes of humanity and Yes I AM of that which is Pure and Undefiled, by the Finger of God.

That was sort of my point, though off topic. Rephrased I mean to say that some of us do not prefer oppression. And I like to think that I too am undefiled by the finger of God. The meaning of Pure can be for another thread.

Originally Posted by Kenanyahuw Parah

All definitions in man are outsourced and come from within the self for the Ego is formed from that which is without God for all who are not the Son of God are of the son of perdition for the road to death is wide and many that be are on it, the task that few are capable of is finding Christ the narrow way for as it is written I AM the Way..and few there be that find me.

We have some seriously conflicting use of language here. Are we talking about Ego in Freudian, laymen, or Buddhist terms; or does the word have a different meaning in the bible? The Way is the common English translation for the Dao. Is this what you are referring to? Maybe your meaning has parallels.

Originally Posted by Kenanyahuw Parah

The above is not my opinion for I did not come of my self for I come in my Fathers name

Are you trying to say that you are the voice of God?

How is anything relevant here? We are trying to define what it means to be religious. If you don't have an opinion but you are the voice of God than God is welcome to give his opinion through you. But if you or God are just going to give me quotes from biblical books it is not much help to me, for it is not what I am asking for.

I would recommend you, or He, start a thread on a topic of your choice so as not to accidentally high-jack mine.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

what is a God?

mysterYYYY. science cant do anything to explain His characteristics, neither a religious person.

Science deals with many things that are "invisible". But it does not deal with things that cannot be detected or measured. Such things are otherwise called 'imaginary'.

Thus, science does not deal with deity.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Science deals with many things that are "invisible". But it does not deal with things that cannot be detected or measured. Such things are otherwise called 'imaginary'.

Thus, science does not deal with deity.

If deity is nature than science deals with it. It's a matter of being open-minded yet realistic. Sometimes a few cooks must be thrown in to enlighten us, and sometimes those cooks must be put down. Deities are generally not observable phenomenon, or non-satisfactory explanations. However there are unexplained or seemingly unnatural phenomenon that science does attempt to deal with. Nature is wonderful, and there is nothing supernatural about it, only things misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Archie

Show me one example to counter the claim.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I don't really care to counter your claim. I am only surprised at your tone of authority. Buddism, however, would be one example. There are no deities.

DaBOB, you don't understand Buddhism enough to understand it is a system of living one's life? You don't understand Buddhism teaches one must 'work' at gaining enlightenment and attain Nirvana; escape from the cycle of life? You think Buddhism isn't a religion. Okay, if that's what you want.

You challenged my view of 'religions' being fundamentally different than Christianity. When I asked for some form of counter-argument, you folded, changed ground and then restated your opinion I was wrong. Is this your standard form of debate?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I reread your post and do not see any direct answers to my questions: Are you praying to someone? Do you believe in God or a god? Why do you pray?

You really have problems with the reading and comprehension thing, don't you? See if this makes sense to you:

I am a Christian. I believe in the single Creator God who created the Universe, to include everything seen and unseen, everything detectable and non-detectable, whether animal, vegetable or mineral. The single and Holy God who is not just immortal, but Eternal; who is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. Who is One single and indivisible God, yet Three Persons of the Trinity - who is One. I communicate with God on a daily, sometimes moment to moment basis. This is called 'praying' in the common English; it involves me talking to Him (for lack of a better term) and in turn receiving direction and clarification from Him.

This is all part and parcel of being a Christian. I would have thought an educated person in the Western world would have had a basic grasp of this. My apologies for assuming you knew more than you do. My statements have a tone of authority for the same reason an arithmetic instructor says "Two plus two equals four" with authority. That's the way it is. None of these questions or this discussion is anywhere near new and novel to me.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

However, this is your personal business. I'm only asking for those comfortable discussing it to say something. I don't need you to answer the questions, I am only curious so that I can better understand how or why you define being religious the way you do.

The viewpoint of a difference between 'religions' and Christianity is rather old. I'm certainly not the first to embrace it or discuss it. It is the core difference between Christianity and all other religions.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I feel like I've heard people say the same exact thing about Christianity that you just accused "all" other religions of.

