Why is the assumption made that believing in God/a god means believing in a holy book?

[savagewind]

I agree, but this thread has me curious about something:

Those of you here who believe in God, how many of you don't trace your belief in God back to something transmitted from others, in either written or oral form?

I think that it is impossible to know because much of the transmission might have happened as little children and most people won't remember. The God who I believe in presently was not transmitted by anyone unless you believe Y'ushua A'Mashiyach is someone.

 

[Erebus]

I agree, but this threaf has me curious about something:

Those of you here who believe in God, how many of you don't trace your belief in God back to something transmitted from others, in either written or oral form?

This is an interesting question. I suppose ultimately everything save our base instincts are transmitted by others in some way. Personally, I arrived at my religion through research, meditation and trial and error. I guess I have something of a Frankenstein religion insofar as I've taken the bits I considered worthwhile from a wide array of religions and philosophies and complimented them with my own experiences.

 

[Breathe]

Those of you here who believe in God, how many of you don't trace your belief in God back to something transmitted from others, in either written or oral form?

My belief in God, I draw from experience.
My beliefs about God, from experience and from some scriptures if they resonate with me.

 

[MatthiasGould]

It doesn't; it isn't.

Deism, Native American Religions, Aboriginal Religions, African religions, many Pagans or Neopagans, most Wiccans, Pacific Island religions, and so on.

As to why many religions have scriptures, it's quite simple: preserving the shared mythos, history, and beliefs of their religion. It's only when you start taking the scripture and myth as divinely inspired and historically accurate you start running into problems with scriptures, IMO.

Good point. Isn't Satanism much the same? I know there's a few different types of Satanism, but what I've read is confusing.

I know with deism certainly there is some sort of a reference text in 'The Age of Reason' by Thomas Paine and 'Principles of Pure Nature' by Elihu Palmer but these aren't taken as the sole source of deistic texts, and it's more than possible to be a deist and never read either of these.

 

[Draka]

I agree, but this threaf has me curious about something:

Those of you here who believe in God, how many of you don't trace your belief in God back to something transmitted from others, in either written or oral form?

I am a theist and the concept of deity I believe in I did not reach by any other means than by my own ponderings, experiences, and through communications with Her/Itself. It was only after I had a grasp on what it was I believed that I happened upon information about other religions that shared my thoughts. What they gave me was reassurance that I was not alone in my views, some new ideas to ponder upon, and some new practices to incorporate into my life to help me further bring the spiritual into my life.

 

[jasonwill2]

Good point. Isn't Satanism much the same? I know there's a few different types of Satanism, but what I've read is confusing.

The modern Satanist scene is just one big messy underground more or less, actually. It doesn't help that people like to use it for a guise of political views sometimes, like the Joy of Satan or ONA groups or those associated with them.

A few Theistic Satanists think that The Al-Jilwah was written by Satan or something, which just seems like a gross cultural misinterpretation as well as just plain gullible. Most theistic Satanists I know are eclectic to some degree, so the things you will hear will vary a lot. None of us can even agree on what Satan basically is. Some are polytheists and think he is some pre-Christian pagan god that was demonized, some think he is really the enemy of God but the good guy, and yet some think hes more like an energy that pervades the Universe and our flesh. The interpretations really vary a lot.

Then there is the Atheistic Church of Satan which have their two books, The Satanic Bible (Anton LaVey, 1969) and The Satanic Scriptures (Peter Gilmore, 1992 or so). But the leadership are too bigoted towards theists and theistic satanists in my opinion.

And then some just think Satan is just a symbol for some value they like, such as freedom, individuality hedonism, ect ect

 

[Nooj]

MOst of the world's major religions have the traditional structure where belief in God/a god is followed by (or supported by) belief in a holy book or a body of traditional religious literature/mythology.
Why?

i think some of it has to do with the literacy, as caladan said. but even oral traditions have a body of traditional religious literature/mythology - it's just that it's not written down.

people do not live in isolation. they draw from the cultural context they live in and even when they reject it, they are reacting against what other people have believed and thought.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

This is something which I've always questioned and which I've never been really able to understand.

