Why do you believe in YOUR religion

why do i believe in my religion

its because of the following bible truth


Bible is God's Word and is truth
Bible is more reliable than tradition
God's name is Jehovah
Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him
Christ was first of God's creations
Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient
Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person
Christ's presence is in spirit;

We are now in the 'time of the end'

Kingdom under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace .

Kingdom will bring ideal living conditions to earth

Earth will never be destroyed or depopulated

God will eliminate present system of things in the battle at Har-Magedon
Wicked will be eternally destroyed
People God approves will receive everlasting life
There is only one road to life
Human death is due to Adam's sin
The human soul ceases to exist at death;
Hell is mankind's common grave

Hope for dead is resurrection
Adamic death will cease
Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ; .
The 144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God
New covenant is made with spiritual Israel
Christ's congregation is built upon himself
Prayers are to be directed only to Jehovah through Christ
Images should not be used in worship
Spiritism must be shunned
Satan is invisible ruler of world
A Christian ought to have no part in interfaith movements
A Christian should keep separate from world

Obey human laws that do not conflict with God's laws
Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws;

Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed
Sabbath observance was given only to Israel and ended with Mosaic Law

A clergy class and special titles are improper


Man did not evolve but was created

Christ set example that must be followed in serving God

Baptism by complete immersion symbolizes dedication
Christians gladly give public testimony to Scriptural truth.



before any one mentions it , i know this is an interfaith forum , and Jehovahs witnesses do not have any part in interfaith . but i do not take on board others beliefs i just stick to what the bible teaches.

and make it known matthew 24;14

 

now that, is beautiful

 

I concur.

 

Chris,

When it comes to packrat religions (can't throw anything away) could anything be worse than Judaism? Okay, maybe Christianity...or maybe it's a toss-up. I get SOOOO exasperated with that sometimes--some ideas are just SOOOO patently self-serving, elitist and ethnocentric, superstitious and just flat-out WRONG!

BB isn't going to like this, but I get so impatient with the attempts to finesse everything, exploring 97 different nuances of the Hebrew root-word, and all the rest of those verbal contortions intended to make the text say the opposite of what it actually means. Can't we just throw the blasted thing AWAY, fer cryin' out loud? Can't we just say, "This is elitist/sexist garbage and we haven't take it seriously for centuries"?

Of course, over the centuries some of our greatest minds have exercised their most profound creativity on the most unpromising texts...precisely because they were so problematic but couldn't be disgarded. But in those cases I'd have to say the divine inspiration was present in the exegesis, in the interpreters, not in the text itself.

This is a very positive thread and I'm enjoying reading through all the replies. I find a lot to identify with here.

--Linda

 

Hmmmm

 

Hi Linda! It's nice to see you around.

People swear perpetual lip service to things that don't make a lick of sense in order to preserve an aura of institutional infallibility which has nothing to do with the veracity of the core principles of their faith.

Chris

 

FYI- peripheral discussion about trust moved to "Trust" in the Philosophy forum. Hope to see you there!

 

Because it is the channel that Jesus is feeding matthew 24;45-47

 

For you perhaps. Not necessarrily for others.

 

very true many do not like to feed from the channel that Jesus is feeding .

 

No, they just don't care to feed from the channel you are feeding.

 

I am pleased I had a great holiday with some real reading time!! Hopefully it has allowed me to try and bring more clarity and evolution to my debates here.

I love science. But it is not my "paradigm". I use science as a means to mentally and physically analyse the universe I inhabit. And I see now that in some sense religion is a science. A bad science using often flawed logic propped with dubious symbology as a smokescreen. I concede that often I am fairly interpreted to have a strong bias toward scientific over theological thought I am not a science theist. I am an Atheist.

Science in recent centuries has shown us many tricks of nature and allowed us to use them in ingenious and complex ways. Additionally I know we are animals because I live on a planet of animals. Evolution has so much empirical stature it seems madness to incorporate into any world view a paradigm in which it is not integral. So I use science as a theory that explains an important question to myself; " How did I get here ? "

I do not answer that question with science alone but with my heart and my instinct, entwined as they are, like anybody. But science has seen countless thousands of dedicated individuals add to the human base of knowledge in ways that demonstrably work for each of us all the time. And in this sense I see many of its findings supporting my idea that religion and science are two very different animals indeed. I use science, but mostly I just espouse my own personal philosophy using whatever half baked logic seems right to me. And it can only be half-baked, because I seriously doubt we are really equipped to see the totality of supernature. So I understand the clear limits of science.

