Where's All the Religious People?

[Tathagata]

I honestly expected there to be a great deal of religious people on ReligiousForums.com.

I find that not many believe in an afterlife, sin, the monotheist God, miracles, and many other religious beliefs. Even the Christians have an extremely Liberal interpretation that don't believe in the Bible and take many concepts metaphorically or symbolically.

Surprisingly, I find the few religious people being swarmed by a whole bunch of nonbelievers, whereas I'd expect it to be the other way around.

So yeah. Just an observation.

 

[Madhuri]

It is interesting indeed.
Btw, I am one of the afterlife, God, monotheistic religious people. I'll exclude sin and miracles from my belief system though...you're right though, a lot of us are pretty liberal and non-literal (myself included).

 

[Willamena]

Even the Christians have an extremely Liberal interpretation that don't believe in the Bible and take many concepts metaphorically or symbolically.

Does that make them "not religious"?

 

[ChristineES]

I thought I was religious.

 

[blackout]

The highly doctrinal people
are most likely out prosyltizing somewhere (else)
(where they will not get banned for it)
or in their own private sanctuaries
preaching to their own choir.
(where their beliefs are not called to task)

Most of us here
are religious "misfits"
in one sense or another.

 

[Tathagata]

Does that make them "not religious"?

Even I can be considered religious in a sense. But what I meant by "religious" was those who believe in the supernatural and miraculous. Propositions that actually require faith.

It seems that the more Liberal the interpretation, the less faith is required because doctrines are toned down, reinterpreted, or updated to fit with and be more acceptable to the current line of modern thought and a position that is more scientifically acceptable. I see this as a step towards being less religious in the "faith-based" sense.


.

 

[Boethiah]

I'm a monotheist. I have seen that there are a whole lot of non-theists round these parts. This isn't necessarily bad, but I sometimes wish there was more of a balance. Or maybe there is and I'm just blind to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even I can be considered religious in a sense. But what I meant by "religious" was those who believe in the supernatural and miraculous. Propositions that actually require faith.

Thatr would be belief, not faith, don't you agree? One has faith in one's friends, loved ones, people and institutions that are known and cared for. Miracles and supernatural claims are something far more mundane, and involve only belief, which is a more dense and futile feeling than faith.

It seems that the more Liberal the interpretation, the less faith is required because doctrines are toned down, reinterpreted, or updated to fit with and be more acceptable to the current line of modern thought and a position that is more scientifically acceptable. I see this as a step towards being less religious in the "faith-based" sense.

By the definition of faith that you use, wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[Tathagata]

Thatr would be belief, not faith, don't you agree? One has faith in one's friends, loved ones, people and institutions that are known and cared for. Miracles and supernatural claims are something far more mundane, and involve only belief, which is a more dense and futile feeling than faith.

That's a different kind of faith. The kind of faith you have in loved ones is a confidence and trust. The faith I'm using is "belief, in spite of evidence."

By the definition of faith that you use, wouldn't that be a good thing?

In my view, that would be a good thing (though I don't wish for everyone to agree with me. quite the contrary actually.) My point is that the liberal interpretation tends to require less faith and therefore less religious.

 

[luvuyesua]

you think maybe some dont want to throw pearls to the swine?
like if I posted, my own personal spiritual activity with Daddy has had miracles, oracles, visions, dreams (the symbolic dreams) religious activity with God is not tangible, that would probably be a dishonor for Daddy, if along side to these events, I would prove it to others. Unnesessary exposure to mock and it would give no fruit. just an example of maybe why.

be blessed

 

[LuisDantas]

In my view, that would be a good thing (though I don't wish for everyone to agree with me. quite the contrary actually.) My point is that the liberal interpretation tends to require less faith and therefore less religious.

By that logic, religion is something that should not even exist.

 

[Tathagata]

By that logic, religion is something that should not even exist.

Perhaps I was misdefining religion. My personal, general idea of religion is a philosophy put to practice, but I was going by the usual understanding of religion which involves belief in radical things.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am a religious person who is an orthodox hindu in my own way. I don't think there are many people who want to dog pile on my beliefs.

