Still not too sure what you mean by "continuum of faith". I still have faith in a lot of things, seems rather natural that we all should have faith in some things.


Beliefs, or rather some Laws of Life that are absolutely core to any religion would be:


1. To be "sincere in spirit" in everyone you deal with. Being sincere means to express yourself from the heart. No back handedness, no hidden agendas. Only you can gage your sincerity.


2. To be "honest in mind" with yourself. Many people today think one thing, say another thing, and do a completely different thing. They are not being honest with themselves. They are in fact, a lie. Being honest of mind works directly with being sincere in spirit.


3. Practice "detachment" in everything you do. This goes beyond being overly attached to riches or material wealth, we also need to be careful in being overly attached to ideas and concepts. Once one says "I believe in this" or "I believe in that" then you are immediately limited to "this" or "that". Beliefs are not a bad thing, but we need to know that they to used like "ladders to the roof", once you're on the roof there's no need for the ladder again. Think about what you believed in 10 years ago, 20, 30 years ago, your beliefs have probably changed, you learned to let go. We need to learn to let go of things in our life but more importantly we need the wisdom to know what and when to let of them. "Even a arhat can fall", says the old saying, even saints and gurus can become attached to the powers of the spirit. Detachment is a very important lesson in life for all of us. It teaches us to be the "observer" in life, while the "actor" plays out the part.


These three things should be fundamental in every religion, in every science and in everything we do.

 

Hi BetteTheRed:

 

In my mind, no beliefs are absolutely necessary to a Christian or any other faith.

 

My own faith is experiental. Although I use words to explain my spiritual experiences, those words are not my faith. My experience is.

 

I can express my spiritual experience in Christian terms, or in the terms of almost any other religion or thought system, including atheism. Personally, I prefer the words and concepts of science-based philosophy.

 

The words don't matter—the experience does! I think Jesus himself was a spiritual experiencer, in other words a mystic, and that he based his teachings on his spiritual experiences and on his explanations of those experiences.

 

So, if we want to be followers of Jesus, I think we should try to experience what he experienced and immerse ourselves in mystical experience. This can be accomplished through meditation, meditative or centering prayer, or a large variety of other meditative and contemplative practices.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that some centrality of Jesus Christ in one's spiritual life  is necessary if one is to identify as a Christian. 

 

Some (not all) self-identified "progressive" Christians will say they have moved beyond this.  If this is the case, I believe that the spiritual stance has become "post Christian" rather than progressive. 

 

According to God's word Faith comes by hearing God's word so no word no faith--you have human Faith that relys on sight  but not God kind of Faith that is the substance of things hoped for ---God created this physical earth by faith ---  

 

I self-describe as an agnostic on issues of a personal God, the afterlife, etc. These are matters of faith, not rational or empirical certainty. I do believe in a kind of pantheism. Not necessarily that all things are God but that all of existence is inherently a sacred thing. I revere beauty, awe, and wonder, not a personality. I believe in an ongoing search for meaning, not pat, eternally true answers.

 

On the issue of what is core to a Christian faith, my take for a long time (and in several other WC threads) is that some kind of role of Jesus Christ in one's spiritual life/faith is the core. It need not be atonement theology or treating Jesus as God incarnate or even believing in him as a literal, historical person. However, some central role for the story and teachings of/about Jesus CHRIST is, to my mind, a necessary part of being CHRISTian. This is why I do not consider myself a Christian, though I do still include the stories and teachings of Jesus in my personal spiritual canon. He is there, but neither central nor the focus.

 

Mendalla

 

Hi BetteTheRed,

 

 

I think the continuum would need to be properly identified before anyone could find their place on it.

 

If it is a contiuum between faith in logic and irrationality I tend more to logic.

 

If it is a continuum between faith in emotion and anhedonism I tend more to anhedonism.

 

It is is a continuum between faith and faithless I tend more to faithful.

 

It it is a continuum between no god and a multitude of gods I sit in the monotheist range.

 

And then there are strata in each continuum where I am a better fit than not.

 

 

At minimum you would need a Christ and some sense that to be faithful you need to be similar to in some way/degree the Christ you believe in.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Neo, #2, is like insincerity, DH Lawrence desribes this as counterfeit people, leading counterfeit lives. I like that description.

