At Faith Value (13) For all believers: In your opinion:Are you basically satisfied with your religion?

Question

Serious question. No offense intended. This is for real self searching.
Please don´t answer with verses, I won´t read them.
Be sincere, you´d only be fooling yourself if you´re not.

From the answers that I´ve got in this series of Q: I understand that some (granted not all) are not always satisfied with the bible and some think that their ministers can err. Some also say that the pope should be allowed to be elected.OK
Now:
Do you feel comfortable with the confusion? Would you feel better if everything was straightforward and simple like:
Bible: always right and clear as crystal.
Minister: always right because the bible is clear as crystal
Pope: modern universal suffrage.
Would you like a religion like that?
What would it do to your faith? Increase it? No change? Decrease it? Would it transform into someting else? In what?

Answer 1

You ask a serious question, I'll honor it with a serious answer. Here are my thoughts:

I question the credibility of many of the 66 canonized books of the Protestant Bible. First of all, how can we be sure the faith and morality of the church officers through the centuries? Were the men that held the Councils of Trent worthy of deciding which books were divinely inspired? We need a new radical Reformation.

Regarding the KJV, we know that hundreds of words were changed at the order of the king. True, the doctrine seems to be intact after centuries of copy errors and revisions, but I feel no good reason to take any canon seriously.

I think the creation stories and flood story in Genesis are not only uninspired, they are based on Assyrian and Sumerian mythology. We've known this a long time. Why should my faith have anything to do with these myths? Frankly, I believe the rest of Genesis and Exodus are also fictional.

Another book I hold suspect is the Revelation of John. It's not that I deny there will be a Second Coming and Judgment, but Jesus warned us that only the Father can know the time of the end. Evangelical Christians have misused the Revelation (and the other prophecies) and many have profited tremendously. It is commonly understood that 666 was code for Nero Caesar, so as to prevent the critical document from being understood by non Christians. We know the Seven Hills are those of Rome. The reference to the one who will be resurrected but will not be the true Christ is also about Nero. There was a popular legend that Nero would rise from the dead after his death.

I was raised Catholic, though I call myself simply a Christian today. I find the entire RC church hierarchy to be absurd. Priests should have the option of marriage. The papal authority was important at a time when the RCC was an official part of the Holy Roman Empire. Does the RCC need a Holy See today? This is for Catholics to decide.

I don't accept (as you can see by now) the Bible as the inerrant word of God. How absurd! The canon didn't exist in the time of Jesus and Paul. The Bible does not have to be accepted as perfect in order to accept Jesus as your Savior. People who doubt Jesus do so for other reasons. Biblical litoralists are driving sensible people out of their ranks. The Bible was written by humans. We can certain that the texts in close historically proximity to the generation of Jesus are accurate enough.

That's the end of my rant. And no, pastors are not perfect or always right. I've heard some make ridiculous claims about the Word. In any case, editing out contradictions would not change my faith one way or the other.

.

Answer 2

This is a difficult question. If everyone believed the same thing--exactly the same thing, without the slightest deviation--then would it really be considered "faith?" If we were not allowed to ask questions, or see what it means to us, or apply it to our own lives and our own situations, would that be "faith?"

What you describe sounds more like ignorance to me. Not ignorance in the sense of stupidity, but rather in the sense of a lack of personal knowledge and an inability to apply the message to one's own life and circumstances. But if I were to call it faith at all, it would be an unearned blind faith.

The system we have now, where people glean what they do out of the Bible, in a way serves as a fail-safe. If three people read a passage and come up with three different conclusions, they are forced to defend their case, hear the others' cases, and then as a group decide what they feel fits most appropriately. If they cannot come to a consensus, then they agree to disagree; but in fact they may all be partially right, and likely none of them will be completely in the wrong.

My faith grows because I continually challenge it. It is by my repeated attempts to see where the pieces fit that my faith has become where it is.

Answer 3

My faith is strong but I'm not a fanatic.I've read many bibles over the years and can readily state that when I read one that was 200 years old and a modern bible that they don't say the same things anymore.Many passages when translated do get mistranslated.It takes time but they do sometimes get fixed. I was raised catholic and do trust in the Pope but he is still a man and can err same as any other man can.But voting for a Pope doesn't make sense.Then you'd be inviting men of the cloth to become politicians.Which none of us want.The simplest way to follow god is to find him for yourself.There are many religions on this planet and any of them hold pieces of the truth. None of them are 100% right though.

Answer 4

Maybe since theist is suggested in a different way to atheist. The atheist makes the ei sound like "e" as a substitute of "a" however I'm no longer absolutely constructive that that's the motive. Perhaps it's actual, as creatrix shows, that atheists are for a few motive larger spellers. If it have been it might undoubtedly outcome in atheist being spelt incorrectly extra typically as atheists use the phrase theist so much typically even as all people makes use of the phrase atheist.

Answer 5

I am very satisfied with my beliefs, because I am free to openly question them and change my views any time I am presented with new evidence.
I would not be happy following any religion that told me I must follow a book or a dogma without question. That would be way more confusing to me than my current path.
Peace!

Answer 6

I am a Muslim and am very satisfied with Islam. I realize it is going through changes - some quite distressing. But it is still okay for me.

Answer 7

That's like asking me if I'm basically satisfied with oxygen. I could not live without Jesus Christ.

Answer 8

i have studied many faiths and am very satisfied with jehovah's witnesses. they never claim to be perfect and have love among themselves. all of their preaching is scriptural. they have no man made tenets. i will be baptized soon and i will be a member.

Answer 9

I am much more than "basically satisfied" with my Church. I know that my church is true. I have no doubts.

No one can ever change my mind or heart.

Answer 10

Yes because I have seen the benefits of believing as I do, have seen God do miraculous things in my life.