Do you believe what you claim to believe?

[devolved]

I guess the question if two-fold:

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

 

[Hieronymus]

You have a peculiar view on the matter...
Ever heard of "Seek truth and find peace"?
So we should seek truth.
Unless lies work fine for you (as in us), then there is no reason to seek truth.
Life is strange, isn't it?

 

[devolved]

You have a peculiar view on the matter...
Ever heard of "Seek truth and find peace"?
So we should seek truth.
Unless lies work fine for you (as in us), then there is no reason to seek truth.
Life is strange, isn't it?

Doesn't actually answer the question, but ok. Thank you for participating, I guess .

 

[Soyeong]

I guess the question if two-fold:

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

Religion can be wholesale in regard to someone who accepts everything in a holy book as true, but just because they agree that it is true does not necessarily mean that they agree wholesale about what it says. Usually it's not about picking or choosing, but rather it is a matter of interpreting it differently.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

Labels are useful insofar as they give information about what we believe, not usually where we believe a number of things because we have accepted a label.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

This is an extremely odd for you to think this is how we approach our belief systems.

Question #1:

Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

People who share certain beliefs or interpretations tend to group together, so we join a group because of personal beliefs, not the other way around.

Question #1:

If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

It's a matter of interpretation.

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

Usually there comes a times in everyone's life who grows up in a particular religion where it becomes more their religion than their parent's religion, where they reexamine what they believe and why they believe it, but just because someone holds a belief out of mostly peer pressure doesn't mean that they don't really believe it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Doesn't actually answer the question, but ok. Thank you for participating, I guess .

Well, seeking truth is what we all have to do ourselves i.m.o.
But believing something doesn't necessarily require seeking.
You can be told stuff by others who convince you.
But the pursuit of happiness is not the same as the pursuit of truth.
And by default we seek happiness, because it feels good, give hope and edifies.

...i guess i still didn't answer your question...

 

[devolved]

This is an extremely odd for you to think this is how we approach our belief systems.

I don't think it's that surprising. When one talks about "Catholics", there tends to be the general set of "wholesale beliefs" that would be identifying as "Catholic". It would apply to the broader labels such as Christianity or Islam.

People who share certain beliefs or interpretations tend to group together, so we join a group because of personal beliefs, not the other way around.

That's seldom an issue. Generally it's an issue of cultural and geographic adherence and availability. For example, I'd love to find a church that:

1) Doesn't revolve around literal interpretation of Biblical narrative
2) That does emphasize certain benefitial aspects of Christian religion as cultural narrative (like concept of Sabbath, traditional family, diet and health etc)
3) That doesn't emphasize afterlife over this one... etc

But, generally one is left with some traditional options that are far from one's personal views. The faith dynamic tends to be of the integrating and not co-existing varieties. Generally there tends to be a push towards conforming.

Usually there comes a times in everyone's life who grows up in a particular religion where it becomes more their religion than their parent's religion, where they reexamine what they believe and why they believe it, but just because someone holds a belief out of mostly peer pressure doesn't mean that they don't really believe it.

Actually, it does mean that they don't really believe it, but rather wear it as a fad to be accepted in some cultural context.

 

[devolved]

Well, seeking truth is what we all have to do ourselves i.m.o.
But believing something doesn't necessarily require seeking.
You can be told stuff by others who convince you.
But the pursuit of happiness is not the same as the pursuit of truth.
And by default we seek happiness, because it feels good, give hope and edifies.

No, you still didn't answer the question .

I don't think that "seeking truth" and "seeking happiness" are necessarily divergent concepts, especially in people who are mature-enough to understand that we won't be happy all the time and that this life brings a whole spectrum of human emotional and mental experiences.

Please re-read the OP .

 

[Albion]

That's seldom an issue. Generally it's an issue of cultural and geographic adherence and availability. For example, I'd love to find a church that:
1) Doesn't revolve around literal interpretation of Biblical narrative
2) That does emphasize certain benefitial aspects of Christian religion as cultural narrative (like concept of Sabbath, traditional family, diet and health etc)
3) That doesn't emphasize afterlife over this one... etc

But, generally one is left with some traditional options that are far from one's personal views.

But IF that (above) is the church you want, it is available. So, I'm inclined to agree with Soyeong's thinking about this. After all is said and done, and we make allowances for family tradition, ethnicity, and so on, it is possible to find among the various denominations just about whatever it is that fits your profile. Of course, not everyone cares about doing that and simply wants the church that is nearest by or has the best children's programs or something else like this.