 

#3 detatchement in terms of belief is an important part of it for me too. You have to be able to see what's there and what isn't there with innocence and intelligence. Important in science and religion I think. Otherwise we could not learn and grow and adapt.

 

I would agree about there being an importance of Jesus to be called a christian. If no Jesus, then perhaps a different title would suit better. If no god either, then certainly not a christian at all. Maybe a humanist.

 

Here's a religion selector quiz. Maybe give it a try. http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

 

We had one on here years ago and I came up Humanist. I considder myself a spiritual atheist with pagan leanings, or otherwise a freethinkier. I'm not much of a philanthropist though like you sound to be. I like to help people, I just don't go out and volunteer or anything like that. I just talk and write poetry and make videos to get helpful messages across to others.

 

Maybe anything can be your religion, maybe philanthropy or art! Glad to hear more about your views Bette!

 

Just did said quiz, and he he he! I got a little picture of Carl Sagan , beside the label: Secular Humanism, with UU second, which I think was my result last time too.

It is like CLEAR getting excited about others crossing over ... he'd rather sacrifice them first to see how that settles his disbelieveing mind.

 

But don't tell him ... its something he'd rather not know of his self ... where mortals shine ... in the discontinuum ... a break in thought is often an irrational state ... like sect ular ... something to be worked with until Ham Eire'd oubt ... the Shadow persists when you have the physical in the way of metaphysical light ... as flighty thought! UFO's?

 

Yes U'r foes of thought ... just not wise enough to go there as creatures born of an irrational state as we all are ... one must get over the Sisiphus ... the hump in that is ... a belle Dane ... milque'n Lass of the north ... kohl collecter of Vorms ...? Are disjointed thoughts moving  rationales ... or just irrational complexities, bottom line?

 

Something to be razed as thought ... thus dissonant ... once known as Eris way down in the recessives of mine Jinnii ... a sacred dimension of order that's beyond ewe in myth ...

Jesus was a Jew. If we were to identify with his religion, then we'd have to identify as Jews. I don't think he intended to found a new religion, but he definitely was a mystic and pacifist.

 

I agree with p3. If we want to be Christian, we'd somehow have to identify with Jesus, this Jewish messiah and mystic pacifist who proclaimed a kingdom that  is not of this world but also connected with this world. I'd have no problem identifying myself as a follower of this mystic, and more particularly of mysticism in general.

 

Also, I would describe myself not as an agnostic but a Gnostic, a neo-Gnostic. Gnosis is experiential or mystical knowledge, derived not from adhering to a particular belief system but from mystical experience. In modern terms, I'd describe myself as a scientifically inclined mystic, similar to Carl Sagan. Like Elanorgold, my modern day spiritual hero is Carl Sagan. I'd say I am a spiritual humanist. And, because I adhere to no particular belief system, I might also describe myself as a secular humanist. If there were a UU congregation in our area, I'd probably join it. Short of that, I'm UCC. Also, I'd have no problem joining the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Any Christian denomination that does not demand absolute or literal belief in a particular creed or dogma would be fine with me, if they can accept my stance of mystical spirituality that is rooted in mystical experience and is beyond belief.

I recently came across the term "theurgy." While theology is the study of God, theurgy is the experience of God, or the universal divine.

 

According to the Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical tradition to which Jesus may have belonged, God is one, or the oneness of being. Rather than studying or believing in abstract definitions of God, theurgists seek to experience the oneness which is God. I'd have no problem describing myself as a theurgist.

 

 

Hi Bette,

 

I have long since stopped trying to figure out where I fall on the, as you put it, faith spectrum.  I wrestle now more with how I live it out.  Is faith about action or deep thought and discernment?  Is faith about taking care of others at the expense of yourself, concentrating on making your own body a temple, or a balance between the two?  Is faith more about charity or justice?
 

When it comes to what exactly I believe in, I usually just go with where the winds of God cast me.  (cue the hymn "I feel the winds of God today..".)

Hi Farren, good to talk to you again.

