Do you believe in god?

[Unicorndreams24]

i have recently been thinking a lot about religion and wondering how many believe in god and also what made you come to the decision of believing?

Great question! Many churches and believers still follow this teaching, and adherence varies. Many of us would follow these instructions. Instructions on things like head coverings, hairstyles, or jewellery are different from moral teachings the Bible presents as universal, such as sexual ethics. Jesus himself was quite specific on marriage — what it means, who it binds, and the covenantal love it requires — showing how these moral principles are enduring, not culturally conditioned. Paul encourages each believer to examine Scripture, be fully satisfied in their own conscience, and act according to their personal relationship with God (1 Corinthians).

At the heart of it all is the gospel: following Jesus, recognising our own sin, receiving God’s forgiveness, and living in faithfulness, justice, and mercy. Cultural practices may vary, but the call to trust God’s grace and apply Scripture thoughtfully is universal. Some believers find certain practices meaningful, others read them differently. I think there’s some explicit differences on what is universal instruction and what is specific cultural instruction, if you track through each reference carefully to, for example, jewellery versus sexual ethics. I hope that explains a little of where I’m coming from. I’d be interested to hear from those who are believers and may not wear jewellery or head coverings, to understand their perspective too. I don’t mind wearing dull clothing!

Christians are encouraged to examine the veracity of the Scriptures—the Gospels and the rest of the Old and New Testament—carefully and thoughtfully. Historically, the Gospels were written within decades of Jesus’ life and are supported by multiple independent sources, including Paul’s letters and external historians like Josephus and Tacitus.

John contains verifiable historical details—locations, cultural practices, and real events—that align with first-century Palestine. Church teaching draws on these texts because early communities recognised them as credible accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.

Other writings, like the Gospel of Thomas or 1 Enoch, are not treated as Scripture because their authorship is uncertain, their theology often conflicts with apostolic teaching, and they were not widely recognised in the early church.

Skepticism is reasonable, but claiming all Gospels are ‘false’ ignores the historical plausibility, the consistent witness of early Christians, and the purpose of Scripture to reveal God and guide human life to salvation by trusting in Jesus. For those who believe, this is why we take the Gospels seriously—not blindly, but as reliable records. There is probably much more that can be said on this than for a Mumsnet thread! You may not agree, and that is entirely your prerogative. We have different views on the authority and veracity of the Bible which means the starting point for debate can be difficult.

conflict with any idea that Jesus wandered east, lived a secret family life, or otherwise avoided the ministry and ultimate purpose he came to fulfil. It is a fascinating idea and I’d love to hear more

Oh, I'm so glad you asked 😄 Given your dismissal of the 'other' gospels, we have zero information on Jesus's life up to age 30. Mention of a few brothers - which may also mean cousins - is no information.

In the context of the time and place, it's most likely that he married and 'multiplied', as instructed by his religion. Do bear in mind, though, that 'wandering' as a student and teacher of philosophies was a respectable occupation throughout the ancient world. They didn't have the internet, broadcast media or newspapers: these people were the media.

This hypothesis is not that Yeshua took the profession up in his 30th year, but as soon as he was ready to leave home. He headed East, learning some languages (predominantly Greek) and skills, as well as exchanging views on life, tradition and religion with people he met. He would certainly have met fellow travellers from different cultural backgrounds, who would have introduced him to local nobility and priests.

From 320-185 BC, the Mauryan Dynasty ruled most of the Indian subcontinent. Its second emperor, Bindusara, was very keen to upgrade the intellectual skills of his court, to which end he invited travelling teachers of the Stoic and Sophist schools to stay. He especially ensured that his son, Ashoka, developed logic, reasoning, balance and resilience, etc, to a high standard.

Ashoka went on to make the empire wildly successful. After a career-defining battle in 261 BC, he devoted himself to Buddhism - which originated in his country. He sent missionaries out across the known world, successfully converting many countries either wholly or partially to Buddhism. Great empires such as Parthia (Iranian/Greek) blended Buddhism with their religions, in turn sending travellers out to spread the word along the Silk Road and beyond.

How do we know this? Because Akosha wrote it all down in stone and rock. His philosophy's lovely on the whole; he was even an early environmentalist.

By 0 AD, a nation called the Yuezhi had taken over Bactria (Afghanistan and Uzbekistan), embracing the existing Greco-Buddhist religion which fitted with their own. They rapidly went on to create the Kushan Empire, butting up against the Parthian Empire to their East, where Greco-Buddhism had already developed into a widely accepted form.

The Romans were busy taking over these places, or trying to. As we know, their policy was to work with existing religions not suppress them. Greco-Roman-Buddhism developed along with them.