Originally Posted by Archie

You may have so heard. If so, those claims were made by people who know very little about Christianity other than the superficial aspects. If you knew any more about Christianity than I do about Buddhism, you'd know those claims are erroneous.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Well, actually I wasn't attempting to say the claims were anything or imply that I knew the claims to be true. I was trying to make a point that I think your understanding of all religions may be a bit off, just as other people's understanding of Christianity may be off (or at least in some viewpoints). The example being Buddhism, which does not fit into your criteria for all religions. Doesn't really matter though because I'm interested in what it means to be religious, not what it means to be Christian.

Ah, Buddhism does not fit into a system where one 'works' to make himself 'better' or 'suited' for some better afterlife? DaBOB, we may be nearing an impasse; it certainly looks that way to me. Any reward, any betterment in Buddhism comes about directly as a result of the individual's application to the pursuit of enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Archie

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

I'm seeing a pattern, here, DaBOB. That was kojax, not me. You don't seem to pay attention to what you're reading. I must say, you are easier to follow than Kenanyahuw Parah. I only have the faintest inkling of his claims.

However, I will point out scientists are not above a religious fervor in some beliefs. One recalls the difficulty among some scientists giving up the phlogiston theory of burning, and the highly emotional, evangelical determination of Sir Fred Hoyle in his attempt to deny the Big Bang theory (because it seemed to echo the Biblical account too closely for his taste.) Sir Fred pushed his 'Steady State' theory for decades, long past the time no other cosmologist could speak about it without giggling.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Science deals with many things that are "invisible". But it does not deal with things that cannot be detected or measured. Such things are otherwise called 'imaginary'.

Thus, science does not deal with deity.

Interesting. When I was younger, most scientists took the view science could not discuss or evaluate things that could not be detected or measured. They were 'undefined' and outside the purview of science. Now skeptic says those things or forces are 'imaginary'. Subtle change demonstrating a blatant disregard for the 'non-scientific', i.e., the Divine.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

If deity is nature than science deals with it.

That is the problem, DaBOB. The Creator God is NOT nature nor 'in' nature. It is far more correct and sensible to say nature is 'in' God. There is no test for God, no measurement, no calculation. As the old farmer said, "Nope. You can't get there from here. You have to go somewheres else and start from there."

Kenanyahuw Parah, thank you. I have only the faintest clue about what you write, and I fear it will not grow any more clear.

I think you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If so, I wish you well and for God to bless you and keep you.

Originally Posted by Archie

Interesting. When I was younger, most scientists took the view science could not discuss or evaluate things that could not be detected or measured. They were 'undefined' and outside the purview of science.

So you're either over 120 year old, very ignorant of science when younger....or both.

Originally Posted by Archie

Interesting. When I was younger, most scientists took the view science could not discuss or evaluate things that could not be detected or measured. They were 'undefined' and outside the purview of science.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

So you're either over 120 year old, very ignorant of science when younger....or both.

Lynx, I'm older than you can imagine. I must point out, it is you who is ignorant of science and the attitude of scientists. Very few scientists in the 1950s for instance claimed to have 'proof of the non-existance of God' due to lack of evidence. The common attitude was 'no information to determine'.

I can also point out that 'lack of evidence means non-existance' cannot be demonstrated. It is merely an assumption.

I am 100% non-religious.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by Archie

Show me one example to counter the claim.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I don't really care to counter your claim. I am only surprised at your tone of authority. Buddism, however, would be one example. There are no deities.

DaBOB, you don't understand Buddhism enough to understand it is a system of living one's life? You don't understand Buddhism teaches one must 'work' at gaining enlightenment and attain Nirvana; escape from the cycle of life? You think Buddhism isn't a religion. Okay, if that's what you want.

You challenged my view of 'religions' being fundamentally different than Christianity. When I asked for some form of counter-argument, you folded, changed ground and then restated your opinion I was wrong. Is this your standard form of debate?

I think this is where the problem lies. I'm not debating. I'm asking for opinions on the things and attempting to probe with questions and summarize by restating things. In this particular case I was curious as to how it is you see Buddhism. In my own spiritual development I discovered that Buddhists do not seek enlightenment. Those who do tend to fail. I've heard some people consider Buddhism religion, some philosophy. I generally consider it a form of psychology. Though, since I've been living closer to it's origins I see the more religious side of it. I prefer a westernized form of Buddhism. Also, as I said, even if they are trying to gain enlightenment points they are doing it for any deities, which is a pretty important difference.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I reread your post and do not see any direct answers to my questions: Are you praying to someone? Do you believe in God or a god? Why do you pray?

