Zone1 You didn’t choose your faith. It chose you.

[Anomalism]

You were born into a story. Before you could read, think critically, or even consent, you were told who God is, what sin is, what eternity means, and how to earn love. That’s not faith. That’s programming.

If you had been born in a different house, in a different country, under a different flag, you would believe something else. Maybe you’d worship a different god. Maybe you’d call that god by a different name. Maybe you wouldn’t believe in any god at all.

If what you believe had been given to you in reverse order, would you still call it truth, or just loyalty?

 

[task0778]

At some point in life we might begin to question what we were taught, about religion and everything else. Some people do, some people don't,

And when it comes to faith, that is not truth. It is belief, or opinion.

 

[Meriweather]

You were born into a story. Before you could read, think critically, or even consent, you were told who God is, what sin is, what eternity means, and how to earn love. That’s not faith. That’s programming.

What about the atheists in my family who weren't told about God, eternity, etc. This wasn't the case in my immediate family, and we were never taught "how to earn love". Did someone teach you this, and how do you earn love?

Several thousand years ago Moses taught the people that the moral law wasn't somewhere high in the heavens that we have to ask, "But who will get it and bring it down to us? The moral law is not far across the sea from us that we have to ask, "But who will travel across the sea, find it, and return with it? Moses taught that the moral law is already in our mouths and in our hearts. This is not programming, it is educating.

 

[Anomalism]

What about the atheists in my family who weren't told about God, eternity, etc. This wasn't the case in my immediate family, and we were never taught "how to earn love". Did someone teach you this, and how do you earn love?

Several thousand years ago Moses taught the people that the moral law wasn't somewhere high in the heavens that we have to ask, "But who will get it and bring it down to us? The moral law is not far across the sea from us that we have to ask, "But who will travel across the sea, find it, and return with it? Moses taught that the moral law is already in our mouths and in our hearts. This is not programming, it is educating.

You mentioned your atheist family members as if their existence disproves my point, but it actually reinforces it. If people raised in the same extended family system can end up with radically different beliefs, that suggests belief is shaped by influence, not inevitability. That’s not spiritual certainty. That’s environment.

You also asked, “Did someone teach you how to earn love?” Yes. Most of us were taught exactly that. Not always in words, but in the emotional currency of approval, reward, guilt, and punishment. Be good, follow the rules, don’t question too much, and you’ll be loved, accepted, saved. Step out of line? Risk rejection, shame, hell, or exile. That’s not divine. That’s behavioral conditioning.

Then you bring up Moses, a man delivering a divine code to a tribal people who were being explicitly told what to believe and how to live or be cursed. That’s not evidence of universal truth. That’s a story of lawgiving authority. If anything, it’s the clearest example of the programming I’m referring to. Truth presented as non-negotiable, morality delivered as decree.

You say that’s not programming; it’s education. Okay. Then ask yourself this...

If a child is educated into a belief system before they’ve developed abstract reasoning, before they’ve encountered alternatives, before they even know they’re allowed to question it, is that really education, or is it indoctrination dressed as virtue?

If what you were taught had been taught to you in reverse, if you were raised Muslim, or Buddhist, or secular humanist, would you believe this now? If not, what does that say about the nature of your belief? Is it the product of evidence, or just inheritance?

 

[Meriweather]

You mentioned your atheist family members as if their existence disproves my point, but it actually reinforces it. If people raised in the same extended family system can end up with radically different beliefs, that suggests belief is shaped by influence, not inevitability. That’s not spiritual certainty. That’s environment.

I am pointing out that atheists raised their children without mention of God, Bible, prayer.

 

[Meriweather]

You also asked, “Did someone teach you how to earn love?” Yes. Most of us were taught exactly that. Not always in words, but in the emotional currency of approval, reward, guilt, and punishment. Be good, follow the rules, don’t question too much, and you’ll be loved, accepted, saved. Step out of line? Risk rejection, shame, hell, or exile. That’s not divine. That’s behavioral conditioning.