MOst of the world's major religions have the traditional structure where belief in God/a god is followed by (or supported by) belief in a holy book or a body of traditional religious literature/mythology.

But what I'm wondering is WHY this needs to be the case. Even Richard Dawkins does not seem able to seperate belief in a god from belief in a holy book. Certainly for the normal believer, it is unthinkable that believing in God can exist without a holy text of some sort. Why?

In Hinduism, the greatest thinkers did not know how to read or write in religion, and their followers were told about God, by the spoken word. It was much later, that the holy books of Hinduism were written. It seems, it wasn't an effort to know about God, for the earliest founders of Hinduism. They were very frank about religion. They said, "God does not know himself", and they called God, with names they identified the Sun, and other elements of nature, fire, for another example. It seems, the elements left no doubt in the mind, that God exists, but they were as good as having many doubts, because God the being, could not be proved.

 

[kylixguru]

It seems, it wasn't an effort to know about God, for the earliest founders of Hinduism. They were very frank about religion. They said, "God does not know himself", and they called God, with names they identified the Sun, and other elements of nature, fire, for another example.

This is an interesting statement because those who I recognize as the flesh and bone body of God are unaware that they are functioning as such.
This is even despite the fact that in their highest and most sacred religious ceremonies they are point-blank told to do so.

It's one of the most bizarre pieces of irony I have yet encountered.

 

[TashaN]

I agree, but this threaf has me curious about something:

Those of you here who believe in God, how many of you don't trace your belief in God back to something transmitted from others, in either written or oral form?

Well, I think I know where is this going, lol. Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to speak directly to God or see him in order to believe? that wouldn't be believing, but it would be simply knowing! Don't you agree with me?

259. Or like the one who passed by a town while it had tumbled over its roofs. He said: "Oh! How will Allâh ever bring it to life after its death?" So Allâh caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long did you remain (dead)?" He (the man) said: "(Perhaps) I remained (dead) a day or part of a day". He said: "Nay, you have remained (dead) for a hundred years, look at your food and your drink, they show no change; and look at your donkey! And thus We have made of you a sign for the people. Look at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh". When this was clearly shown to him, he said, "I know (now) that Allâh is Able to do all things." (Quran 2:259)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I think I know where is this going, lol. Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to speak directly to God or see him in order to believe? that wouldn't be believing, but it would be simply knowing! Don't you agree with me?

No, I don't agree. Belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive. Knowledge is a category of belief.

But that wasn't what I was getting at, anyhow. My point was that people's belief in God comes from somewhere and doesn't generally materialize out of nothing.

A very small number of people claim to have experienced God, so they can point to that as their source. The rest of the people who believe in God learned about the idea of God from somewhere. IMO, most learn of it either from reading religious scriptures or from being taught by others teachings that are set down in religious scriptures.

Basically, my point was that most people who believe in God derive their beliefs from religious scripture either directly or indirectly, so it's a reasonable assumption.

 

[Orias]

This is something which I've always questioned and which I've never been really able to understand.

MOst of the world's major religions have the traditional structure where belief in God/a god is followed by (or supported by) belief in a holy book or a body of traditional religious literature/mythology.

But what I'm wondering is WHY this needs to be the case. Even Richard Dawkins does not seem able to seperate belief in a god from belief in a holy book. Certainly for the normal believer, it is unthinkable that believing in God can exist without a holy text of some sort.

Why?

The reasoning is similar to learning speech, reading and writing.

Its simply a way of expressing and passing down concepts, ideas, and things along those lines.

You'd have to imagine how much oral tradition changes the meaning and way we understand the concepts being spoken of. When you read a book it allows you to gain your own understanding and it allows you to manifest your own meanings, whereas word of mouth and spoken languages tend to be a bit more concrete. I guess you could compare it to purchasing a work out DVD versus getting a gym membership or employing a personal trainer. You buy these things expecting the desired goal but you also chose between convenience. Some need a book, a physical guru, or some type of "DIY" method, and others just need themselves.