You really have problems with the reading and comprehension thing, don't you? See if this makes sense to you:

I am a Christian. I believe in the single Creator God who created the Universe, to include everything seen and unseen, everything detectable and non-detectable, whether animal, vegetable or mineral. The single and Holy God who is not just immortal, but Eternal; who is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. Who is One single and indivisible God, yet Three Persons of the Trinity - who is One. I communicate with God on a daily, sometimes moment to moment basis. This is called 'praying' in the common English; it involves me talking to Him (for lack of a better term) and in turn receiving direction and clarification from Him.

This is all part and parcel of being a Christian. I would have thought an educated person in the Western world would have had a basic grasp of this. My apologies for assuming you knew more than you do. My statements have a tone of authority for the same reason an arithmetic instructor says "Two plus two equals four" with authority. That's the way it is. None of these questions or this discussion is anywhere near new and novel to me.

That is much more clear, thank you.. An educated person rather ought to know that everyone has a different understanding of things. If you did say you are Christian before (which I'm sure you did), just saying so doesn't provide that you do are believe certain things. I could say I'm Buddhist but that doesn't mean I go to a temple, prostrate, or even meditate (I'm not saying I'm Buddhist however).

No need to apologize. I'm used to asking questions for clarification.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by DaBOB

However, this is your personal business. I'm only asking for those comfortable discussing it to say something. I don't need you to answer the questions, I am only curious so that I can better understand how or why you define being religious the way you do.

The viewpoint of a difference between 'religions' and Christianity is rather old. I'm certainly not the first to embrace it or discuss it. It is the core difference between Christianity and all other religions.

To be clear, I am attempting to find the meaning of religious, not religion. At was more lenient at first but I have discovered the two to be quite different in people's minds.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I feel like I've heard people say the same exact thing about Christianity that you just accused "all" other religions of.

Originally Posted by Archie

You may have so heard. If so, those claims were made by people who know very little about Christianity other than the superficial aspects. If you knew any more about Christianity than I do about Buddhism, you'd know those claims are erroneous.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Well, actually I wasn't attempting to say the claims were anything or imply that I knew the claims to be true. I was trying to make a point that I think your understanding of all religions may be a bit off, just as other people's understanding of Christianity may be off (or at least in some viewpoints). The example being Buddhism, which does not fit into your criteria for all religions. Doesn't really matter though because I'm interested in what it means to be religious, not what it means to be Christian.

Ah, Buddhism does not fit into a system where one 'works' to make himself 'better' or 'suited' for some better afterlife? DaBOB, we may be nearing an impasse; it certainly looks that way to me. Any reward, any betterment in Buddhism comes about directly as a result of the individual's application to the pursuit of enlightenment.

Disagree... We'll call it an impasse for now.

Yes, I copy and paste quotes. I know who's post it was, but just pasted the wrong name in. Sorry if it was offensive to anyone. It is entirely possible that I don't pay attention to what I'm reading. The mind is always playing tricks on me. I do my best.

More later, as I have some business to attend to.

Originally Posted by Archie

Ah, Buddhism does not fit into a system where one 'works' to make himself 'better' or 'suited' for some better afterlife? DaBOB, we may be nearing an impasse; it certainly looks that way to me. Any reward, any betterment in Buddhism comes about directly as a result of the individual's application to the pursuit of enlightenment.

I'm not particularly concerned about the content of this discussion but you do seem to be slightly inconsistent. What you said earlier was that:

In all the religions of the world - save one - the participant has to 'do things' to make himself acceptable to the deity or deities involved.

You say Buddhism is an example of this. But surely, Buddhism doesn't have a deity, so that can't be true. But are you saying that Buddhism isn't a religion because it doesn't have a deity. I'm slightly confused

Surely Christians are supposed to try to be better, to live up to the standards set by God and Christ? Yet you seem to be saying that isn't the case. Can you be a good Christian and do bad things routinely in your daily life?

However, I will point out scientists are not above a religious fervor in some beliefs.

It is important not to confuse science and scientists.

Archie, forgive me but I'm not going to keep going with this. It's distracting from what I am trying to get at. Others, of course, can continue as they please.