 

Yes, of course! In my definitions of mysticism and theurgy, I failed to point out that, while those are experiences of the divine, the important part of experiencing the divine is thinking and acting divinely.

 

 

 

 

 

Many may be gathered under one roof seeking shelter and Jesus would receive all, but the very core of His teaching was not a free for all of self determination but to remove us from the traditional ways and thinking created by man and introduce us to God's will. Christianity may be a shelter but it certainly is not a platform for self expression. Ask Eve.

Yes, n4p, this is good and fine, but how can we discern God's will if we don't seek a union with God? Doesn't the union with God free us from traditional thinking and enable us to subordinate our will to the will of God?

 

We don't know exactly what Jesus' teachings were. Jesus didn't write. Or, if he wrote, none of his original writings came down to us. What has come down to us in the scriptures is the opinion of others. Moreover, there are many writings about Jesus that didn't make it into the Bible, and could well reflect Jesus' original teachings more accurately than the canonical gospels.

 

But, as I said, the best way to discern the will of God seems to be the mystical union with God. Jesus, it seems, dipped from that wellspring. In addition to going by what others wrote about Jesus, we ourselves can dip from the divine wellspring and find out for ourselves.

 

 

Why be satisfied with  jugs of water from the well? Let us go to the river! 

-Rumi

 

Maybe the baptism by full immersion in the river Jordan is an analogy for bathing in the divine river?

 

 

 

I agree that a union with God is the goal... but not on our terms.

 

 

I personally prefer "theosophy", meaning God wisdom. But within theosophy the tenets of the experience of God are also important. Experience are the land marks in our lives that increase awareness.

I think one should follow their heart and be true to themselves. It's not always about sacrifice. The best kind of faith is faith in yourself, and that Everything is ok, when you look at the big picture. If you care and do your best, you cannot be faulted.

 

On the terms of God, then. Total submission to God, as in Islam. ("Islam" means "submission to God," and one who submits to God is a "Muslim")

 

I accept that, as long as it is not up to other people to judge whether or not I correctly submit to God, or whether or not my definition of God is correct..

 

As I understand Martin Luther, the whole point of his reformation was that the relationship between the individual and God is entirely a matter between those two. No intermediaries, judges or intercessors required.

 

Thanks Elanorgold. I'm not sure I agree with you re "sincerity" and "honesty" being the same thing, though I do like DH Lawrence's description of a "dishonest mind" as people living "counterfeit lives". That is a very accurate description.


Think of the following scenario that defines how sincerity and honesty can be viewed as separate.


If I were to donate money to a charity, then on the books it would show that I was truly honest in my declaration of the said donation. However, if I only donated the money because I needed to reduce my income so that I'd be placed in a lower tax bracket, therefore making more money than if I hadn't of donated, then I wouldn't be sincere in my declaration. In this way I could still be honest in my action, yet insincere in my motive.


Sincerity of spirit are the acts that come from the heart, whereas honesty of mind are the acts that come from our thoughts. They need to work together in concert, combined with a healthy and intelligent application of detachment to work correctly. All three principals need to be applied in order to move forward in our evolution.


I know that many here are probably tired of hearing me "prattle on" about the same thing, over and over again. But applying these basic "principals of right living" are the keys to our spiritual advancement. And it is not easy!


“Mind, spirit and body are the temples of the Lord which man inhabits,”, says Maitreya. They represent our thoughts, our words and our deeds through which we must take responsibility.


PS, I took the quiz and received the flowing result:

Your top match for Spiritual Belief System Selector is:
Mahayana Buddhism

Guess I'm not too surprised.


Cheers.

Arminius said:  "the relationship between the individual and God is entirely a matter between those two",....

Exactly, we are all on our own god trip, even those in rebelion to Him. But do we follow the tradition of mankind and make Him in our image or do we recreate ourselves in His.

 

(Image - ( tselem) in the shadow of  eg. made in God's image (made in the shadow of God) )

I think that's wonderful.

Totally agree.


"This above all: to thine own self be true."
- Shakespeare

 

I think we already are, and were created in, the image of our ultimate creator. Everyone already is a divine creator. All we have to do is become aware of this, and live up to it.