They hypothesis, then, is that this traveller Yeshua (and probably several like him) found himself in these exciting places, where there was much to learn and where the religion was of PEACE AND LOVE. It did not place fate in the hands of strict judges like the Pharisees, but in the heart/soul and charitable actions of the individual.

See why I like this idea? It makes a lot of sense! Even more helpfully, Buddhism doesn't believe in a supreme deity, making it wonderfully adaptable to those who do - as long as they grant their big god some of the important Buddhist characteristics such as patience, "oneness" and the promise of rebirth to the pure of heart.

As an aside to the current area of discussion, isn’t it interesting how a generic question on the philosophy board about “belief in god” has become a detailed critique of only Christianity, right down to nitpicking over a single mention of a form of dress which appears in only one tiny portion of New Testament scripture?

One would think there exists only atheism and Christianity in the world.

I wonder why this is?

Granted some Christians, like myself, have responded to the initial question and subsequent atheists have picked up on the opportunity to interrogate our belief system as a result. That’s fine. Please, don’t get me wrong, I welcome engagement and am happy to talk about Jesus all day long, so long as the conversation is conducted in good faith with mutual respect.

But where are the adherents of other faiths?

And where’s the interest from atheists in attempting to dismantle their deeply held doctrines?

It seems to be ever thus on Mumsnet. 🤔

There are several posts asking for input by MNers of other faiths. Can't do much about their lack of interest in it!

I'm sure I and some other sceptics have extended our remarks to 'religions' in general. My knowledge of others is superficial, seeing I was raised in a majority Christian country whose very language reflects biblical tradition.

I’m atheist. I was raised Jewish and I just never understood the point or the benefit to my life.

I know a couple of people who believe in god because their dads died when they were kids and absolutely can’t cope with the thought of never seeing them again, so they believe in god as a way of coping.

I don’t believe in any gods - none of them exists- their doctrine is irrelevant.

Speaking for myself, my critique of religion extends to all religion. Let's face it, they all have the same irrational prohibitions. It's just that most people on Mumsnet are more familiar with Christianity. I am happy to challenge anyone of any faith who adheres to and promotes the restrictions that oppress women, LGBT people and those of different faiths or none. That includes Islam, if that is what you are insinuating.

I am an atheist. That means I don’t believe in the existence of any gods or gods. I am more likely to talk about Christianity than any of the others because it’s the one I know most about and can discuss with some knowledge. Despite what some people assert, being an atheist in a country where most religious people are Christian does NOT make you anti Christian.

I don’t understand why anyone would believe?

@ByLovingTraybake

Quote :" Christians are encouraged to examine the veracity of the Scriptures—the Gospels and the rest of the Old and New Testament—carefully and thoughtfully.".

Not in my experience. I have never come across a bible study group where participants sit and discuss if the bible is factually true . They are usually about trying to figure out what it means, and how they can squeeze it to fit their doctrine.

In fact, this is something I am personally aware of, because when I was a Christian, it was through developing an inquisitiveness about if it was true that started me off checking the veracity of the Bible. And that led me to... wait for it.. eventually becoming an atheist.

You are constantly forgetting that many folk on here were Christians. This has just been discussed in the responses to " why are you only talking about Christians" post.

Josephus etc, not 100% settled. I wont go into that, We can all look it up. Bart Ehrman for example covers it.

Now this bit. Quote : " Other writings, like the Gospel of Thomas or 1 Enoch, are not treated as Scripture because their authorship is uncertain, their theology often conflicts with apostolic teaching, and they were not widely recognised in the early church."

When you wrote that, you must have known what the response would be. You surely did. How could you post that and not be aware ?

First up. 1 and 2 Enoch survives because it is part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.

Now. ".... their authorship is uncertain".

Do I really have to ask this ?

I tap the table pensively before I hit the POST button. Wondering if I really have to ask.

:-)

I think part of the difficulty here is that we may be starting from different frameworks. Christianity doesn’t begin with asking “Why would someone believe this?” but with a particular set of beliefs that people either accept or reject.

At its heart, the Christian gospel is quite simple. It says that God made the world good and made human beings for relationship with him, but that we are broken and self-centred, and that this separation from God isn’t something we can fix just by trying harder or being more moral.

Christianity then makes a specific historical claim: that God entered history in the person of Jesus Christ, lived a perfect life, died to deal with sin and guilt, and rose from the dead. Trusting Jesus isn’t about blind faith or emotional comfort; it’s about believing those claims and responding to them.

My hope comes from this. If Jesus rose from the dead, then forgiveness, meaning, and life beyond death are real possibilities, not just comforting ideas. This faith helps me make sense of both the beauty and the suffering in the world, my own failures, and the idea that grace is possible, and the joy of eternal salvation.