But then again, there are some books that are more objective in the meaning they are trying to relay. But you better bet if theres something worth talking about, its probably written somewhere.

 

[TashaN]

No, I don't agree. Belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive. Knowledge is a category of belief.

But that wasn't what I was getting at, anyhow. My point was that people's belief in God comes from somewhere and doesn't generally materialize out of nothing.

A very small number of people claim to have experienced God, so they can point to that as their source. The rest of the people who believe in God learned about the idea of God from somewhere. IMO, most learn of it either from reading religious scriptures or from being taught by others teachings that are set down in religious scriptures.

Basically, my point was that most people who believe in God derive their beliefs from religious scripture either directly or indirectly, so it's a reasonable assumption.

I disagree. While it's reasonable to assume that a Muslim/Christian/etc derive his/her beliefs from religious texts, parents, society, etc, but you can't claim that the idea itself of having a belief in God comes from the same source.

One might learn a specific set of beliefs from others, but not the essense of the belief in God.

 

[RichW]

My personal definitions.

A cult creates a self perpetuating belief based on easily understood but illogical premises.

A religion is based on self evident truths.

If a cult leads a seeker to a point of thought wherein the primal questions are answered and the seeker knows peace, it stops being a cult.

If a religion leads a seeker into unending circles of irresolute solutions it becomes a cult.

To experience god is to know the self in a greater time frame..... to "remember" what the seeker has forgotten in a state of ultimate peace and comfort.

Any "step" toward god in thought opens the mind toward infinity.

To recoil in emotional distress is akin to a baby stirring in its womb.

Evolving into god is a totally natural process. For instance.

"Who, what , when , where, why" Make a working definiton of primal questions.

In this instance the last question answered at the end of this equations time is, "why".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. While it's reasonable to assume that a Muslim/Christian/etc derive his/her beliefs from religious texts, parents, society, etc, but you can't claim that the idea itself of having a belief in God comes from the same source.

One might learn a specific set of beliefs from others, but not the essense of the belief in God.

Do you think that belief in God is innate? If so, why would you think so?

Either way, I think it's beside the main point here, because I don't think I've ever met anyone who *only* believes in God. IMO, if a person believes in God, they almost certainly have specific beliefs about God as well. I think that if we're talking about a full-fledged belief system and not just "belief in God" in isolation, then I hope you agree that it will be shaped in some part by what the believer has learned from others, regardless of where that core belief in God came from.

 

[TashaN]

Do you think that belief in God is innate? If so, why would you think so?

Yes it's. I believe it to be innate partially because there is a hadith of the Prophet which states so, and also because many philisophers believed in a deity, or a higher being, etc.

Either way, I think it's beside the main point here, because I don't think I've ever met anyone who *only* believes in God. IMO, if a person believes in God, they almost certainly have specific beliefs about God as well. I think that if we're talking about a full-fledged belief system and not just "belief in God" in isolation, then I hope you agree that it will be shaped in some part by what the believer has learned from others, regardless of where that core belief in God came from.

Maybe i didn't word it well. When i said believe only in God, i meant by that one who believe there is a higher power which created/interfer in our life and the enviornment of some sort.

 

[Onkara]

This is something which I've always questioned and which I've never been really able to understand.

MOst of the world's major religions have the traditional structure where belief in God/a god is followed by (or supported by) belief in a holy book or a body of traditional religious literature/mythology.

But what I'm wondering is WHY this needs to be the case. Even Richard Dawkins does not seem able to seperate belief in a god from belief in a holy book. Certainly for the normal believer, it is unthinkable that believing in God can exist without a holy text of some sort.

Why?

Hi Matthias
My understanding is that God reveals Himself to mankind. So a holy books is a record of that revelation. It is a requirement more than an assumption in some cases because man must refer to the revelation to know Him (or hear someone who knows the revelation).

 

[Pozessed]

With or without these scriptural books guidance, we would have came to ask ourselves the same things the scriptures relate to.

How did we get here?
Is there a God?
Whats our purpose?

You don't need the books to answer your questions, now we have the internet.