 

Everyone is a unique edition of the Divine, and the Divine expresses ITself uniquely in and through every one of us. All we have to do is let IT express ITself! Open ourselves to the flow of the creative spirit, let IT flow into us and through us and express ITself through our individual uniqueness.

 

I think this is what Elanorgold meant by "being yourself and following your heart."

Arm, where does the rest of creation fit in here? Are only humans a unique edition of the Divine? If not, then "be yourself and follow your heart" has a subtlely different inference, because, IMHO, most/all other animals naturally "be themselves and follow their hearts".

I was about to say something similar,but I'm glad that Bette posted first.

 

Arm, as soon as you introduce a "creator", you introduce the idiocy of religion into the equation. I didn't think that was what Bette had in mind, and I'm glad to see it was not.

Well, BetteThe Red, I think and feel that all of reality is divine, that we are and live in a divine universe, but only we humans, as far as we know, have the capacity to be consciously aware of this, and live up to and express our divine awareness creatively.

 

The rest of nature is, of course, just itself and follows its heart. But it is not aware of its creativeness and can't do so creatively.

 

Elanorgold is an accomplished artist and follows her creative heart.

Hi chansen:

 

When I say "creator," I don't mean a supernatural ghost that created the universe but the creative power or force that set the universe in motion and keeps it in motion. I think this force is an integral part of the universe, and I regard the universe as self-creative.

 

I am a Christian, Protestant, Moderate Calvinist, Evangelical, and Baptist.

I disagree Chansen, the term "creator" is a only step away from the word "creation", which is term that both science and religion agree on. Whether or not the Big Bang came into existence as a one time thing, or whether our Big Bang is just one of millions of Big Bangs that have occurred in the past, it doesn't matter. It all comes down to the possibility that Energy, (and I capitalize this word out of scientific respect for it's magnitude), came out of the Big Bang and could very well have had a Source*.


Theoretical cosmologists, including Einstein, used to think that since "time" itself was created at the creation of matter then it seemed plausible that nothing existed before the big bang. How could it precede the creation of time and space? "Case closed? Far from it.", says one Robert Lamb from HowStuffWorks. "This is one cosmological quandary that won't stay dead". I agree. Since Einstein we've had the introduction of quantum physics. Suddenly the idea that there could be countless Universes, each bubbling out of existing Universes seems very plausible. Think of the Universe as a single, gigantic Electron and then apply that what we know about quantum physics. Note, however, that the last statement, #5, may not apply to the very, very big.


For reference, these are 5 definitions of Quantum Physics:


1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.


2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.


3. The movement of these particles is inherently random.


4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.


5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.


So my point is that there likely "is" a Source to the creation, one could easily be called, for lack of anything better, a Creator or God or WhatEverYouLike. Religions are not "automatically introduced" or even needed in this equation. In fact religions would probably mess it all up anyways since they are traditionally been very emotionally based, not standing up well to reason.




* The Hindus poetically anthropomorphize this "Source" as the One Hundred years of BRAHMA, an event that lasts some 300 odd billion years, (not sure of this value but it was a very big number like this).
Within each Day of Brahma and Year of Brahma and Life of Brahma there are periods called "Pralayas", which are periods of non-activity that are followed by periods of activity, which they call "Manvantaras". These are cycles of the night and days of time itself. Life and death forever dancing against the backdrop of time and space. Again, this a poetic view that you may not appreciate.

It's a big step.

 

Thanks for the link, Elanor!  I got:

Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (100%)

chansen,

 

Not such a big step, really.

 

Unless you support creato ex nihilo? Who woulda guessed?

 

IMO Most folks like yourself would say the created needs a creator or an act of creation. It may be a big bang, primordial mud... you name it... but something out of nothing?

 

I cannot accept creatio ex nihilo. You?

 

Not such a big step really that created needs creator or act of creation...

 

According to the link Elanorgold provided I test positively orthodox quaker.

 

In a few more years I can formally petition to be the dude on the cereal box I guess.

It was in Einstein's day, that step is getting shorter now.


Your problem, (don't you aways hate sentences that start that way), your problem is that you keep relating the "religious right" with concepts that they in fact have very little knowledge of. Religions don't own the concept of God, they only own their dogmatic interpretations thereof .