I grew up in a large family. It seemed their was always a baby in my arms and I never had to teach any of them about love. They simply loved me and those around them. Of course we were not immune to naughty behaviors, but we were simply taught to behave, not how to "earn" love as that was never in question.

 

[Anomalism]

I am pointing out that atheists raised their children without mention of God, Bible, prayer.

Exactly, and what you’ve just done is confirm my point. Belief is shaped by exposure. Your atheist relatives raised children without God, Bible, or prayer, and those children adopted beliefs accordingly. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s the definition of influence. The same way a child raised in a devout Christian household is more likely to adopt Christian beliefs, a child raised in an atheist household is more likely to adopt secular ones. What does that tell us? That belief, religious or not, isn’t proof of truth. It’s a function of environment.

So here’s the question again, more plainly.

If you had been raised in the exact opposite worldview, would you believe what you believe now?

If not, is your current belief the result of truth, or just proximity?

 

[Meriweather]

Then you bring up Moses, a man delivering a divine code to a tribal people who were being explicitly told what to believe and how to live or be cursed. That’s not evidence of universal truth. That’s a story of lawgiving authority. If anything, it’s the clearest example of the programming I’m referring to. Truth presented as non-negotiable, morality delivered as decree.

Moses' point is that no one needed to tell anyone the law or how to behave. They already knew the law and how to behave as it was in their hearts and in their mouths. What about you? When you were little were you totally ignorant when it came to right and wrong behavior?

 

[Meriweather]

If a child is educated into a belief system before they’ve developed abstract reasoning, before they’ve encountered alternatives, before they even know they’re allowed to question it, is that really education, or is it indoctrination dressed as virtue?

If what you were taught had been taught to you in reverse, if you were raised Muslim, or Buddhist, or secular humanist, would you believe this now? If not, what does that say about the nature of your belief? Is it the product of evidence, or just inheritance?

You grew up without knowing there were other religions? Isn't that kind of like growing up without knowing their are other forms of government? What do you suspect is more common: Those who grew up in one faith choosing to practice another faith--or, those who grew up in a faith choosing to reject religion/faith altogether? I don't know, but I suspect it's the latter. What say you?

 

[Anomalism]

Moses' point is that no one needed to tell anyone the law or how to behave. They already knew the law and how to behave as it was in their hearts and in their mouths. What about you? When you were little were you totally ignorant when it came to right and wrong behavior?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say Moses delivered a divine moral code, complete with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and then also claim nobody needed to be told what was right or wrong. If the law was already fully known in everyone’s heart, why give commandments at all? Why threaten consequences? Why establish a priest class, a tabernacle, or a legal system? Either people needed instruction, or they didn’t.

As for your question, no, children aren’t born with a complete understanding of right and wrong. They’re born with emotional instincts, empathy, fear, attachment, but those instincts have to be shaped into frameworks. That’s the entire point. Whether you call it parenting, teaching, or programming, it’s influence, and every parent, every religion, every culture claims it’s just “reminding” children of what they already know. That’s how all programming protects itself, by calling itself truth.

So I’ll ask you again

If you had been raised in a completely different belief system, told from birth it was in your heart too, would you believe this one now?

If not, why are you so sure this one is the truth?

 

[XponentialChaos]

The vast majority of people don’t put much thought into their religious beliefs.

Christian parents tend to have Christian children. Muslim parents tend to have Muslim children. Atheist parents tend to have atheist children.

What does that say about us? A lot.

 

[Anathema]

You were born into a story. Before you could read, think critically, or even consent, you were told who God is, what sin is, what eternity means, and how to earn love. That’s not faith. That’s programming.

If you had been born in a different house, in a different country, under a different flag, you would believe something else. Maybe you’d worship a different god. Maybe you’d call that god by a different name. Maybe you wouldn’t believe in any god at all.

If what you believe had been given to you in reverse order, would you still call it truth, or just loyalty?

What about those of us who do not follow the path that we were taught in our youth? Those of us who have moved on, rejected what was ingrained in us for years and found a different set of beliefs?

