LeoValMer05
Registered User
The core of my religious views are:
Also, you can notice that I evade using any pronoun (either he or she). This is because I believe that the Supreme Architect's identity is metaself one. This means that the Architect is above any gender and identity know, and putting the Architect in one is just limiting the Architect into a mistaken perception. This is where I branch out from most religious organizations, especially the Abrahamic ones. However, a Christian view I maintained is the Trinitarian view, which is the way I describe the essence of the Architect. The three natures that are in my view are the Creator, the Word, and the Presence, which are quite similar to the Christian view of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The way I substituted these was from word Father to Creator, Son to Word, and Holy Spirit to Presence. These words were not randomly chosen though. I chose them because, for me, they truly describe the Architect. The Creator and Presence are quite self-explainatory, which the word Creator explain Architect was the one responsible for the existence of the Universe, and the word Presence explain the way the Architect presents to everything within that Universe. The Word, however, is the one it seems that I had to explain. By the Word, I means the Laws of the Universe that can either be present naturally and socially not matter what any being within the Universe believes. For instance, in the natural world, gravity is something that exist no matter what anyone says. Anyone can deny it even if it's self-evident, but that doesn't mean that the denier can escape such reality even if her or she tries to.
The objective truth is part of the Word, but I extend this truth to ethics. It also has a nature that some might dislike, and sometimes they can be perceived as controversial. The reason I put it as a core of my belief system. The reason that is controversial is because I present that this objective truth can't ever be obtained fully, and that every philosophy, religion, and scientific theory has only a glimpse of that truth. In other words, this means that even my religious views will be changeable to the areas that are for now changeable. However, this doesn't meant that it doesn't have its unchangeable views; for instance, the core view of the objective truth. This view also opens the door for more core views in the future. This core view also exists for an attempt that prevents me to go according to my passions, and be more rational of any situation or idea. This means that this view is anti-postmodernist and anti-nihilistic, while it's very humanist and somewhat religious in its nature. This is because, while it isn't fully obtainable, it declares the existence of ethics, or what's right or wrong. This doesn't leave its controversial nature as it also says that this doesn't mean that the morality of one person or of a whole group is the right one. This individual, or group, can have a few right and unchangeable ethical views, or even be the one or ones with the closest objective ethical vies, but they will never reach its entirely. This also applies, and even exists in science, which is why everything in science is a theory. Meanwhile, in science, its laws are in fact those unchangeable points I present in my view. However, the only one that knows, has, and applies the objective truth is the Supreme Architect. In fact, the reason the objective truth exists is because of the Architect as it's the way it can be applied. Meanwhile, the reason the Supreme Architect exists is because of the objective truth as if there is no Architect then there is no way it can be applied.
My religious views on anything else that is outside these two core views are either indifferent, unknowable to me, or undecided. For instance, if you ask me what happens after we die, my definite response will be that "I do not know, but nor I care. The only life we know that exist is this one, and I will treat it as if it was my afterlife by being a good person while doing the highest goodness that I can achieve." Meanwhile, if you ask me how the Supreme Architect exist, then that would be something that is unknowable and undecided to me. While I have tried to define it, I can't as I have a limited, or even no knowledge of how the Supreme Architect exist. For now this is my religious view, and I hope that most, if not all, considered interesting. You all are welcome to disagree, ask and criticize about it too. Finally, if I offended anyone by any means, then it was not my intention.
- The belief of a Supreme Architect
- The acceptance of an objective truth
Also, you can notice that I evade using any pronoun (either he or she). This is because I believe that the Supreme Architect's identity is metaself one. This means that the Architect is above any gender and identity know, and putting the Architect in one is just limiting the Architect into a mistaken perception. This is where I branch out from most religious organizations, especially the Abrahamic ones. However, a Christian view I maintained is the Trinitarian view, which is the way I describe the essence of the Architect. The three natures that are in my view are the Creator, the Word, and the Presence, which are quite similar to the Christian view of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The way I substituted these was from word Father to Creator, Son to Word, and Holy Spirit to Presence. These words were not randomly chosen though. I chose them because, for me, they truly describe the Architect. The Creator and Presence are quite self-explainatory, which the word Creator explain Architect was the one responsible for the existence of the Universe, and the word Presence explain the way the Architect presents to everything within that Universe. The Word, however, is the one it seems that I had to explain. By the Word, I means the Laws of the Universe that can either be present naturally and socially not matter what any being within the Universe believes. For instance, in the natural world, gravity is something that exist no matter what anyone says. Anyone can deny it even if it's self-evident, but that doesn't mean that the denier can escape such reality even if her or she tries to.
The objective truth is part of the Word, but I extend this truth to ethics. It also has a nature that some might dislike, and sometimes they can be perceived as controversial. The reason I put it as a core of my belief system. The reason that is controversial is because I present that this objective truth can't ever be obtained fully, and that every philosophy, religion, and scientific theory has only a glimpse of that truth. In other words, this means that even my religious views will be changeable to the areas that are for now changeable. However, this doesn't meant that it doesn't have its unchangeable views; for instance, the core view of the objective truth. This view also opens the door for more core views in the future. This core view also exists for an attempt that prevents me to go according to my passions, and be more rational of any situation or idea. This means that this view is anti-postmodernist and anti-nihilistic, while it's very humanist and somewhat religious in its nature. This is because, while it isn't fully obtainable, it declares the existence of ethics, or what's right or wrong. This doesn't leave its controversial nature as it also says that this doesn't mean that the morality of one person or of a whole group is the right one. This individual, or group, can have a few right and unchangeable ethical views, or even be the one or ones with the closest objective ethical vies, but they will never reach its entirely. This also applies, and even exists in science, which is why everything in science is a theory. Meanwhile, in science, its laws are in fact those unchangeable points I present in my view. However, the only one that knows, has, and applies the objective truth is the Supreme Architect. In fact, the reason the objective truth exists is because of the Architect as it's the way it can be applied. Meanwhile, the reason the Supreme Architect exists is because of the objective truth as if there is no Architect then there is no way it can be applied.
My religious views on anything else that is outside these two core views are either indifferent, unknowable to me, or undecided. For instance, if you ask me what happens after we die, my definite response will be that "I do not know, but nor I care. The only life we know that exist is this one, and I will treat it as if it was my afterlife by being a good person while doing the highest goodness that I can achieve." Meanwhile, if you ask me how the Supreme Architect exist, then that would be something that is unknowable and undecided to me. While I have tried to define it, I can't as I have a limited, or even no knowledge of how the Supreme Architect exist. For now this is my religious view, and I hope that most, if not all, considered interesting. You all are welcome to disagree, ask and criticize about it too. Finally, if I offended anyone by any means, then it was not my intention.