This is your own personal opinion and not really indicative of the human norm. There is a predominate feeling in human society that there is something “more” (I will use this concept in lieu of using the word spirituality). Are you going to deny that the majority of people in the world have the belief that there is something supernatural that exists in the world (whether it is Christianity, Islam, Voodoo, Scientology, or Zoroastrianism)?

Hmm. I don't necessarily see the reason why you're posting i'm not in the norm from my post.

The realization at a young age that I as an individual do not need religion could in fact be a norm for children.

In fact the "predominate feeling" in human society that there is something "more" can very well be pseudo feeling that is constructed by a child looking into an adults eyes and seeing a grown man look into them and a whole crowd of peoples' eyes with spouting nonsense while being completely serious. Taking an educated guess, I believe a child would probably look around seeing adults looking towards that figure before the crowd, nodding their heads in agreement and what is being said must generally be true.

Now one can debate how easy it is to guide a child into something but I have seen studies where its not very difficult.

The part I bolded below in my earlier post:
I disagree with completely because a child does not have an inherent desire about a god, heaven or hell and may only "pick up" this desire from society, may it be parents or friends or stumbling onto it from some other individual.

To answer OPs original question, it's because God told me so and I know I'm right.

Any attempt to reason with me will be countered with me sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "Na na na na na".

What's that?

I won't deny it, but I very much question the meaningfulness of the statement. How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. At one time, almost everyone on earth believed that the earth was flat, but it turns out they were wrong, weren't they?

Presence, but also absence. Peace and joy, but also mourning and compunction. Life in all its human absurdities, contingency, incompleteness, and unsatisfactoryness, but also fulfillment, awe, perfection, and contentment. I don't really know how to describe my experience of religious life without resorting to some (probably terrible) poetic expression. I really think the best answer is "come and see!" The book of the Hebrews says it's a "dreadful" thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. On the other hand there is a zen saying that "after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters." There is a certain ambivalence or ambiguity to this that I think is somehow essential.

I think that is partly why I disagree with the way of thinking that frames religion in terms of beliefs or propositions. It makes religion too far removed from the actual living of life. Asking "what is union" is like asking "what is erotic love". Even if one has a thoroughly deflational and reductionistic view, where it has no greater significance than neuro-chemistry and hormones, nevertheless that is certainly not the experience, and "what is love" and "what is it like to love" do not have the same answer.

Experientially, according to the Bible, people become Christians because they respond to the activity of the Holy Spirit in their lives, which is usually connected to the preaching of the gospel.

The next question concerns apologetics - which worldview can best be defended. That's the task of a lifetime.

What is that? You answered...

So the aim of religious practice is union with God, and union with God is presence but also absence, peace and joy, mourning and compunction, life and everything in it?

This answer is deeply unsatisfying to me. It is so broad and all encompassing as to be meaningless. Your definition is so untethered from reality as to apply equally to most religious practitioners and atheists, from people who are camping and backpacking enthusiasts to people who are passionate about stamp collecting.

It reminds me a little bit of a conversation I had with a friend of mine about Scientology. Before he was on Scientology, he had little or no money, he was a losing gambler, and I honestly don't remember the other problems he bemoaned. But after getting on Scientology, he had his rent paid 6 months in advance, he was a winning gambler, in the decades that followed, he got a comfortable living with a nice little family and a house of his own, etc. And all I could think was: just like everyone else on your block, in your neighborhood, etc., did without scientology. For some people it was Christianity, for others it was their pet rabbit -- without whom they know for sure they never would have made it through their 20s! -- and for others their it was their passion for this that or whatever. And yet other people in similar circumstances just live their live without reflecting on any particular god or religion or hobby as being the source of all the good things in their life.

I'm sure I've totally missed your point (right?) but to me your description of religious practice / union with god is on the same level as people who say they believe in god, because god is the universe and everything in it. You've defined your religious beliefs into being without adding anything to the discussion; we can all believe that the god that equals the universe exists. We can all have union with God if that means just being a living person. But why hang those labels on thing which already have adequate definitions without tying them up with religion?

Well, to the extent that you are equating what I'm saying with the kind of success that you are speaking of, i would say we are on different pages, but I'm not sure I'd say you missed the point. I think it's difficult to give the kind of answer I was assuming you were looking for. Which I think you've confirmed, and I had that in mind somewhat when talking about ambiguity and ambivalence.