 

[Levite]

I honestly expected there to be a great deal of religious people on ReligiousForums.com.

I find that not many believe in an afterlife, sin, the monotheist God, miracles, and many other religious beliefs. Even the Christians have an extremely Liberal interpretation that don't believe in the Bible and take many concepts metaphorically or symbolically.

Surprisingly, I find the few religious people being swarmed by a whole bunch of nonbelievers, whereas I'd expect it to be the other way around.

So yeah. Just an observation.

It seems like when you say "religious people" you're really talking about fundamentalists. But in my experience, fundamentalists really aren't interested in much discussion. IMO, probably because fundamentalism does not thrive on either complexity of thought or willingness to consider multiple viewpoints, whereas discussion does.

I'm no fundamentalist, but I assume that, being a rabbi, I can probably call myself a religious person....

 

[.lava]

It seems like when you say "religious people" you're really talking about fundamentalists. But in my experience, fundamentalists really aren't interested in much discussion. IMO, probably because fundamentalism does not thrive on either complexity of thought or willingness to consider multiple viewpoints, whereas discussion does.

I'm no fundamentalist, but I assume that, being a rabbi, I can probably call myself a religious person....

you're a Rabbi? i did not know that. from now on i'll pay extra attention to your answers about Judaism

.

 

[Levite]

you're a Rabbi? i did not know that. from now on i'll pay extra attention to your answers about Judaism.

:biglaugh:Thanks!! I think maybe you might be the first...!

 

[.lava]

:biglaugh:Thanks!! I think maybe you might be the first...!

i am glad i amuse you
i did not know any Rabbi, never had chance to talk to any Rabbi in my whole life. and this semester we studied common points between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. i would probably have similar classes next semester as well. i already asked one question on Judaism DIR about Knower, Diviner. i personally find it very interesting. i would appreciate it if you share your knowledge when i had questions

.

 

[Nerthus]

It seems like when you say "religious people" you're really talking about fundamentalists. But in my experience, fundamentalists really aren't interested in much discussion. IMO, probably because fundamentalism does not thrive on either complexity of thought or willingness to consider multiple viewpoints, whereas discussion does.

Absolutely. I'm religious, but definitely not a fundamentalist. Met plenty of them, who considered their view to be the only one and left no room for discussion. Wouldn't really make for much of a forum.

I'm no fundamentalist, but I assume that, being a rabbi, I can probably call myself a religious person....

Oh cool! I have some questions for you then I come from a Jewish background.

 

[Caladan]

I honestly expected there to be a great deal of religious people on ReligiousForums.com.

I think that most are religious or have a spiritual world view. in addition there is a large community of secular, atheists and agnostics on the forum.

I find that not many believe in an afterlife, sin, the monotheist God, miracles, and many other religious beliefs. Even the Christians have an extremely Liberal interpretation that don't believe in the Bible and take many concepts metaphorically or symbolically.

This forum doesn't carry an exclusive religious agenda. it gives a chance to discuss and debate all known religious phenomena, from Native American spirituality, to Satanism and the left hand path, to Christianity and Islam, to Dharmic philosophies, and more. therefore people who come to preach a single religious agenda may find it hard to survive in such a diverse community.

Surprisingly, I find the few religious people being swarmed by a whole bunch of nonbelievers, whereas I'd expect it to be the other way around.

It depends on the threads you are visiting, there has certainly been a trend for the past year by the 'new atheists' to engage in all the circular debates that most of the other members are not interested in for the most part.

 

[Revasser]

I'm a monotheist. I have seen that there are a whole lot of non-theists round these parts. This isn't necessarily bad, but I sometimes wish there was more of a balance. Or maybe there is and I'm just blind to it.

You're not wrong. Last time I was posting here a couple of years ago there were decidedly more theists and non-theists and most of those were not all that interested in the "usual" god question or in yet again demanding an answer from Muslims about this or that.

Since I started lurking and (occasionally) posting again recently, I've noticed the tone of the board had changed markedly. Loads more non-theists, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but many of whom have a somewhat abrasive style. Loads more of "those" threads about the existence of god that go around and around and around.

Maybe I'm just being nostaglic