Maybe this is hypocritical, but I must say one thing. Proof is about evidence. There is no method to assure us that something is and always will be. We can only say that we observe something to be a certain way and reproduce it. This develops evidence to support the observation and explanation. Enough evidence leads to proof. Proof however is not certainty. Nothing is certain. Lack of evidence does not mean non-existence, and if definitely does not mean existence. If God really is outside the realm of science than I suppose it doesn't really matter. If it doesn't matter than I don't really care to argue it.

Originally Posted by Zesterer

I am 100% non-religious.

Quite to the point. Thank you.

Care to elaborate? I'm happy either way.

Originally Posted by Strange

It is important not to confuse science and scientists.

Very good point!

I am a scientist, but I am definitely not science.

Originally Posted by Archie

Originally Posted by Archie

Interesting. When I was younger, most scientists took the view science could not discuss or evaluate things that could not be detected or measured. They were 'undefined' and outside the purview of science.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

So you're either over 120 year old, very ignorant of science when younger....or both.

Lynx, I'm older than you can imagine. I must point out, it is you who is ignorant of science and the attitude of scientists. Very few scientists in the 1950s for instance claimed to have 'proof of the non-existance of God' due to lack of evidence. The common attitude was 'no information to determine'.

First I'll admit I read your statement too quickly, taking it to mean something akin to you saying that things unseen weren't believed. I see that wasn't your intent.

I can't account for your personal experiences. My own entry into the sciences started during the 70s and 80s and my experiences in the US Army have been hit and miss as they periodically assigned me to work with them for several projects. On the other hand, studies even as early at WWI by Leuba show scientist largely atheistic. In his surveys more than 60% expression either rejection or serious doubt about deity and even more rejecting ideas of immortality (The Belief in God and Immortality by James H. Leuba). Just about every study since has shown similar numbers. What you probably remember is a combination of what you wanted to hear and scientist just being polite and trying not to offend those they know are religious. As a government scientist, most of my peers didn't go to church and many were openly atheistic--if one said lets go to church they were more likely to mean climbing a mountain or hiking in a beautiful place than attending a church. In the Army I wasn't nearly as free to express my views, its highly and overtly discouraged in the armed forces--though some of my closest friends including two chaplains knew my opinions. Many atheist today do the same thing, being obtuse when asked to avoid confrontation. What's the point in hurting others by insulting their deeply held beliefs, which, immune from reason, most likely won't change anyhow? (My personal limit is when they use their beliefs to impose religious laws--such as the personhood bills).

I can also point out that 'lack of evidence means non-existence' cannot be demonstrated. It is merely an assumption.

True but it's also the bedrock of modern science that the responsibility of proof belongs to the "faithful."

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

True but it's also the bedrock of modern science that the responsibility of proof belongs to the "faithful."

Pure poetry.

Originally Posted by Kenanyahuw Parah

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Science does give us a certain amount of direction, so it could be a religion. It's just a very limited one since it has no advice for how to better our souls, or prepare for the afterlife.

Ya, it doesn't deal in superstitious make believe.

Science or so called, is in actual fact dealing in or trying to deal with that which cannot be seen since before the tower of babel and in these last days trying to find the so called God Partical and quantifing dark matter or anti-matter, you must understand all that science builds on is a theory not unlike evolution, superstitious make believe they attribute to by chance what kind of certainty of direction is that apart from certain death, total seperation from the sourse of all Life eternal. Its all about choice and you have a free will to make yours and it appears ye have done so. One person takes the lead and few there be that follow.

If deity or the afterlife became observable, then science would quite certainly have a lot to say about it. At present there's no way to make this so, nor in the forseeable future, so science stays mum. But it has nothing at all to do with the nature of the question, just the approach-ability of it by the scientific method.

If you were a person who had such "faith" and "righteousness" that God granted every prayer you uttered, you could then set up an experiment, control groups and all, and test the divine powers. Unfortunately to date nobody has had that, or those who did were not interested in being scientific about it.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Science deals with many things that are "invisible". But it does not deal with things that cannot be detected or measured. Such things are otherwise called 'imaginary'.

Thus, science does not deal with deity.

Yeah. It's just that one thing. Science also can't render a very strong opinion about aliens or the Kennedy assassination, though some have tried.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

First I'll admit I read your statement too quickly, taking it to mean something akin to you saying that things unseen weren't believed. I see that wasn't your intent.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

... studies even as early at WWI by Leuba show scientist largely atheistic. In his surveys more than 60% expression either rejection or serious doubt about deity and even more rejecting ideas of immortality (The Belief in God and Immortality by James H. Leuba).

