Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

Would you describe Buddhism and Hinduism as coming from a fundamentally different root than Judaism, Islam and Christianity, enough for it to be less odd to identify their separate their behavior? Would you say Jainism and Zoroastrianism come from different roots, or not? Would it be quite reasonable to identify certain religions as being totally unrelated to any other? What would be the criterion for doing that?

Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the exact same God for starters. And the later religions still recognise the holy texts of the earlier ones, it's just different interpretations of importance. There's a legitimate thread of inheritance through the Abrahamic religions, whereas there's no connection between say, Buddhism and Christianity. Other than "both are religions".

I think you're just looking for an argument. You're more than well educated enough on this topic to know about the history of religion.

 

[Grippy]

Two years can change a person. I change my vote to no.

 

[Dotini]

Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the exact same God for starters. And the later religions still recognise the holy texts of the earlier ones, it's just different interpretations of importance. There's a legitimate thread of inheritance through the Abrahamic religions, whereas there's no connection between say, Buddhism and Christianity. Other than "both are religions".

I think you're just looking for an argument. You're more than well educated enough on this topic to know about the history of religion.

Actually I'm asking at least myself if all religions don't have a common root(s), and if we may be able to identify that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually I'm asking at least myself if all religions don't have a common root(s), and if we may be able to identify that.

If you use common to mean "word of mouth" then it's impossible to say how far back the spread goes of particular fantasy personifications or similar legends. If you want to pick a religion that's clearly not related to any other then you could choose Scientology, although that's not a religion in most parts of the world and is only classified as one in the USA for tax purposes. Buddhism isn't a religion either and focusses on the self rather than on the machinations of the Earth or heavens.

Other than that religions as we understand them deify the most obvious mechanisms of life on Earth; the sun, the moon, water, fire. The Abrahamic religions (I am the light of the world) are very obvious personifications of sun worship and seemingly pervert far older legends/explanations into new themes. How far back the original legends/explanations were shared by travellers is, as I said, impossible to determine.

 

[Dotini]

If you use common to mean "word of mouth" then it's impossible to say how far back the spread goes of particular fantasy personifications or similar legends. If you want to pick a religion that's clearly not related to any other then you could choose Scientology, although that's not a religion in most parts of the world and is only classified as one in the USA for tax purposes. Buddhism isn't a religion either and focusses on the self rather than on the machinations of the Earth or heavens.

Other than that religions as we understand them deify the most obvious mechanisms of life on Earth; the sun, the moon, water, fire. The Abrahamic religions (I am the light of the world) are very obvious personifications of sun worship and seemingly pervert far older legends/explanations into new themes. How far back the original legends/explanations were shared by travellers is, as I said, impossible to determine.

Ignoring errant cults like Scientology, I think there may be a common root to all religions, including Buddhism. I conjecture it as the requirement (or need) for the integration (or reconciliation) of the self (or individual) with all their insecurities, fears and experiences, with ultimate undivided reality.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think there may be a common root to all religions, including Buddhism.

Buddhism isn't a religion in any ordinary definition of the word specifically because it lacks a/any god/s.

I conjecture it as the requirement (or need) for the integration (or reconciliation) of the self (or individual) with all their insecurities, fears and experiences, with ultimate undivided reality.

That's really venturing into a history of self-awareness that goes beyond the more obvious explanation that religion, or the belief in the existence and acts of all-powerful unseen being, is a mechanism for simply explaining the Why? of our external world.

The need to ingratiate oneself with a personification is, in my opinion, an understandable secondary social reaction. We're (normally) driven to make friends and create favour before we're driven to destroy and steal, whether those social connections are with fellow humans, other species or unseen godheads.

 

[Dotini]

Buddhism isn't a religion in any ordinary definition of the word specifically because it lacks a/any god/s.



That's really venturing into a history of self-awareness that goes beyond the more obvious explanation that religion, or the belief in the existence and acts of all-powerful unseen being, is a mechanism for simply explaining the Why? of our external world.

The need to ingratiate oneself with a personification is, in my opinion, an understandable secondary social reaction. We're (normally) driven to make friends and create favour before we're driven to destroy and steal, whether those social connections are with fellow humans, other species or unseen godheads.

Okay, never mind, then. I failed by a very large margin to make my point understood and clear, and it's not worth pursuing. Let's get back to something understandable, like religion is becoming unnecessary and obsolete because of evolution, technology and science.

 

[UKMikey]

Let's get back to something understandable, like religion is becoming unnecessary and obsolete because of evolution, technology and science.

Speaking as an athiest I wonder what evolution, technology and science are doing to aid social cohesion and I hope the answer isn't social media. I don't think some people will ever evolve out of the need for some kind of spritualism unless we were to try and aggressively breed it out of the human race and maybe not even then.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't think some people will ever evolve out of the need for some kind of spritualism unless we were to try and aggressively breed it out of the human race and maybe not even then.