 

[Meriweather]

Exactly, and what you’ve just done is confirm my point. Belief is shaped by exposure. Your atheist relatives raised children without God, Bible, or prayer, and those children adopted beliefs accordingly.

No, they grew up atheist and remained atheist.

So here’s the question again, more plainly.

If you had been raised in the exact opposite worldview, would you believe what you believe now?

If not, is your current belief the result of truth, or just proximity?

I grew up in an extended family where some believed in God and some did not. At a young age (and I mean toddler) I was determined to seek and find God. And, I did. So yes, I think if I grew up in any family who had both people who believed and those who did not believe, I'd still go out searching for myself.

What about you: If you grew up in a family of strong believers in God, when you were old enough to decide for yourself, would you believe just because your family believed, or would you determine for yourself whether or not you believed?

 

[Meriweather]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say Moses delivered a divine moral code, complete with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and then also claim nobody needed to be told what was right or wrong. If the law was already fully known in everyone’s heart, why give commandments at all? Why threaten consequences? Why establish a priest class, a tabernacle, or a legal system? Either people needed instruction, or they didn’t.

Recall that Moses lived in a time where reading and writing weren't all that common. As it became more common, would people want to doodle, or would they tend to write out what was most important.

The people Moses led had been slaves. Moses pointed out that sin was a lot like slavery--it leads to unwanted consequences. This was not a threat--it was a heads up. If you wish to live as a free person, the Law will guide you to this freedom.

Did you know in Moses' early days, it was the male head of the family who guided the family in the ways of God. This changed when the heads of families and tribes all went the wrong way--except the Tribe of Levi. The Levites proved they could lead well even in adverse circumstances. They were the example for all others.

 

[Anomalism]

No, they grew up atheist and remained atheist.


I grew up in an extended family where some believed in God and some did not. At a young age (and I mean toddler) I was determined to seek and find God. And, I did. So yes, I think if I grew up in any family who had both people who believed and those who did not believe, I'd still go out searching for myself.

What about you: If you grew up in a family of strong believers in God, when you were old enough to decide for yourself, would you believe just because your family believed, or would you determine for yourself whether or not you believed?

What you’re describing is a beautiful instinct, the desire to seek for yourself. I respect that, but even your story still proves the point. You sought within a range that was already familiar. You didn’t grow up in a world where Vishnu was sacred, or where the Quran was recited daily, or where ancestor worship was the spiritual norm. You sought God, but the God you found likely resembled the one your environment already whispered to you.

That doesn’t make your belief false. It makes it situated, and acknowledging that doesn’t invalidate your faith, it humanizes it. You asked if I would believe your God had I grown up in a devout household. Maybe I would’ve, but the consider this...

Would I believe the same way? Would I have arrived at that belief through conviction, or through inheritance?

Most people don’t challenge the beliefs they’re praised for holding. Most people don’t question the beliefs that grant them belonging, and most people call that loyalty “truth", not because they chose it freely, but because they never realized they didn’t, so this isn’t about whether belief is good or bad. It’s about whether belief has been earned, or simply absorbed.

Your story deserves reverence. but reverence without reflection becomes mythology, and mythology mistaken for certainty becomes dogma, so let me ask again, not if you searched…

But if your search had led you somewhere unexpected, somewhere taboo, somewhere outside the lines of acceptability, would you still have followed it?

That’s the difference between belief and bravery.

 

[Meriweather]

But if your search had led you somewhere unexpected, somewhere taboo, somewhere outside the lines of acceptability, would you still have followed it?

What makes you think it hasn't? But perhaps you can first define what you would consider taboo or outside the lines of acceptability?

 

[Anomalism]

What makes you think it hasn't? But perhaps you can first define what you would consider taboo or outside the lines of acceptability?

A subtle shift, possibly defensive, possibly curious. Who knows?

That’s a fair question, and if your search has led you into tension with what was expected of you, socially, culturally, or religiously, then that’s precisely the kind of bravery I’m speaking to, but when I say taboo or outside the lines of acceptability, I mean this...