That said, union with God doesn't mean merely being a living person, in which case there would be nothing to aspire to, but rather the ambiguity is in the fact that union with God is not something that is a small part life, distinct and disjoint from everything else. It encompasses the whole of life, and yet people remain people. Hence the ambiguity. I am not utterly convinced that this union requires a particular religious tradition, a conventionally "religious" mindset, or even necessarily "theism", except insofar as you might consider words like "reverence", "sacredness", or "contemplation" religious words, or consider a particular anthropology that makes Man more than a "rational animal" explicitly religious.

I do think in a comparison between the most prevalent forms of atheistic naturalism and traditional religion, the experience I'm talking about doesn't really appear on the horizon within the worldview of the former. It's the kind of thing that naturalists tend to discount the meaning or possibility of. In that regard, religion is useful. Beyond that, I think the symbolic understanding of what Man is and what God is in Christianity is profound in many aspects (granting that of course "Christianity" encompasses a wide swath of interpretations, not all of which I find equally profound), and that Jesus, approached in a certain way, is a singular example of what human life is in its fullness.

Societies throughout the world that have had almost no real contact with each other have all developed separate mythos that define their world and "fills in the gaps". Is this mythos passed down verbally and socially through generations? Of course. How many societies among the thousands in the history of this planet have developed without any supernatural reasoning for everyday occurrences? It is not a logical development. In fact, it is an illogical development made by a predominant illogical species.

Nope

I am not well educated with regards to relgion and theology, so my apologies if this comes off stupid. But how do people here view for examples tribes who believe in different kind of stuff, which for most of us seems like complete nonsense? How does that influence the feeling you have towards your religion?

A non critical approach is worthwhile , everyone has something to offer.

Even if atheism and deism was certain to be false. And only ten or so religions were in contention as being the correct one, it is unreasonable to think that this defense could elevate a religion to anything above perhaps thirty percent to be true one. I say that because there are smart debaters arguing for the other nine and if the arguments were clear cut against them they would admit defeat.

So we have people who might be able to cure disease wasting their lives trying to get their religion to be 5-2 underdogs. How can people think that God would want that? The truth is either atheism, deism or a God that cares about humans. Anyone who wastes time trying to get more detailed than that is likely to be displeasing God more than pleasing him. Deep down apologists know this. But since they fear they will fail at using their brains to do real good they rationalize that God wants them to nitpick details involving things where they can never be proven wrong.

I'm sure you're trolling/not giving a serious reply but this is kind of my point. Every other person would in every other religion would basically say the same thing. So doesn't that make you step back and wonder who is actually right, if anyone?

I mean if there is a chance that you are right then surely there is a chance that someone of a different religion could be right, right?

Why is looking at which religion is the right one the right way to look at religion?


PairTheBoard

Because it is more than an intellectually understanding but more to do with feeling the idea that you are connected and are one with "God". And that is why it can be in anything even a white bunny rabbit.

As a Zen Master would say you can find the "Tao" (God) everywhere it can be found in the bible and it can be found in Alice in Wonderland.

Once this is understood through feeling you want to attack/lie/cheat/steal etc... another person because it would be like cutting off your own arm.

I am not sure you are saying the same thing that I would have been saying if I had said this, but I wish I had said it.

He is basically saying the same thing as me, just more politely.

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard
"Why is looking at which religion is the right one the right way to look at religion?"


What would you have been saying if you had said this RLK?


PairTheBoard

People generally acquire their religion from their family and/or society and to the extent that they think about why their God is the right one, it's from the perspective of proving it to be true. And of course, every religion has plenty of arguments ready to provide to such inquiring minds.

I believe that people who don't settle on the default religion they grew up with but acquire a different one later, seldom do so because it's the most rigorously proven one out there but rather because they find it emotionally satisfying or comforting or even because it comes with ancillary benefits such as a pleasing social life.

So demonstrating that you've chosen the most correct religion is in fact something one does after the fact, rather than as a precursor.

If everything were religion...

One mechanic says I need a new transmission, the other mechanic says I need to rebuild the engine. Honestly though, it isn't a question of which one is "right." Its about how they make me feel. In my heart. Plus, in a way, they are both really talking about the same repair - they both want to fix my car and make it run again.

Is everything like fixing cars?


PTB

Everything except imaginary stuff and religion.