Agreed. But we should be clear about not confusing spiritualism with religion. Shoes in the walls, anyone? My grandma placed "witch bottles" under the front and back steps of the house that she moved to in the early 80s, but she did live in sight of Pendle.

 

[UKMikey]

Agreed. But we should be clear about not confusing spiritualism with religion. Shoes in the walls, anyone? My grandma placed "witch bottles" under the front and back steps of the house that she moved to in the early 80s, but she did live in sight of Pendle.

I would venture that from an objective scientific point of view this isn't very far from not eating meat on Fridays but maybe we could say "attending to one's spiritual needs" if we have to group them together.

 

[Dotini]

What, exactly, are "spiritual needs"? How would these, if any, be identified, elaborated, quantified and satisfied?

Perhaps wine, beer and distilled spirits are enough? Add in TV, Facebook and dough-re-mi, and you have the package.

 

[UKMikey]

What, exactly, are "spiritual needs"? How would these, if any, be identified, elaborated, quantified and satisfied?

They can't be quantified as far as I know.

As for identification, it's a bit late in the day to be asking the question on a 710-page religious thread but I imagine they're what one has when say a close family member dies or contracts a serious illness causing one to look skywards and ask "why?". I'd suggest asking your local rabbi, imam, priest or vicar if you require someone to attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.

Perhaps wine, beer and distilled spirits are enough?

Works for me!

 

[Dotini]

They can't be quantified as far as I know.

As for identification, it's a bit late in the day to be asking the question on a 710-page religious thread but I imagine they're what one has when say a close family member dies or contracts a serious illness causing one to look skywards and ask "why?". I'd suggest asking your local rabbi, imam, priest or vicar if you want someone to quantify the unquantifiable.

Thanks for passing the buck and non-answer in your really poor reply. You have no business bring up spiritual needs if you have no idea what they are.

 

[UKMikey]

Thanks for passing the buck and non-answer in your really poor reply. You have no business bring up spiritual needs if you have no idea what they are.

Thanks for your unnecessarily hostile answer. Does anyone know what God is? And yet here we are passing the buck and non-answering the question of belief over seven hundred pages.

Here, let me google it for you:

http://www.netofcare.org/content/your_needs/spiritual_needs.asp

When something like illness happens to you or someone you love, there is a need to make sense of the situation. In this search for understanding, you may find yourself asking and wanting to know "Why?" "Why has God done this to someone I love?"... "Why am I being punished like this?"... "What did the patient or I do to deserve this?" Often, there is no reason or logical explanation. Rather than spending your energy trying to understand why bad things happen, it may help to focus on trying to accept the situation, cope with it, and allow yourself to learn and grow from it. Whether you are religious or not, you may be able to find faith in your existing beliefs about life and God. Use any spiritual distress you feel to find meaning in the situation. Looking at the situation as offering you the opportunity for personal growth may be of some comfort.

If anyone other than @Dotini has a term we could use which covers both religion and spiritualism without causing people to get bent out of shape I'd welcome it.

 

[Dotini]

If anyone other than @Dotini has a term we could use which covers both religion and spiritualism without causing people to get bent out of shape I'd welcome it.

I conjecture it as the requirement (or need) for the integration (or reconciliation) of the self (or individual) with all their insecurities, fears and experiences, with ultimate undivided reality.

 

[Famine]

What, exactly, are "spiritual needs"? How would these, if any, be identified, elaborated, quantified and satisfied?

Park life.

Perhaps wine, beer and distilled spirits are enough? Add in TV, Facebook and dough-re-mi, and you have the package.

Park life.

 

[UKMikey]

Park life.

 

[Lord Protector]

Two years can change a person. I change my vote to no.

He does mysterious things. What happened?

 

[TenEightyOne]

He does mysterious things. What happened?

The hammer of the Gods Mods came down upon him.

 

[TheGeologist]

Lewis Hamilton has been making me think of the concept of God lately after making this post on Instagram.

I find the idea of thanking "God" for winning a sporting event to be incredibly selfish. By thanking God for the win, you're essentially saying you're better than others in his eyes. All I can hear when I read this is "Sorry Ferrari, but God loves me more".

I can't believe some would think that a diety would actually get involved with sports. Lewis, you didn't win because "you're more religious than another driver" or something silly like that. Give credit where credit is due: to yourself, your team, etc.

 

[Danoff]

Lewis Hamilton has been making me think of the concept of God lately after making this post on Instagram.

View attachment 763621

I find the idea of thanking "God" for winning a sporting event to be incredibly selfish. By thanking God for the win, you're essentially saying you're better than others in his eyes. All I can hear when I read this is "Sorry Ferrari, but God loves me more".

I can't believe some would think that a diety would actually get involved with sports. Lewis, you didn't win because "you're more religious than another driver" or something silly like that. Give credit where credit is due: to yourself, your team, etc.