• Would you have followed your search if it led to a spiritual path that your family would reject?
• Would you have still trusted it if it led you to a version of God that wasn’t tied to your community’s idea of salvation?
• What if the answers you found couldn’t be squared with scripture, or church doctrine, or cultural assumptions?

Would you have stayed open, or would you have course-corrected out of fear of losing belonging? That’s what I’m asking, not whether you searched, but whether your search was truly free, or unconsciously guided by the boundaries of what felt safe to believe.

Most people don’t consciously censor themselves. The boundaries are invisible. They come dressed as loyalty, reverence, tradition, even love, but if your search never risked exile, never threatened to cost you anything, then how could you be sure it wasn’t shaped more by proximity than by truth? This isn’t about judging where you landed. It’s about whether you were truly willing to go wherever truth might lead, even if it led you away from everything you were told was sacred.

That’s the real test of belief. Not whether it comforts you, but whether you would still hold it without reward.

 

[Meriweather]

A subtle shift, possibly defensive, possibly curious. Who knows?

That’s a fair question, and if your search has led you into tension with what was expected of you, socially, culturally, or religiously, then that’s precisely the kind of bravery I’m speaking to, but when I say taboo or outside the lines of acceptability, I mean this...

• Would you have followed your search if it led to a spiritual path that your family would reject?
• Would you have still trusted it if it led you to a version of God that wasn’t tied to your community’s idea of salvation?
• What if the answers you found couldn’t be squared with scripture, or church doctrine, or cultural assumptions?

Would you have stayed open, or would you have course-corrected out of fear of losing belonging? That’s what I’m asking, not whether you searched, but whether your search was truly free, or unconsciously guided by the boundaries of what felt safe to believe.

Most people don’t consciously censor themselves. The boundaries are invisible. They come dressed as loyalty, reverence, tradition, even love, but if your search never risked exile, never threatened to cost you anything, then how could you be sure it wasn’t shaped more by proximity than by truth? This isn’t about judging where you landed. It’s about whether you were truly willing to go wherever truth might lead, even if it led you away from everything you were told was sacred.

That’s the real test of belief. Not whether it comforts you, but whether you would still hold it without reward.

This morning I started working on a thread I've called Behold the Lamb of God. It brings up a point or two some Christians may not agree with. A lot of my Bible research through the decades has been Hebrew etymology and how the King James English can be at odds with it.

When, as a toddler, I told my parents I wanted God to talk to me as he did Abraham, Noah, and Moses, they laughed, patted me on the head, and said God no longer did things that way. I said nothing, but (according to everyone) I had been born stubborn. If God could talk to Abraham, Moses, and Noah, then he had no excuse to not talk to me. I was determined. About ten years later, they certainly didn't believe my experience.

It seems a core belief of Christianity is that Jesus took on the punishment for our sins, that he paid our debt. When I learned about this, my evening prayer, was, "God, don't you dare have Jesus crucified for my sins, I'll be crucified for my own sins, thank you very much. However, if others need Jesus to be crucified for them, I won't stand in your way if you do it for them." So yes, as a child, I went around with the belief that if Jesus was crucified for everyone else's sins, fine, but I'd wait and be crucified for my own sins. Maybe that would only take a few seconds off his suffering, but I was determined.

As an adult (and after much Bible study) I recognized that Jesus ran into roadblocks insisting that sins are forgiven, one just had to have a change of heart and stop committing that sin. It seems Jesus didn't so much die as punishment for my sins as he laid down his life so that I might know my sins are forgiven, and it is repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

It took more etymology study into the Aramaic language that Jesus' words that in English read, "It is finished" that many go with the Greek vocabulary as "debt paid in full", in Aramaic it is a call for submission. Was Jesus showing his own submission to God's will? And, was he reminding us of his teaching that we are to discern God's will and submit/follow it?

As far as your the last question: (Bold mine)

• What if the answers you found couldn’t be squared with scripture, or church doctrine, or cultural assumptions?

