Do you have to believe in "god/s"?

[old man emu]

Having been fortunate to have read the wise words herein regarding the pros and cons of atheism and agnosticism I asked myself, "Do you have to believe in the depiction of the god or gods of a particular religion to be considered a follower of its basic philosophy?"

 

Consider Christianity, or the "following of the words of Christ". If you discarded all the post mortem benefits, could you adhere to the life-style philosophy and still call yourself a Follower of Christ?

 

The post mortem benefits cannot be proven, but it is hard to deny that the life-style philosophy attributed to Christ is one which promotes the idea of doing no wrong to others and thus promotes peaceful co-existence.

 

Is a person any less of a Christian if they try to do no wrong, but remain uncertain or dismissive of anything to do with an after life?

 

The same or similar can be asked by followers of any other life-style based on a non-human influences.

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

You may have won the lottery but taking the prize is not compulsory, surely? I would be interested in meeting people who do no wrong, but even the "book" says ALL fail and fall short etc. but then the solution is available . If you BELIEVE I am the Son of God, then by me you can go to heaven. Some of the saying's are indeed commendable recommendations for a good society. Whether that is what makes you a Christian, or you wish to regard yourself as one, I leave you to judge. Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

I might be wrong, but I seem to remember the bible saying that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

 

It sounds like a closed membership club. Does it mean that millions of good people who may be Buddhists, Hindus, Pastafarians or whatever, are told to piss off at the Pearly Gates, while an individual who may be a complete a***hole is allowed in because he goes to the right church and claps a lot.

 

A crock of shite, if you ask me. I think what happens is that if you pray, have religious beliefs etc., it releases good endorphins that delude us into thinking it's real. I guess I'd change my mind if some dead person came back and gave me the drum about how it's all fair dinkum. I'll just have to wait and see.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[old man emu]

You guys have missed the point of my question.

 

"following of the words of Christ". If you discarded all the post mortem benefits, could you adhere to the life-style philosophy and still call yourself a Follower of Christ?

 

 

I specifically excluded taking into account any ideas of an afterlife. I'm talking about following a philosophy in a temporal world.

 

OME

 

 

[Marty_d]

Well, you could follow the "while you're alive" teachings of any philosopher, including Christ, without having to label yourself anything at all. The question would be, why would you feel the need for the label?

 

The thing is, he said some good stuff, but he also said some extremely silly stuff (some of which Nev mentions, the whole messiah complex thing). If you were going to call yourself a christian, wouldn't you have to follow the whole package?

 

Some of the good stuff is basically "treat other people how you'd like to be treated" - which I don't see as a christian trait, I see it as a basic altruistic good-citizen type trait which is hardwired into the genetic code of social animals. Other stuff like loving your neighbour and even your enemy (but not, apparently, your neighbour's wife) is again basically positive. Can't have too much love in the world.

 

 

[willedoo]

If you take away the after life benefit scheme, Christianity is no different from most religions or philosophies. Without the bait of heaven and the promise of life forever, it's just a code of conduct and plain human common sense.

 

So yes, I would think if you adhered to the code of conduct, you could consider yourself a follower of Christ, Budda or Joe Blow, depending on your preferred brand.

 

You don't have to consider yourself a follower of anything but common sense, manners, decency, and a bit of basic humanity to achieve the same result.

 

It could be Jesus or Fred Nurk from Caloundra; it would make no difference if you've got at least half a brain that can reason right from wrong. You don't need some mystic dude in a book to tell you that.

 

 

[Marty_d]

hahah... snap!

 

(But don't trust that Fred Nurk from Caloundra... he sneaks off to the loo when it's his shout.)

 

 

[willedoo]

Marty, it sounds like you've met Fred.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Except that the neighbourhood is limited, loving stops at a boundary. Beyond that the Christians and every other religion can develop justifications for shooting and bombing the crap out of the fellow who lives a bit further away. You would need to incorporate that into your personal philosophy or you would be quickly eliminated.

 

 

[nomadpete]

The problem here is that we are all viewing the question through the paradigm of our present culture.

 

We have pretty much grown up with the common sense you describe.

 

There are plenty of examples of other tribes practicing and expecting behavior that we don't consider to be common sense. They just grew up with their system and accepted it.

 

For example we don't do many stonings around here, but some previous mobs expected it on a regular basis and thought it part of their common sense.

 

Neither system made us wear the label "christian", just because we practiced some of the behaviours that he presumably espoused. Besides, I practice some behaviours that are distinctly Buddhist. But that doesn't mean I'm a Buddhist christian.

 

 

[Bruce]

There is a story of a red indian tribe who embraced christianity to the point of loving their enemies. Apparently they got wiped out in the next tribal war.

 

 

[nomadpete]

The game is only fair when everyone plays by the same rules.

