Does any existing faith fit these criteria?

[Koldo]

"God comes running towards you", does not imply that God will cure you when you are sick, He might, but most of the time He does not cure. For me, this Divine connection is not about God taking care of my worldly troubles, though I appreciate it, if He does, but I don't demand it. For me, it's about the personal interaction with the Divine, that I enjoy. Gives an extra dimension to my life.

Then what does he do exactly?
I mean, if someone is asking for help because of a disease and he doesn't cure the disease when he comes along, how is he helping?

I have been quite sick for decades, but I normally do not ask God to cure "my stuff".

Once (ca. 25 years ago) the doctors told me "you are very sick, you probably will die soon"
I remembered that I heard Sai Baba once tell "God laughs when doctors tell a patient he will die; that is not up to them to tell; God decides".

So, I prayed to Sai Baba "doctors told me I probably die soon, I am fine with that, but if You don't want me to die, You better do something..fast". Next day I was cured.

Not knowing what disease you had, I can't even know whether it could go away on its own.

The intriguing part is that you didn't ask for help from God.
Best case scenario: Sai Baba has/had supernatural powers.

Still I have plenty diseases left. But I do not ask God to cure these. I did tell Him once mentally "I rather die than be in pain any longer". Pain was gone next day. It were not just words "I rather die", I stopped eating/drinking (I really came to the point "enough is enough"), and went into coma...then Sai Baba came, told me some things AND took the pain away.

Why didn't you ask God to cure these?
I mean, isn't that what that verse says?

But He did not cure my diseases. He did cure all the diseases I got, when I was with Him in India; which were quite a few. So He took full responsibility when He invited me to come to Him. But once He came in my dream and told me that soon there will be a malaria outbreak where I was, and I should go to Holland immediately, because my body was too weak and would not survive. When Sai Baba comes in a dream, it's reality (He says, and I know by experience now). So I took the first flight out. When I came back a few month later I heard that 30 westerners ended up in hospital with malaria.

I think it's a funny thing, that Atheist always have this argument that "God should cure them". I thought Atheist were more into taking their own responsibility. I believe that I should do "my stuff". I do not expect God to do it for me. Sai Baba did say "I will take your pain, until you are able to take it yourself". This is how I see it. God is good, but not crazy. IF I mess things up, I don't demand God to take care of it. But I am very grateful that God sometimes comes to my rescue when I mess up. I don't demand it. I see it as Grace.

I see it as putting your money where you mouth is.
If you are going to claim that God helps people who ask for aid, don't dance around the point like you are doing. You come along and now you say it is not like it suffices to ask for help. Come on, man.

 

[stvdv]

Then what does he do exactly?

IMO:
Doctors treat physical/mental diseases
God gives spiritual guidance

I mean, if someone is asking for help because of a disease and he doesn't cure the disease when he comes along, how is he helping?

God gives me the strength to bear the disease

Not knowing what disease you had, I can't even know whether it could go away on its own.

True, you don't know. But I know.

Why didn't you ask God to cure these?
I mean, isn't that what that verse says?

On the spiritual path you can choose the path of devotion, service or wisdom
Devotion is my path. Surrender is the key. Asking God to cure diseases is not surrender.

I see it as putting your money where you mouth is.
If you are going to claim that God helps people who ask for aid, don't dance around the point like you are doing. You come along and now you say it is not like it suffices to ask for help. Come on, man.

Google on Surrender as a spiritual Sadhana. Then you will understand.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...This was necessitated because splinter groups began to claim that they were the right church with all sorts of different books and different teachings...

Maybe. I don't know how confident you are about your statement, however I am skeptical about it.

Maybe at first everybody was fine with having different books and teachings and then some people started to insist otherwise and to claim there was something called orthodoxy.

 

[shunyadragon]

But who's vision? Dante? C. S. Lewis Great Divorce? Gary Larson's accordion filled place? Or are you looking forward to it as a "nice place to visit but I would not want to live there" kind of thing?

I prefer Mark Twain.