In fact, church doctrine and cultural assumptions are different from mine when it comes to the Father punishing the Son for the sins of third parties. I definitely understand how people came to that conclusion, and I understand how I arrived at my own conclusion. So...what if? First, where beliefs mesh is that I believe salvation is through Jesus Christ. What if I'm wrong and it turns out Jesus was punished for my sins? I teach, so I'm quite used to getting "what ifs". My response to them is, "We'll worry about that if the "what-if" ever comes up." I am quite comfortable being wrong, because we're dealing with the complex. Someone said that for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. When the answer becomes clear to all and I'm wrong, I'll accept that, and then not remain wrong.

 

[Anomalism]

This morning I started working on a thread I've called Behold the Lamb of God. It brings up a point or two some Christians may not agree with. A lot of my Bible research through the decades has been Hebrew etymology and how the King James English can be at odds with it.

When, as a toddler, I told my parents I wanted God to talk to me as he did Abraham, Noah, and Moses, they laughed, patted me on the head, and said God no longer did things that way. I said nothing, but (according to everyone) I had been born stubborn. If God could talk to Abraham, Moses, and Noah, then he had no excuse to not talk to me. I was determined. About ten years later, they certainly didn't believe my experience.

It seems a core belief of Christianity is that Jesus took on the punishment for our sins, that he paid our debt. When I learned about this, my evening prayer, was, "God, don't you dare have Jesus crucified for my sins, I'll be crucified for my own sins, thank you very much. However, if others need Jesus to be crucified for them, I won't stand in your way if you do it for them." So yes, as a child, I went around with the belief that if Jesus was crucified for everyone else's sins, fine, but I'd wait and be crucified for my own sins. Maybe that would only take a few seconds off his suffering, but I was determined.

As an adult (and after much Bible study) I recognized that Jesus ran into roadblocks insisting that sins are forgiven, one just had to have a change of heart and stop committing that sin. It seems Jesus didn't so much die as punishment for my sins as he laid down his life so that I might know my sins are forgiven, and it is repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

It took more etymology study into the Aramaic language that Jesus' words that in English read, "It is finished" that many go with the Greek vocabulary as "debt paid in full", in Aramaic it is a call for submission. Was Jesus showing his own submission to God's will? And, was he reminding us of his teaching that we are to discern God's will and submit/follow it?

As far as your the last question: (Bold mine)

• What if the answers you found couldn’t be squared with scripture, or church doctrine, or cultural assumptions?

In fact, church doctrine and cultural assumptions are different from mine when it comes to the Father punishing the Son for the sins of third parties. I definitely understand how people came to that conclusion, and I understand how I arrived at my own conclusion. So...what if? First, where beliefs mesh is that I believe salvation is through Jesus Christ. What if I'm wrong and it turns out Jesus was punished for my sins? I teach, so I'm quite used to getting "what ifs". My response to them is, "We'll worry about that if the "what-if" ever comes up." I am quite comfortable being wrong, because we're dealing with the complex. Someone said that for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. When the answer becomes clear to all and I'm wrong, I'll accept that, and then not remain wrong.

What you just shared is one of the clearest examples I’ve seen of someone actually walking the path I was pointing to, belief forged not by proximity, but by persistence. You’ve wrestled with your faith, studied beyond the surface, and even risked theological solitude in pursuit of integrity.

You said something profound, "God had no excuse not to talk to me.” That’s not arrogance; that’s spiritual honesty, and your willingness to diverge from doctrine, not out of defiance but out of careful, etymological reverence, is precisely what I meant when I said real belief should be able to survive scrutiny. Yours clearly has. I won’t pretend we agree on everything, but I respect the way you arrived at your convictions. They weren't given. They were forged, and if more people approached belief like you do, willing to risk being wrong, willing to question what's expected; we’d have fewer dogmatists and more seekers.

Respect.

 

[Eman623]

What if a child is born into a household with one devoutly religious parent and one atheist parent? Would that child be able to truly decide for themselves without being "programmed"? Or would it just be a different kind of programming?