You can keep asking why someone might believe this, and you’re free to reject it. But the fact that you don’t find it convincing doesn’t make it untrue for someone holding a separate belief to you. Just as you may choose not to believe the same as me, and I respect that — we have made different choices with thought and consideration.

I understand, thank you for sharing your perspective.

@ByLovingTraybake states
“Christians are encouraged to examine the veracity of the Scriptures—the Gospels and the rest of the Old and New Testament—carefully and thoughtfully.”

I can confirm that this has been my experience throughout my many years in various churches. Personal research and further reading was always encouraged in any church I was part of, including university level studies, to deepen one’s understanding and knowledge of the historical context and origin of scripture.

Blind acceptance of any doctrine preached was definitely not something we were supposed to do - rather we were always encouraged to follow the example of the Jews of Berea (Acts 17) and check things out for ourselves. I’m always grateful to those who helped me in this regard.

Thank you for response. I’m not disputing your experience, only the idea that it defines Christianity as a whole. Christianity itself encourages examination and testing of its claims, even if that hasn’t matched your experience in every Bible study group you attended — those aren’t the same thing.

Historically and biblically, Christians have long debated questions of truth, authorship, and reliability, from the early church fathers through to modern scholarship. The fact that many small groups focus on interpretation rather than historicity doesn’t negate that wider tradition.

Historians continue to treat the Gospels as serious first-century sources, whether or not one accepts their theological claims. Even Bart Ehrman does not argue that Jesus didn’t exist or that the Gospels are wholesale inventions; his disagreement is over how they should be read.

The canonical Gospels were tied early to eyewitnesses or their close companions and circulated widely within living memory of the events they describe; later “sayings gospels” were not.

You examined these questions and became an atheist — that’s your conclusion and your prerogative. I very much respect that. Others examine the same material and come to a different one. Former believers don’t invalidate Christianity any more than former atheists invalidate atheism.

We clearly don’t share the same framework, but that doesn’t mean either side is ignorant or acting in bad faith. And hopefully it doesn’t mean that we need to say things with unkindness or sarcasm when we disagree, too. Hopefully we can both ask questions with curiosity and also try to understand the other side, without jumping to conclusions.

Thank you, this was helpful to hear! Many Christians I know came to faith later in life after serious questioning and deep engagement with the evidence. I always admire that intellectual honesty. At the same time, I’m so thankful that the gospel is not only for academics or intellectuals, but for all - and does not discriminate. It’s encouraging to hear your journey and the care with which you’ve approached faith! Thanks so much for sharing.

“I’m so thankful that the gospel is not only for academics or intellectuals, but for all - and does not discriminate.”

Me too! When I came to the point of putting my faith in Christ I knew very, very little indeed. Almost nothing, in fact.

It didn’t stop Jesus from coming into my life. In fact I didn’t start reading the Bible until after I came into relationship with Him, and for the first year or so the Holy Spirit was my only Teacher.

The more I’ve gotten to know Him and grown in knowledge of history, scriptural context, authorship etc the greater my appreciation of how wonderfully true and perfect our God is. And I know there’s much more to learn.

@ByLovingTraybake, I replied to your query about the Eastern wandering hypothesis at 08:43. You might have already seen it, this is just because I accidentally deleted your tag when shortening the first para.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved" - Tim Minchin

@ByLovingTraybake

I mentioned Ehrman in passing to avoid a derailment. My thing is the bible. And yes, Ehrman is a historicist and not a mythicist. I am trying to avoid arguments from authority, if that is the correct term.

Was there a man called Jesus etc, we have touched on that. Did he walk on water, rise from the dead blah blah? No.

So as you avoided the question I thought I should not really have to ask... erm...who wrote it ?

Pick a couple of gospels, and tell us, who wrote them. Proven factual bio.

Oh that’s so encouraging! Thank you!

Thanks so much for sharing! That quote assumes faith ignores evidence. Many of us see faith as trust based on evidence — just not only scientific evidence. For me, and many other scientists (eg John Lennox), science and faith operate in different but complementary lanes. I appreciate we have different views on this but enjoyed hearing your thoughts!

What does that actually mean “Science and faith operate in different but complementary lanes”??

Your answers are very vague - it would be helpful if you were able to explain more succinctly what that means?

@ByLovingTraybake

Quote : "That quote assumes faith ignores evidence. "

One of the actual definitions of faith is :

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

But John Lennox is a mathematician-a discipline that easily tips over into philosophy. And when you say “many other scientists” are any of them biologists or physicists?