It's a common feature in American Football. You'll even see people praising god for touchdowns during the same game from opposing teams. Both teams thanking god for allowing them to score on the other team.

This was very perplexing to me for a long time, but eventually I realized that what they're actually doing is praising god for their success in life. The pious person is not supposed to take personal credit for their achievements, so instead, the moment they have achieved a measure of success (while the cameras are still on preferably, so that everyone can witness their display), they give credit where they think credit is due, to God.

Think of it this way, they're saying "I have been blessed by God with the opportunity to score this touchdown/win this race".

 

[Touring Mars]

It's a common feature in American Football. You'll even see people praising god for touchdowns during the same game from opposing teams. Both teams thanking god for allowing them to score on the other team.

This was very perplexing to me for a long time, but eventually I realized that what they're actually doing is praising god for their success in life. The pious person is not supposed to take personal credit for their achievements, so instead, the moment they have achieved a measure of success (while the cameras are still on preferably, so that everyone can witness their display), they give credit where they think credit is due, to God.

Think of it this way, they're saying "I have been blessed by God with the opportunity to score this touchdown/win this race".

I recall watching a game in the '94 World Cup (Saudi Arabia v Morocco) where most of the players could be seen praying just before the game started, and I remember thinking to myself that at least one lot are going to be disappointed, unless they both prayed for a draw (and who does that except for gamblers and Scottish footballers who are about to play Brazil...). It didn't occur to me that they were most likely not praying for a good result but rather giving thanks etc. for even being able to play in that game.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Lewis Hamilton has been making me think of the concept of God lately after making this post on Instagram.

View attachment 763621

I find the idea of thanking "God" for winning a sporting event to be incredibly selfish. By thanking God for the win, you're essentially saying you're better than others in his eyes. All I can hear when I read this is "Sorry Ferrari, but God loves me more".

I can't believe some would think that a diety would actually get involved with sports. Lewis, you didn't win because "you're more religious than another driver" or something silly like that. Give credit where credit is due: to yourself, your team, etc.

I can't believe some would think that a deity would get involved with anything. If Hamilton was like Senna and made other drivers fear that his religious fervour gave him a sense of immortality then I'd agree (Senna strenuously denied that). As it is Hamilton does thank the team in addition to thanking god for helping him find the (undoubtable) strength that he needs to do the job he does. I'm sure you and I agree that we think god really has nothing to do with it but I hope we'd also agree that if that's how Hamilton finds his strength then that's up to him.

 

[TexRex]

It's a common feature in American Football. You'll even see people praising god for touchdowns during the same game from opposing teams. Both teams thanking god for allowing them to score on the other team.

This was very perplexing to me for a long time, but eventually I realized that what they're actually doing is praising god for their success in life. The pious person is not supposed to take personal credit for their achievements, so instead, the moment they have achieved a measure of success (while the cameras are still on preferably, so that everyone can witness their display), they give credit where they think credit is due, to God.

Think of it this way, they're saying "I have been blessed by God with the opportunity to score this touchdown/win this race".

Wow...it's not often that someone can explain something done for spiritual/religious reasons to the point that I understand them so completely.

Thank God for using you as a vessel to enable my understanding.



In all seriousness, that still doesn't explain why people are compelled to thank God for human intervention. Can't it have been because they took it upon themselves, motivated by pure goodness or mere sense of duty, to intervene and, say, pull you from a rushing river when you're sure to drown without such intervention?

Oh and thank you for that explanation.

 

[Liquid]

Let's not talk about Lewis Hamilton and his use of the G-word in Instagram posts. At the best of times he comes across as sanctimonious without even trying.

We've enough trouble as it is working out how each country he visits has "the best fans".

 

[PeterJB]

It's all part of his overpowering vanity, assuming all fans are there for him and that God favours him over the other nineteen drivers.

 

[DaigoD]

I find the idea of thanking "God" for winning a sporting event to be incredibly selfish. By thanking God for the win, you're essentially saying you're better than others in his eyes. All I can hear when I read this is "Sorry Ferrari, but God loves me more".

I can't believe some would think that a diety would actually get involved with sports. Lewis, you didn't win because "you're more religious than another driver" or something silly like that. Give credit where credit is due: to yourself, your team, etc.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Funny script but that guy's voice is hard work to listen to. Is he a well known standup in the US?

 

[TexRex]

Funny script but that guy's voice is hard work to listen to. Is he a well known standup in the US?

Actually, I think he's a butcher now.

Spoiler

On the off chance that the question wasn't sarcasm, it's Jim Parsons of Big Bang Theory.

 

[TenEightyOne]

On the off chance that the question wasn't sarcasm, it's Jim Parsons of Big Bang Theory.

It wasn't, Googled it, feel that I haven't found a gap in my knowledge that I'm keen to fill*

*Although it's interesting to find that the unfunny kid from Roseanne still isn't at all funny