Sure thing. Leuba was a 'naturalist' and wanted to frame Christianity as 'mysticism' and explain all beliefs in psychological terms. So, what can you say that his 'study' is any more unbiased than one sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church or the Southern Baptists or the Masonic Lodge? I've read too many 'studies' wherein the questions were designed to elicit the response desired by the framer.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Just about every study since has shown similar numbers.

Lynx, this is the 'everybody knows' argument with a possible tip of the hat to the 'Tailors of Threadneedle Street'. Within a few days, I could set up studies to prove pretty much anything I want. This whole line of spurious claims is summarily dismissed, Lynx. Try something with actual information in it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Many atheist today do the same thing, being obtuse when asked to avoid confrontation. What's the point in hurting others by insulting their deeply held beliefs, which, immune from reason, most likely won't change anyhow? (My personal limit is when they use their beliefs to impose religious laws--such as the personhood bills).

You mean like the movement to ban Christians from medical school?

Originally Posted by Archie

I can also point out that 'lack of evidence means non-existence' cannot be demonstrated. It is merely an assumption.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

True but it's also the bedrock of modern science that the responsibility of proof belongs to the "faithful."

Not so. The burden of proof belongs to the one asserting the fact. Your claim is science has proved God doesn't exist.

Show me the proof.

Allow me to offer a test question on this subject: What does science say about the Klingon Empire. Does the Klingon Empire exist? Can you as a scientist, or any scientist, state categorically the Klingon Empire does not exist? Or, can you just say there is no evidence one way or the other?

Let's make it simpler; Is there life extant in the Universe other than of Earth orgin? Yes or No. Not liklihood, not probability, an absolute answer.
Or, is there insufficient evidence for an absolute yes or no answer?

I submit, if you must admit a lack of evidence prevents you from disposing of either the Klingons or life in general 'out there', you cannot positively declaim the existence of God from a 'scientific' viewpoint.

Science is like the legal system. The legal system presumes you innocent until proven guilty. Science presumes every claim false until proven true. But, just as how in the legal system "not guilty" doesn't mean innocent, also in science "not affirmative" doesn't mean "false". It just means it's not good enough to get into the body of science.

Suppose we're talking about the area inside the event horizon of a black hole. It's impossible to interact with matter that has ended up there, so science really can't say anything about it, other than to take theories about the rest of the universe and make educated guesses about how they might apply when extended to that region. Clearly, the scientist doesn't arrive at the conclusion that this region doesn't exist. They just can't say anything specific about it. (All claims about the region are assumed false by default, because they can't be proven.)

Originally Posted by Archie

Lynx, this is the 'everybody knows' argument with a possible tip of the hat to the 'Tailors of Threadneedle Street'. Within a few days, I could set up studies to prove pretty much anything I want. This whole line of spurious claims is summarily dismissed, Lynx. Try something with actual information in it.

Nature recently reviewed the trends comparing three major studies address the claim. Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

But I'm not so much surprised to attacked the author rather than the method or anything to do with the methods used. Just a broad hand waive claiming bias. Not very objective or scientific.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Many atheist today do the same thing, being obtuse when asked to avoid confrontation. What's the point in hurting others by insulting their deeply held beliefs, which, immune from reason, most likely won't change anyhow? (My personal limit is when they use their beliefs to impose religious laws--such as the personhood bills).

You mean like the movement to ban Christians from medical school?

Use straw man arguments much?

Originally Posted by Archie

I can also point out that 'lack of evidence means non-existence' cannot be demonstrated. It is merely an assumption.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

True but it's also the bedrock of modern science that the responsibility of proof belongs to the "faithful."

Not so. The burden of proof belongs to the one asserting the fact. Your claim is science has proved God doesn't exist.

I'm not claiming in absolute terms that god doesn't exist. Just claiming it's unlikely because quite simply there's no evidence for god, and according to the scientific method until there is proof we should assume she doesn't. But lets be clear, science doesn't declare absolutes--saying there is no proof is as close to an absolute declaration as possible; Sometimes scientist put it into declarative absolute terms for layman--because they know this.

