Many believe that "religion" in and of itself is not necessary for belief in God, or some form of omnipotent higher power. Religion would be the classification on exactly who/what that higher power consists of, and the proper way in which to revere and please him (I'm going to use the masculine reference here, hope nobody gets pissed
)
That said, one can believe in God and not follow a specific religion. Merely the acknowlegement that some form of higher power exists, whether it be- God, Mother Nature, love personified, or a amorphous cloud constitutes that religion isn't necessary...
There are others (like myself) who follow a very strict and previously guided path onto what God exactly is. As a member of any such religious faith, you acknowledge that:
1. There is a God (or God(s), or some form of essence that governs or resides over humanity...whether it be love, The Over-Soul, or any other form of existance)
2. The God that
you believe in is the right one, and all the other Gods are made up or misguided.
3. You know exactly what pleases God, and what pisses him off.
4. You know about the spiritual path necessary to enlightment, or perhaps a mere understanding on to how things are the way they are.
There are many such sects, and they mostly arose from "fuck you" attitudes. For example, there was the sentence told to Peter..."you are the rock upon which I will build my Church". The modern day Roman Catholic faith traces its origin to that very sentence. Other religous sects (like many Orthodox sects specifically) believe that
they are in fact the true descendants of that sentence. Other sects have arisen from humans dissatisfied with the current attitude of the Church they were a member of. Martin Luther, John Calvin, King Edward all developed "fuck you" attitude to the basic "Church", in that breaking away from the corrupt and evil practices of that particluar denomination that they would be justified, by God, to establish their own true form of the Church.
Regarding Helm's post. I must admit, it is very easy to push things on God. I know this isn't specifically what you addressed, but something you said relates to this. Relating to the whole religious argument- atheists vs. religious folk- there are relatively strong points to both sides. Atheists would say something along the lines of "Explain God. Why does he do what he does, if he's so perfect". Christians may respond along the lines of "there is no way to explain God. He isn't bound to laws of logic or reason." Truthfully, that is what we believe. It just is very simple. Throwing the entire question onto the soldiers of "we can't understand" isn't going to do anybody any good. Much the same way that you're supposed to "be like Jesus" even though it's impossible, we can at least make the attempt to understand God, even though that may be impossible. God is often used as a crutch for people to lean on (and this is actually the point, but in relating to face-to-face argument, this doesn't come across well to non-believers). Saying 'it's in God's hands now" or "God will provide" or "God will take care of it", is stating that you are throwing personal feelings, emotions, responsiblities, or hardships onto the very shoulders of God himself, merely hoping that everything turns out right in the end. Using God as a psychological escape route is something that many people do, whether they really and truly acknowlege the existance of God or not. On the other hand, there are simply things that cannot be explained. All God-believing religious folk would be the first to state that God isn't bound to laws that he essentially created (thus presenting the entire debacle- as people who don't believe in God try to disprove His existance using these very laws of logic and reason). There are, however, whether people want to believe it or not, things that cannot be explained. Laws of physics and chemistry that come into question when God enters the picture. When rules and laws that we are bound to are sometimes bent, or even broken, it brings into the question of whether there are miracles, -interventions from God-, or merely "exceptions" to the rule. (I've even seen miracles used in trying to
disprove the existance of God).
Anyway, I've gotten off on a serious tangent. George, all I can say is that I'm glad you've found something, whatever it may bel, and I hope you continue to explore it.
Linear Mode