 

[Karolina]

Hello Karolina

You may want to read this post carefully.

Regarding the standard of morals you are looking for -- this post I have linked to may tell you that those like you who are interested in finding out what is authentic and moral - are taught to understand how to uphold 'dharma' i.e. right living -- from their side.
People do what they do, but what can you do, that will least hurt your spiritual evolution and at the same time help those around you do the same - without imposing dogma.

I wish you all the best in your quest. ​

Thanks. I'll check out the post this reference.

I am curious. How does that work? How would you get to learn about this religion you are looking for if not through books or through a human institution?

Excellent question. Thanks for the food for thought. I guess what's underlying those statements for me is the idea that someone takes it upon themselves to claim to speak for God, either by writing something, saying it is inspired by God, and calling it Scripture, or by interpreting what someone else wrote under the guise of inspiration. I guess it stems from my belief in universal and personal revelation, but not partial/group revelation that has given us Western scriptures.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm probably also not looking for Hinduism, due to the ethnic centrality.

This is because we did not try to evangelize. Only one part of us, the Hare-Krishnas do that vigorously (if they consider themselves Hindus. I have read that some Hare-Krishnas may not consider themselves to be Hindus). But people from all regions have come to us (though not many) on their own accord. We have clothes which fit all sizes.

 

[Karolina]

This is because we did not try to evangelize. Only one part of us, the Hare-Krishnas do that vigorously (if they consider themselves Hindus. I have read that some Hare-Krishnas may not consider themselves to be Hindus). But people from all regions have come to us (though not many) on their own accord. We have clothes which fit all sizes.

So.. . It doesn't fall in the cultural appropriation category? I once had a similar question regarding Native American spiritually and that's pretty much the response I got. I tried to "go back to my own roots" in pre-Christian Europe, but NeoPaganism didn't last for me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My first post was in response to one line in your first post. After that, I went back to other posts in the topic. If any form of Christianity satisfies you (as you said, Christian Deism), I would be happy about it. I am strong atheist believing in absolute non-duality (Advaita). If I can fit into Hinduism (and I do), then I believe every one can fit in Hinduism. I do think abortion is immoral and should be allowed in specific cases. India has a good law about it (flexible, because you can always approach the Supreme Court, and they would listen).
Abortion in India - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Taking religion quizzes isn't helping. I'm wondering if there's a faith tradition other that:
1. Acknowledges and worships the Creator
2. Has clear moral standards based on universal principles (including not supporting abortion-on-demand)
3. Is accessible universally, not depending on being literate (any faith based on a holy book as the source of truth), or going through a human institution (a learned representative of the faith who interprets the faith for everyone as a way to get around the literacy component)
4. Acknowledges eternal life (meaning being conscious of one's continued existence after death)
5. Isn't ethically-based (bc how does that help me if I wasn't born into that culture)

I think I'm looking for a needle in a haystack, but it might just be there, and if it is, I'm sure you fine folks can help me find it.

I am especially interested in eastern beliefs, as I think I've exhausted my study of Western religions. But I sense these are either atheistic or polytheistic. I know I probably just need to embrace focusing on my own personal spiritual practice and accept that it won't ever include a faith community that fits the above criteria.

I'm looking for suggestions other than Quaker or Unitarian/Universalist (to my knowledge they generally support abortion).

I'm pretty sure I'm looking for a non-Christian system of belief, since there's either a dependence on the Bible alone (which begs the question, how did Christianity spread before near universal literacy and the printing press) or on Bible and church tradition (which depends on the church hierarchy to interpret the Bible for everyone, literate and illiterate alike).

Similarly with Islam, since the Quran is central.

Similarly with Judaism, since the Torah is central. And while I know gentiles can convert, it's still ethno-centric with the idea of a chosen people.

I'm probably also not looking for Hinduism, due to the ethnic centrality.

I am not sure if Buddhism fits the bill or not, bc I've read that not all Buddhists are atheists, but I don't think there's much of a worship component even among those who believe in the Creator. And the idea of happiness being found in ceasing to exist doesn't sit well with me.