 

[Hieronymus]

Alright, i'll address the OP:

I guess the question if two-fold:

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

I think they do though.
Nobody forces Christians to subscribe to certain denominational doctrines or creeds.
But they all have the Bible to base their beliefs on / derive their beliefs from.
Sure, there can be peer pressure, but a better example of a religion that tells you what to believe "or else" is Islam.
Christians have many denominations to choose from, or be non-denominational, or be strictly Biblical or not.
They can renounce it too, if they want (or loose faith, etc..)

None the less, sure, i think most people want to be and stay a part of their community and or traditions and or culture.
Pride comes into play also.
But this is also true for humanism or modern thinkers etcetera.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

True, it's usually a package deal of some sorts.
But it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't in most cases.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

I don't think there are isolated Bible verses.
They're part of the package that is the Bible.
You will have to believe the Bible to subscribe to it.

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

It's about truth.
So it's about evidence.
That is, if you do not have a revelation of some sorts, which can happen also, but is more rare in our western culture.
But then still, or even more, you're probably gonna want to check it out, if it's supported by evidence and if it makes sense what was revealed (i mean supernaturally revelation).
Trustworthiness.
I mean, it's about the purpose of life, the reason of existence, of yourself and of the rest of the universe.
Life's biggest questions (i.m.o.)

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

Iḿ not sure what you're asking t.b.h.
You probably see 'religion' as man made institutions, where as i see religion as a set of beliefs and integrating them in your person or your life, your conduct, there are rules to follow or mindsets to make your own, such as repentance and putting your trust in it (in God).

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

You'll have to believe me when i tell you that i came to believe in the Bible and thus in God, in Jesus Christ and John 3:16 because i sought truth and followed the evidence.
I was brought up with secular agnostic humanistic culture.
Iḿ rather alone with my beliefs and i have found no church that is compatible with what i have found to be true, even the Truth.
In my country the Faith is rather dead, even on the forums.
So i joined here, on this American forum, because my English is usually good enough to discuss these things. (yet here this topic really stretches my vocabulary...)
And it seems the Faith is much more alive here than in the Netherlands (EU).

 

[devolved]

But IF that (above) is the church you want, it is available. So, I'm inclined to agree with Soyeong's thinking about this. After all is said and done, and we make allowances for family tradition, ethnicity, and so on, it is possible to find among the various denominations just about whatever it is that fits your profile. Of course, not everyone cares about doing that and simply wants the church that is nearest by or has the best children's programs or something else like this.

Well, even some of the most conservative churches would make "allowances" for people who would want to come and sit and listen to how they think the world should be . I doubt that would constitute "availability" of the ideal church in the context I'm talking about.

The general set-up of the church is not a community where a wide range of ideas is heard. It's generally a community with a pastor who is responsible for conforming the entire community to his theological mindset. They are not really interested in wider spectrum of ideas of their members.

 

[BadHabit]

In all honesty, no I don't actually believe what I claim to believe. I'm very much in a search for truth, and as I stand now I am having to take about 90% of what I claim to believe on faith, which very well could be misguided and in error.

You asked an honest question, so I give you an honest answer.

 

[SkyWriting]

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

Most do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

No person acts outside of what they believe.
Though they may not act as you wish them to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I guess the question if two-fold:

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

You hit the nail on the head.

This is exactly why I refuse to put labels on my forehead. I categorically refuse to identify with a political party, for example...
Every new election, I actually look at the programs of every party. And I'll find things I agree with and things I'll disagree with in every party. Wich gets my vote will be an exercise of balancing them all out. While there are off course "generalities" that will be more reflective of my overall stance on things, which for example will make sure that I'll know in advance that an extreme right wing party is not my cup of tea, I consider it senseless to simply "label" myself a "liberal" or "socialist" or what-have-you.

Because that indeed would imply that I apparantly agree with everything they say (and, by extension, disagree with everything the other parties say). Reality just doesn't work like that, if you have a mind of your own and don't let other people do the thinking for you.

For this reason alone, I could never be a theist, if being a theist entails that I have to agree with everything the religion in question states.

