The current post-woke world has seen many turn to religion, with Christianity in particular being discussed as this be-all, end-all solution to peoples' problems. Now, as an agnostic, I could never be convinced through scripture alone to believe in a god, but I can see the benefit to personal and societal structure it would provide. How would such an agnostic get the most out of a religion's moral teachings without believing in the source of said teachings?
>>34266916I think there's a misconception that religious people never have *any* doubt. There's a reason we say faith and believe. But in our darkest and lowest moments, the faith is actually the strongest.Otherwise, your question is quite vague. There are many Christian writers, both alive and dead, and it's likely *some* of them will click with you if you try enough.
>>34266916Why not go back a bit to the source of the source? The Greeks were able to prove the existence of God through logic, and Christianity is the evolution of that knowledge. There's really no need to be agnostic when all it takes is a bit of studying to arrive at certainty. As for adopting the moral teachings, I'd suggest reading Kempis's Imitation of Christ and Erasmus's Enchiridion.
>>34266988>your question is quite vagueMy apologies. While I don't deny the possibility of the universe being created by a god, I believe all existing religions are fiction. If there was a god I believe he would be a passive observer as opposed to leaving a rulebook for us to follow. I could never believe The Bible's more fantastical elements. How does one compartmentalize placing trust in a book he doesn't believe is based in reality?
>>34266916The common thread is that people are eternally jumping from one simple solution to another. They need a distilled, one-dimensional world view in which they are the "good guys" versus some arbitrary group of "bad guys" and simply defeating them will result in some kind of utopia. The nuance of life, ethics, and what it means to be a fulfilled person is too stressful for people so they seek answers that feel satisfying and grounding. Religion is just like anything. Its stories - parables, meant to narrate the human experience in ways that give us those satisfying, grounding feelings. As social creatures we desire purpose and belonging and value. The parts of religion that instill people with those things can't be discounted. Just read and explore, OP. Find the parts of religion that resonate with you and incorporate them into your worldview. If your studies steer you away from organized religion then so be it. The point is you don't have to buy into some rigid framework 100%. Its okay to take pieces here and build your own.
>>34266994>The Greeks were able to prove the existence of God through logicIt is my belief that Christianity, like all religions, is the simplified logic of people seeking easy answers to complex questions (I.E. we build shelter, therefore caves must have been built by someone above us). There *is* logic to it, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee it is correct.>I'd suggest reading Kempis's Imitation of Christ and Erasmus's EnchiridionThanks for the recommendations.
>>34267016> could never believe The Bible's more fantastical elements.Well, I don't either. I have a few parts I like (Mark, Ecclesiastes, Job, Kings, Chronicles) and skip the rest. I don't care about Revelation, with all its imagery, or the books after the gospels which are sugary sweet.I personally believe the bible has parts which are intended for different people, and that's fine. People are way too diverse.The main reason I read old things -- not just the Bible -- is it makes me not feel alone, but that other people have thought the same way as me.
>>34267028Thanks for your reply. This is what I've been considering, so it's good to see someone vouch for it.
>>34267016>compartmentalizeAre you aware people have different brains. Your gut, your heart, your limbic brain, and your frontal lobe ALL have neurons. In effect, you have 4 compartments.
>>34266994>Kempis's Imitation of ChristOkay, got it as a PDF. I appreciate the decision to use a more modern translation rather than sticking to olde English. Helps my pea brain follow along better.
>>34267034>It is my belief that Christianity, like all religions, is the simplified logic of people seeking easy answers to complex questionsThat's not what any religion is. That's completely ahistorical, and the idea that people invented God in order to have something to give credit to is absurd when you consider that they couldn't possibly give credit to something that they didn't already have a name for and understanding of. All religions come from philosophy and metaphysics. The explanations are logical in the sense of pure logic, which is to say the logical axioms necessitate a first cause. Agnosticism is really only possible via ignorance and lack of education, so I really do suggest studying and actually reading what these ancient people had to say themselves instead of assuming that they were stupid. They knew more about cause and effect than you or anyone else in the modern day and were more scientifically minded.
>>34267097Brother, you don't know what any of the words you're saying mean. "Religion is right cause logic" is the most pseudo-intellectual argument I've ever heard.
>>34267016>If there was a god I believe he would be a passive observer as opposed to leaving a rulebook for us to followThat's not really a dichotomy that makes sense. God would have to be synonymous with truth, which means that all of reality and everything that happens in it is by definition God's will. Nothing can exist without the permission of the cause of existence. That means that reality and natural law is the rulebook, and religious works are explanations of that rulebook. They're not fictitious or invented, they're descriptive of what already exists.
>>34267115I can walk you through each and every step if you'd like. The first one rests on the primary logical axiom "ex nihilo nihil fit", which states that nothing can come from nothing. Or, in other words, every effect must have a cause. If you want to hear more I'll continue, but if you just wanted to posture with no interest in actually understanding then there wouldn't be much point.