Let's make it simpler; Is there life extant in the Universe other than of Earth orgin? Yes or No. Not liklihood, not probability, an absolute answer.
Or, is there insufficient evidence for an absolute yes or no answer?

That's a different question from the one we were discussing. Your options aren't mutually exclusive. And I've already given my answer: Not likely. And scientist aren't required to proven negatives unless they're its to refute a proper hypothesis by empirical means. There's an entire history of claims of god evidence that are better described by other natural phenomena and non which have proven out so far.

I submit, if you must admit a lack of evidence prevents you from disposing of either the Klingons or life in general 'out there', you cannot positively declaim the existence of God from a 'scientific' viewpoint.

Scientist don't need to, anymore than you've to prove Apollo (or the thousands of other "gods/goddess" that humans believed in) isn't standing invisibly behind you watching you read this to dismiss it as unlikely because you have no evidence.

--
Leuba is a fitting man to mention in this thread, because he was an advocate for the study of religion using scientific method. Not the supernatural claims, but the beliefs and their associated psychology and sociology surrounding religion--in short what this science of religion forum is supposed to be about.

I give up.

Maybe if I start over:

Originally Posted by DaBOB

What does it mean to be religious? Are you religious? Why or why not?

Can an atheist be religious? Or rather, can a religious person be an atheist?

What if I word the question differently?

Do you belong to a particular religious order, or a multitude of religious orders?

What do you think (about this)?

New questions.

Also, is being religious about control? This came up on another forum. I think the person was saying religion is about control but I think being religious can be about control as well. Religious people are trying to better control their actions, values, feelings, morals, etc. and also those of others. The Dao De Jing, though it doesn't appear to represent a religion like others in the west is actually very blatant about how to control the masses. Recent discoveries show that a version of the Dao De Jing once included a creationist mythology. So, is control a part of being religious?

So, is control a part of being religious?

To some degree, for sure. The three Abrahamic religions and well as Buddhism put much emphasis self-control if nothing else. Not sure if it applies as much to less well developed religions. It's ability to evoke a combination of self-control, harness group motivations to get big things done (like kicking a threatening tribe's ass), store information, and it's explanatory power might be why humans evolved mentally and socially to take up religion so readily.

Originally Posted by Zesterer

I am 100% non-religious.

Then you will statistically die at younger age. Your pious peers will not have to wait for afterlife to have last laugh.

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that everything had to come from somewhere. Not being able to fully understand the existence of God is not a surprise, due to our human limitations we cannot understand the concept of eternity, or infinity either. These concepts are related - the human mind is, well, human! We have human limitations. Being a Catholic, I have Catholic beliefs and upon reading the New Testament for the first time I really find it tough to see fault with it - in fact it is a pretty amazing book that is like a guidebook to life. Of course the nitpicker finds fault with anything and everything, but in the absence of this it is an amazing document. The one looks at things like the Shroud of Turin. This too is one amazing relic and objective research about it only adds to the mystery and questions. While scientists try desperately to uncover the secrets of the universe this research too just adds to the mystery and incredible design of the place where we live. One may say, why would God create such a huge and complicated place (the universe) for us to live? Well, maybe because he can!
Science teaches us to beleive only what we can see, hear, or feel. Well you look up at the sky at night and think about what you are seeing. Origin Of Species? How about the origin of EVERYTHING? Not so easy is it? Think about it! AL

There is no evidence that professed atheism reflects a lack of bias.

I practice organized religion, (Roman Catholic); however, since my wife is Protestant, I also go to the Protestant services. Yes, that means that I am religious.

I changed from "minimally religious" to trying to get more out of religion about 15-16 years ago. I think I was just curious to see if God really existed. I became convinced that God does exist mainly because of a "change in perception" that occurred right after I tried to seek God. What I mean is that when a prayer was answered, I would attribute that to God as opposed to "luck" etc.

I seek God because I believe He has a plan for our lives, and God's plan is the best possible life that we can have and that plan includes achieving our best possible personal development. I don't think religion is "controlling". Rather, I think religion can be liberating in that it has the potential to make us more able to withstand temptation and hopefully avoid bad situations that might otherwise occur, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by docfisher

The one looks at things like the Shroud of Turin. This too is one amazing relic and objective research about it only adds to the mystery and questions.

Well, it's amazing that people still put credence in a proved forgery.