Every claim falls and stands on its own merrit. And it is entirely stupid to simply commit to the entire thing, simply for the reason that you happen to stick that label on your head.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, there can be peer pressure, but a better example of a religion that tells you what to believe "or else" is Islam.

That's only true for specific (fundamentalist) denominations in Islam.
Also, christianity says the exact same thing... "believe, or else...hell"

Christians have many denominations to choose from, or be non-denominational, or be strictly Biblical or not.

Islam has denominations as well.

But it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't in most cases.I don't think there are isolated Bible verses.

The opposite is true. The very fact that it is a "package deal", at least to an extent, is what is irrational about it.

Every claim stands or falls on their own merrit.

They're part of the package that is the Bible.
You will have to believe the Bible to subscribe to it.

Exactly. Which is not sensible.

It's about truth.

No, it's about "faith".

So it's about evidence.

No. If it were about evidence, you would have no need for "faith".

That is, if you do not have a revelation of some sorts, which can happen also, but is more rare in our western culture.

So, "revelation" trumps actual evidence?

But then still, or even more, you're probably gonna want to check it out, if it's supported by evidence and if it makes sense what was revealed (i mean supernaturally revelation).

Good luck with that.

Also, how do you tell the difference between:
- "supernatural" revelation
- hallucination
- dreams
- mere thinking

Trustworthiness.
I mean, it's about the purpose of life, the reason of existence, of yourself and of the rest of the universe.
Life's biggest questions (i.m.o.)

What makes you think that the answers to such questions are to be found in a bronze-aged text?

And it seems the Faith is much more alive here than in the Netherlands (EU).

Yeah. Europe is kinda awesome that way. ;-)

 

[Albion]

The general set-up of the church is not a community where a wide range of ideas is heard. It's generally a community with a pastor who is responsible for conforming the entire community to his theological mindset. They are not really interested in wider spectrum of ideas of their members.

Yes, but there are plenty of denominations where a range of beliefs is tolerated and readily accepted. As for the pastor or the denomination itself, I don't see how we can fault them for taking a stand.

If the congregants/parishioners are not required to conform, then they're not, in fact, being forced into some mold. But when it comes to the pastor himself having convictions, we can't expect the sermon to be like the old joke in which the preacher teaches from the Gospel for a half hour and then says "And now, to be fair, I'll give you the Devil's side of things."

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Resha Caner]

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties.

Maybe some do resemble political parties, but not all. It's a good question, but doesn't really represent the Lutheran church.

If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

People are flawed. If you just change your beliefs to match a posteriori what you've done, it's not much of a belief system. If the bar is so low that you always suceed, you haven't really challenged yourself - don't know what your limits & potential are - probably aren't doing much good.

Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

There is a mix of ideas here: religion, belief, community, etc. But, no, in general I would not agree individualism is a better idea. I think you're going to have to ask a question about purpose, though, before I can elaborate much more. What is the purpose of the religious group? To seek truth? To build community? To worship God? To live a fulfilling life? The answers might vary based on that.

 

[devolved]

No person acts outside of what they believe.
Though they may not act as you wish them to.

Which is why I've differentiated beliefs from claims of beliefs. I'm talking about claims, since no one really knows for sure what any given person believes.

 

[devolved]

Yes, but there are plenty of denominations where a range of beliefs is tolerated and readily accepted. As for the pastor or the denomination itself, I don't see how we can fault them for taking a stand.

If the congregants/parishioners are not required to conform, then they're not, in fact, being forced into some mold. But when it comes to the pastor himself having convictions, we can't expect the sermon to be like the old joke in which the preacher teaches from the Gospel for a half hour and then says "And now, to be fair, I'll give you the Devil's side of things."

Again, the point is a bit off-base, mainly because how people engage in any given community. The general structure of modern church is that of passive engagement in terms of distinct views and ideas. There is no special push to hear or present varying ideas and thoughts.

Thus, leadership is very much to blame for keeping the church "close-minded" when it comes to the presentation of the ideas. Neither the structure of the church itself set up to give a wide variety of ideas a voice, because it's generally a one-man show sandwiched in between a concert.

No, the people with varying views are not required to conform, but they are generally not given a platform to voice these views, and thus they have no choice but to sit and incest, or go home. Even in the small-group setting that tends to be the predominant dynamic, because generally the churches are interested in set dogma that they already decided as "the truth" as opposed to varying views that may invalidate and deconstruct the establishment.