>>34266916>agnosticYou could be a full blown atheist and find great meaning in the never existing Christ. Yes, society would be screwed if not for the faith of the smooth brained masses. A hard working diligent believer often reads well enough to see that the bible is full of bullshit and politics and ripoffs and revisions. I don’t think it is a requirement to read so much to understand that the book can be interpreted on different levels, depending on the bandwidth of perspective of the reader. You could see that the supposed Jesus calls himself son of man, not son of god. He teaches that life is a possession like everything else and that death is a return to creation and the kingdom of heaven is in us, not out there. Muh consciousness for science fags. You could still say that’s a crap cope and there is nothing special about a meat sack thinking that it’s thinking. This all came from nothing and is only here because we experience. Idk, do what you want with Christianity. It cannot be denied that there are clear mysteries looking us in the face. Most of the bigwig scientists come around to some appreciation for that. Someone wrote the words that Jesus said, even if he didn’t say them. Maybe to help the Jews get along better with Rome. Maybe to give the Jews a bad name but I don’t think so but they seem to. I always kinda thought that the serpent may have been like a Prometheus figure and then Jesus is the yin to his yang. I didn’t know, until YouTube. There’s others who have considered the same. Mythvision and GnosticInformer have done incredible work in explaining the literature part of the question. The spiritual junk is whatever floats your boat.Jesus is still all right with meJesus is still all right, oh yeahJesus is still all right with meJesus is still all right!
>>34267115the most pseudo intellectual argument possible is thinking that the greeks were dumb savages who invented zeus to explain lightning bolts.
>>34267083I finished Book Two last night and am on to Book Three. If I'm understanding this correctly, the only way to be pure enough for heaven is to isolate yourself from friends and family and to not tend to the needs of the body unless absolutely necessary? Assuming these things weren't said as a test for the reader and are instead actual instructions, I think I'd prefer to do good for the sake of it, then burn in hell when I go. Regardless, there's otherwise a lot of good advice so far.
bump
>>34268341>the only way to be pure enough for heaven is to isolate yourself from friends and family and to not tend to the needs of the body unless absolutely necessary?No, what's being urged there is detachment. You're supposed to be absolutely attentive, responsible and loving towards your friends and family. But you're also supposed to be impartial and detached in relation to them. That may sound contradictory, but actually it's complimentary. Objectivity and love are the same thing, so the only way to truly love someone is to do it impartially. Otherwise, what you love isn't the person but is actually just the way they make you feel. Think of an abusive mother who smothers her child and sabotages his life to keep him near her, as opposed to a stern but loving father who lets his son learn, fail and grow on his own. You have to be detached enough to treat people the way they ought to be treated, rather than simply the way you want to treat them. That's what it means to be truly good for goodness's sake.
>>34268341And with bodily needs, the key is moderation. Asceticism isn't necessary if you already know how to eat for the sake of nourishment rather than the sake of pleasure. But if you're the kind of person who has trouble controlling himself, it's extremely valuable to learn how to fast. Not just for the sake of food, either, but because self control in one area means progress towards self control in others.
>>34267097You talk like a pretentious soccer mom. Also people believed the sun moved around the Earth and that we needed to cut off our foreskins because that's what God wanted... yeah those people were scientifically minded.
>>34268752>>34268762Understood, thanks for the clarification. Another thing I'm struggling with is the idea that we're supposed to despise earthly creatures. Perhaps the word "despise" is supposed to mean "view them as inherently flawed compared to God while still loving them"?
>>34266916I have an interesting view on Christianity and I would say that most of its followers follow very vague and superficial abstracts with no concrete rules. Perhaps they cheat themselves somehow. Your precursors built a culture that rewards their ten commandments, believe it or not.
>>34266916The source is God, not a book.
>>34269197My post still stands.
>I can see the benefit to personal and societal structure it would provideAnd what did the western world believe in prewoke and do you understand that we're in a reality with linear time.Communism works. Try again harder
>>34268751>>34269178>>34270960You are special, bumping with no further contributions. Consider this your participation trophy.
>>34268786Despise, much like contempt, didn't originally mean hate or dislike. It just means "not prioritize". And "creatures" doesn't mean animals, it means "anything created", and naturally everything was created other than God, which is by nature uncreated and unmade since it always was. So, for example, somebody who has no interest in being famous despises fame. But that doesn't mean he has a hateful attitude towards famous people, nor would he be devastated if he became famous somehow through no fault of his own.
>>34266916>post woke world>everyone is a gay christian right wingerAs an apolitical agnostic I still feel discriminated :(
>>34267150>greeks were dumb savages who invented zeus to explain lightning bolts.What's pseudo-intellectual is feeling really strongly about an argument yet you can't articulate a single reason why I'm wrong beyond this ridiculous strawman.