 

 

[facthunter]

People often do what they can get away with. It's a pity there's no afterlife cause I'd like some of those rotters to have eternal damnation, Hell fire and brimstone, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth all which they have earned. Time should wound all heels. The peacemakers should get their heavenly reward. BUT they won't. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

The peacemakers should get their heavenly reward. BUT they won't. Nev

Ah, but then you get your choice of heavenly reward. Which is it? The 72 virgins of the moslems? The fighting, feasting and fornicating of the Norsemen? The ascetic psalm-singing of the calvinists? The vague and somewhat fuzzy ideas of most christians?

 

Whatever it is, eternity seems mind-numbingly boring, or excruciatingly painful AND mind-numbingly boring, no matter which you choose.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well, it wouldn't be heavenly if some of the professing god botherers were there, would it? You would almost rather be in the other place to get away from them.. You would get to have a drink with Dave Allen and other "interesting " people. An aesthetic could be relaxing. Why does SEX always rear it's ugly head.? The church has always had a problem with it. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

you do not even recognize the path, let alone the discipline to keep on it..

I may not recognise your "path", Skid Mark, but I do recognise bullsh*t when I see it.

 

 

[octave]

I had mentioned previously (in another thread) that science and religions are saying the same thing, As both these entities and/or links do not require documented proof, would that be a parallel too hard to grasp. Yet only Octave acknowledged it and made subsequent query.

I suspect I am being misrepresented here. I don't believe I would ever suggest that science did not need proof. Could you post my quote?

 

I do find it difficult to see how your posting relates to the original question.

 

 

[facthunter]

OME you did use the word "Christianity". Isn't the essential concept that having fallen short of Gods standards repent and believe that Christ atoned for your sins by dying on the cross and your faith in HIM enables you (still a sinner) to go to heaven. I in no way imply my or your belief in this, but merely attempt to convey the meaning generally accepted of what Christianity is. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

OME,

 

You asked a question.

 

My answer is

 

" No"

 

 

[old man emu]

OME you did use the word "Christianity". Isn't the essential concept that having fallen short of Gods standards repent and believe that Christ atoned for your sins by dying on the cross and your faith in HIM enables you (still a sinner) to go to heaven. I in no way imply my or your belief in this, but merely attempt to convey the meaning generally accepted of what Christianity is. Nev

Actually, I used the word 'Christian' as an example of one of the many philosophies that one can live by.

 

The crux of my question is: Can you call yourself a follower of a type of philosophy that incorporates spiritual beings (god/s) yet at the same time reject the existence of such spiritual beings?

 

Can you accept the philosophical basis of a religion, but be an atheist at the same time?

 

OME

 

 

[Marty_d]

Actually, I used the word 'Christian' as an example of one of the many philosophies that one can live by.

The crux of my question is: Can you call yourself a follower of a type of philosophy that incorporates spiritual beings (god/s) yet at the same time reject the existence of such spiritual beings?

 

Can you accept the philosophical basis of a religion, but be an atheist at the same time?

 

OME

Well, apparently 10% of Anglican priests don't believe in god, so I guess you can.

 

 

[Bruce]

The figure would be far greater than ten percent. That was the extreme-honest ones.

 

The popemobile provided proof, at least to me, that nearly all popes were secretly atheist. If not, they would have trusted the omnipotent spirits to protect them or chosen to accept it if the spirits wanted them in heaven sooner.

 

As well as the trinity, there is a host of angels like Gabriel on the job.

 

 

[nomadpete]

My "no" is because every philosophy has elements that are the same as ones found in other competing philosophies/religions. None of the above seem to give credit for concepts borrowed from predecessors.

 

It would cause confusion if they did. How, for example, would 'christians' acknowledge the pagan origins of Xmas?

 

They conveniently ignore the origins of many bits of their faith documentation that would have come from other mobs that they collectively don't wish to be associated with.

 

I'm not particularly against any one group doing this. It's done by all groups, even political parties. I just don't think it is necessary to label oneself just because some of my philosophies align with those espoused by some other group.

 

I pretty much live by the same standards as most who call themselves christians, but that (in my opinion) doesn't make me a christian. I call my behavioral goals 'fairness and integrity'

 

 

[Marty_d]

Every part of christianity is borrowed from older fables. Virgin birth, death & resurrection, the flood, etc etc... and as you say Xmas & Easter - none of it is original.

 

The funny thing is, christianity, islam & judaism call themselves the "great Abrahamic faiths". Abraham being, of course, the bloke who heard voices telling him to slaughter his own son and almost did so.

 

These days, if a wild-eyed "prophet" had his son laid out on the kitchen table with a knife at his throat, he'd rightly cop multiple 9mm rounds or at the very least a lengthy stop in the looney bin.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes but we have come so far from those days with our extra knowledge and understanding we aren't fooled so easy, and likely to just simply believe what the interpreters of God's word choose to tell us. NOT!

 

I don't think saying that some of the ideas of certain religions have good social value, morals and merit, is a problem, but it's equally true there are some very morally wrong and barbaric suggestions/directives in many of them too.

 

The "IF you don't buy OUR BRAND you are going to hell and we will kill you as well," seems decidedly unfriendly and discriminatory and slightly unfair .

 

Convert or DIE is far from a free choice and in any agreement would be invalid, as you signed under duress, (in a CIVILISED society). Nev