 

Whereas I, surprise, got UU first and Secular Humanism second. Third were the Quakers (in which I am interested but I've never really looked into them too deeply) and fourth was Taoism (which is my favorite Eastern philosophy/religion).

 

Mendalla

 

I did it, and got UU first, Liberal Quaker 2nd, secular humanist 3rd, the rest way off.

 

100% Secular humanist

 

87% Non-theist

 

Surprise!

Does that make you a 13% theist?

On the selectsmart quiz I got "Mainline - Consewrvative Christan Protestant (100%)."

I'm not sure, but it makes sense, as I'm sure I can find 13% of me that I don't especially like.

I just took the quiz:

 

Taoism 100%

 

No surprise!

 

Liberal Quaker, UUism, and Mahayana Buddhism in the eighties, New Age in the seventies. The rest way under 50% or not at all.

 

 

Creator (with a small c) is the opposite of created. The two are diametric opposites that complement each other, neccessitate each other, prove each other truthful, and, ultimately, constitute one indivisible whole.

 

Ah, there speaks the Taoist in me.

 

Hi BetteTheRed:

I do believe their are certain beliefs which are core to the Christian faith.
I also believe that without the possibility of the miraculous, Christianity as a religion is false and Christ himself a liar.

If we consider the person of Christ, tradition has it that his life is surrounded and defined by the miraculous, from start to finish. He entered this world being born of a virgin. After his crucifxion, he rose from the dead, as he predicted, so that his self-proclaimed work of dying for the sins of all humanity would be validated. Otherwise, as the apostle Paul admits, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." Indeed, without the resurrection, we know how seriously to take most other claims of this religion.

For our post-Enlightenment minds, these events seem impossible, and will even invoke ridicule. Which is one reason which makes Christianity so unique, and therefore intriguing and appealing to me as a belief system.

Without certain core beliefs, there is no way to differentiate particular belief systems, as well as their followers, from others.

Not sure how to answer the 'continuum' question though because there seems to be at least two at play here...a theism-atheism continuum, and a "how Christian" are your beliefs continuum...

Except, of course, this belief.

 

No, Geo, not even this belief!

 

Language, to me, is metaphorical. What is real and true to me, and defines my faith, is spiritual experience. My interpretation of that experience, however, is metaphorical and subject to change.

 

I would say that mysticism is essentially non-sectarian. Mystics of different belief systems speak the same language, and often get along better with each other than with the dogmatic fellow members of their own religion.

 

Well at least you are trying to be consistent

Of course, it is impossible to live in such a way that everything is relative. Even you, with your 'metaphorical' language are bound by its rules in order to communicate these ideas!

 

Yes, Geo, of course.

Okay this was a surprise to me but Mahayana Buddhism was at the top for me. Also high up on the list was Quaker- I can see that, but not sure what it has very in common with Buddhism. As was Hindu which I know little about. My respect for Gandhi comes more from what I know about how he lived than what I know about his belief system. Maybe it came up because I am open to the idea of reincarnation in the sense that if we are born once, and can be born again and live eternally- why not again and again and again? We just aren't consciously aware of the occurance of being born ( or concieved) in the first place- and because scientifically, energy never dies- what if it's all referring to the same thing in a different way? I don't know that it isn't. I don't know that this isn't my 100th lifetime. So this is the one I am presently aware of doing my best ( or not) with. Then I was also high scoring as UU. No big surprise. I tended not to answer positively on the dogmatically worded questions. I cannot settle on one dogmatic position that makes sense in every possible way and absolutely excludes all others. Mainline Protestant was quite far down, lower middle of the list. So can I still be UCC?

I think it has to do with how I conceptualize God and how I believe in a non- literal non-dogmatic way. I do believe Jesus was/ is the Son of God. How I believe it is different perhaps from how others do. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life- noone comes to the Father but through me." And "you must be born again..." i am not convinced that the organizers of religion always got the interpretation right- or at least their interpretations fit their time and place maybe but the interpretations change and evolve. this is the only life I am consciously aware of but that doesn't mean that eternal life and reincarnation are incompatible. This is just the only chance I know about now. What happens after I pass from this life I don't know.