I'm not sure if Taoism might be what's left. Or Zoroastrianism. Or maybe Baha'i, but not sure.

Please don't respond at all if you are just going to tell me to believe whatever I want and not worry about finding a group that believes the same thing.

Please also don't respond if you're going to tell me I'm going to hell unless I join your preferred faith.

Thank you to anyone who has read this far! Blessings

I doubt if you will find a religion that ticks all the boxes for you and that you will need to compromise if you want to be part of a genuine faith community.

The Baha’i Faith believes in One Creator God, the eternal nature of the soul, isn’t an ethnocentric religion, rejects abortion on demand and has a strong moral framework.

All the best finding what you are looking for.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Acknowledges and worships the Creator OK
2. Has clear moral standards based on universal principles (including not supporting abortion-on-demand) OK
3. Is accessible universally, not depending on being literate (any faith based on a holy book as the source of truth), or going through a human institution (a learned representative of the faith who interprets the faith for everyone as a way to get around the literacy component): Internet
4. Acknowledges eternal life (meaning being conscious of one's continued existence after death). OK
5. Isn't ethically-based (bc how does that help me if I wasn't born into that culture)

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Acknowledges and worships the Creator
2. Has clear moral standards based on universal principles (including not supporting abortion-on-demand)
3. Is accessible universally, not depending on being literate (any faith based on a holy book as the source of truth), or going through a human institution (a learned representative of the faith who interprets the faith for everyone as a way to get around the literacy component)
4. Acknowledges eternal life (meaning being conscious of one's continued existence after death)
5. Isn't ethically-based (bc how does that help me if I wasn't born into that culture)

Going once again in the OP, Hinduism is OK with your points 1, 2, and 4.

About Point 3, the information is available on internet. We do not have any particular book to define Hinduism, but we have hundreds. They are all sort of suggestive. To accept or reject remains your prerogative. We do not have 'revealed literature', though some people do take Vedas and Gita as 'reveled literature'.
About point 5, Hinduism can be for all and any people, but accepting or rejecting it is a personal choice. Sure, you were not born in Hindu culture.

 

[Shia Islam]

T


Similarly with Islam, since the Quran is central.

What's wrong with that???!!

 

[Karolina]

What's wrong with that???!!

Nothing, except I'm not trying to base my faith on someone else's alleged revelation.

 

[Karolina]

I doubt if you will find a religion that ticks all the boxes for you and that you will need to compromise if you want to be part of a genuine faith community.

The Baha’i Faith believes in One Creator God, the eternal nature of the soul, isn’t an ethnocentric religion, rejects abortion on demand and has a strong moral framework.

All the best finding what you are looking for.

The Baha'i accept revelations from various prophets, right? I'm weary of basing my faith on the revelations to other people. I believe God speaks to everyone, and I find it troublesome to base my belief system on scriptures over personal and universal revelation.

 

[Karolina]

Thank you all for your clarifying questions and comments. I hadn't mentioned originally or didn't explain well that my hesitation with basing my faith on a holy book or an individual claiming to have special communication from God is problematic for me because I believe in universal revelation, accessible and interpretable to everyone everywhere (nature), and personal revelation for the purpose of discernment. I don't believe God picks prophets to pass on His messages to others. He can speak to all of us directly and do a much better job of explaining how to apply his principles to our individual lives. Anyone can claim to have a special communication from God, and many of the prophets with this claim contradict each other.

I've been on a spiritual journey for decades. Many apologetics, from Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Jews seem to make their point, and different times I've considered converting to all of them. But in the end, they can't all be right so I'm at a net zero, bouncing back and forth between them, never able to transcend their explanations.

That's why I thought I'd need to look East. But I do believe in certain absolute truth, the existence of a personal Creator God being one, and eternal life of consciousness being another. I do believe in truth, though I've been accused of trying to customize my religion. I'm trying to find an expression of what I believe the truth to be. Just because someone quoted in a holy book had a different idea of what that truth is doesn't make their belief more true than mine.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Baha'i accept revelations from various prophets, right? I'm weary of basing my faith on the revelations to other people. I believe God speaks to everyone, and I find it troublesome to base my belief system on scriptures over personal and universal revelation.