The development of theoretical models on the nature of our universe has now proven ideas developed as mathematical models to be measurable and quantifiable into some product that we put to real use in our world. Relativity gave us the Nuclear Bomb and gave us a way to measure the age of the universe amongst many others. Quantum physics has been harnessed to provide a secure method of communication and there are working quantum computers. They, like chaos theory, hint at our next evolution of understanding in how nature (the multiverse) really works. As we talk and debate here there are a few special people that are particularly adept at looking mathematical explanations for how things connect. Most of the theories they work on will be superseded or rejected pretty quickly. Here, where science merges into a mathematical philosophy, is the only place science steps into anything grey. But mostly science unpeels the infinitely complex step by step using logic. That is nothing like religion. To be a theist in any meaningful sense you have to believe in some supernatural element(al) as a creator. Science does not presume a creator. Science is not a religion. And most crucially I as an Atheist do not have a religion called science! Science is a tool my philosophical self utilises to explain what little we can see. I think people choose to 'believe' in some creative element(al) but I see no evidence to support that contention I drum on about it not all having a rationally traceable causation in our species. One that requires no creator. But that is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Therefore I conclude in reaffirming the statement that the act of trying to say that science defines Atheism or that Atheism defines science is a false one. And is one inherently imposed by the adoption of a creator paradigm. An Atheist is a philosopher not necessarily a scientist. The real debate on Atheism and religion is bound into philosophy. Religion nor science have sole claim to philosophy, that does not make them the same thing.


Apologise have no time to check or punctuate this post


tao

 

Hi Sherry,

I am a Muslim. For me, Islaam was the first faith I was introduced to and people who I grew up with considered themselves Muslims (even though many of them, like me back then, were not practicing Islaam).
In my teens, I was a bit confused. I read about many religions and met people from different backgrounds. But, the more I tried to get to know other than Islaam, for some reason, did not 'click' with my soul. The harder I tried to understand some religous/belief concepts about other religions, I would always end up with piles of questions and conclusions about things that did not make sense (for me personally).

Then, I started looking back to Islaam--to where it all really began for me. The more I read pro and against Islaam and its teachings, the more I leaned towards it. The more questions I had, the more answers Islaam seemed to provide. Suddenly, the faithful Muslims in my life and the sayings of wisdoms they gave me made sense. I began feeling more confident about the way I understand my life, my existance and everything that has happened to me.

But I am not done yet. Islaam is like a life's work. To understand it, you can never just read the Holy Qur'an, learn to perform the prayers and feel that you have graduated with a highest degree. You must continue studying it and practice it in the quiet of your own soul. I personally can literally feel the positive diffrence between who I was when I experienced spiritual confusion, and today when I feel more clarity and focus in my life. Plus the ever expanding knowledge that Islaam has brought into my life.

 

I do not "believe" in my "religion".

I *suspect* my *philosophy* to be the right way for me to approach life.


I feel the universe is analogous to an infinate organism. Endless repetition of an elegant pattern. I don't presume to know for a fact that there is a higher *quality* to the universe, I simply trust that there is. I choose not to attempt to define these things because I feel it is disrespectful in a sense to put words to an infinate and intangible universal conciousness.

and I must second the assertions that science is merely a tool. when a scientist publishes a paper for peer review, 1. it is merely inferences and observations based on evidence. 2. the scientist, by publishing, is very much asking others to test his results, attempt to verify them multiple times thereby lending credibility to the data.

science is a tool to understand the physical. religion and spirituality address the inner world of spirit and emotion.

and hi everyone by the way, i'm a n00b-E. =)

 

I do not "believe" in my "religion".

I *suspect* my *philosophy* to be the right way for me to interpret life.

I visualize the *universe* to be analogous to an infinate organism of which we are a part. And that our actions effect this organism is analogous to the electrochemical impulses in the body that are imperative to sustaining life. I don't presume to define the *universe* as sentient and sustaining, I merely trust that this is so. And to push any further definition in my opinion, would be disrespectful to said state of being.

And I must second the assertion that science is merely a tool.

A scientist who publishes findings for peer review is

1. Merely stating inferences and observations based on the available gathered data. They don't use the term "theory" lightly.

2. Very much asking to be proven wrong because rigorous analysis is scientifically pure.

Science is a tool to further our understanding of the physical. Religion and spirituality address concerns of the inner self. They don't mix. They can peacefully co-exist at a distance, but they are nowhere near the same thing.

 

my posts got all screwy and I tried to post the same idea a couple of times...whoops! many apologies my friends.

 

I don't know what it is about your initial posts and the moderation censors, but it keeps triggering.

I've brought it up for the admins attention, but for now you might not want to keep quoting yourself...it will only get hung up again.

 

very true

 

Yet it is a professor who grades your absorption that has the power to help you remove your smokescreens... that NO textbook ever will.

I will mirror your comment: I see how science is a religion. A faulty religion that helps the adherents to prop themselves up with duplicitous definitions and assertions as they utilize it to fake an understanding of self and their relationships with others.

 

Scientific conclusions and faith have different criteria for "truth."

Science can be used that way.