I believe we can all be personally inspired by God too. However, the manner in which God spoke to Moses or Jesus as being beyond that our capacity IMHO. If you believe God can speak to you in the same manner as He spoke to Moses and Jesus then why are you asking advice from us, when you can speak to God directly?

 

[metis]

Churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16)

Body of Christ (Rom.7:4)(1Cor. 10:16 ; 12:27) (Eph.4:12)


The Body of Christ = The Church of Christ (Eph.1:22,23) (Col.1:18,24)

Please read the link I gave you, and just a reminder that it's from a non-Catholic source.

 

[metis]

Maybe. I don't know how confident you are about your statement, however I am skeptical about it.

Maybe at first everybody was fine with having different books and teachings and then some people started to insist otherwise and to claim there was something called orthodoxy.

You might want to google "heresies" within Christianity.

Here, I'll help you: Heresy in Christianity - Wikipedia


BTW, since Jesus and the apostles "taught with authority" according to the NT, there logically would be no room for different books and teachings with them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

BTW, since Jesus and the apostles "taught with authority" according to the NT, there logically would be no room for dissenting opinions with them.

Which could mean many things and is meaningless by itself. It sounds like you are grasping. Jesus is the person who undermines authorities and says the spirit goes where it will opposed to the idea that the spirit would be passed through teachers. I don't think that this "Taught with authority" necessarily means that variances in teachings are heresies, because we have not established what the history of Christianity is. We know it has some gnostics, and we know that there are disagreements and some intentional destruction of books. We also know the library at Alexandria burnt. An uncertain history is what we're discussing, so to assume what that history is would be an unfortunate predicate pretty much tossing out the discussion altogether. You'd need to establish your point some other way than assuming what this phrase means.

You might want to google "heresies" within Christianity.

Here, I'll help you: Heresy in Christianity - Wikipedia

Calling something a heresy doesn't make it so. Again we are discussing whether Christianity starts with a single dogma, not presuming that it does.

 

[metis]

Which could mean many things and is meaningless by itself. It sounds like you are grasping. Jesus is the person who undermines authorities and says the spirit goes where it will opposed to the idea that the spirit would be passed through teachers. I don't think that this "Taught with authority" necessarily means that variances in teachings are heresies, because we have not established what the history of Christianity is. We know it has some gnostics, and we know that there are disagreements and some intentional destruction of books. We also know the library at Alexandria burnt. An uncertain history is what we're discussing, so to assume what that history is would be an unfortunate predicate pretty much tossing out the discussion altogether. You'd need to establish your point some other way than assuming what this phrase means.


Calling something a heresy doesn't make it so. Again we are discussing whether Christianity starts with a single dogma, not presuming that it does.

The above defies even basic logic based on what's written in the NT. There's clearly no indication whatsoever that Jesus and the Twelve taught a "just do your own thing" approach. Nor did Paul believe they did as he refers to the Church as being the "one body" based on Jesus' teachings.

Minor disagreements, yes they are there and are to be expected, but the main theme of "love one another as I have loved you" from the "one body" is a reoccurring theme. And Paul wrote to "beware of those who may cause division", so he certainly doesn't buy into "just have you own beliefs and do your own thing" scenario. All of the epistles, as well as the Gospels, "teach with authority", and that's undoubtedly why they were written in the first place as books of faith.

Now, as I posted on numerous other threads, one person's "faith" is another person's "heresy". I believe and accept that the Bible is something that can be questioned, and it should be imo. And my theology is about as loosey-goosey as one could likely ever be as I take almost nothing for granted. I can go to pretty much any religious service in any religion, which I have done a great many times, and feel right at home. Where I don't feel comfortable is with a denomination that takes the "my way or the highway" approach.