One time, for Lent, i gave up country western dancing. It started out with line dancing and then team dancing then competitive team dancing. I was about to embark on competitive couples dancing when i noticed it was cutting into my health and day job. A lot of smoke in those days (before the smoking laws moved it outside) kept me from sleeping right. So the plan was to just give it up for 40 days and it would still be there to return to. But when time came to return to it, i had lost any and all desire to do it at all. And i never looked back. I did not see that coming, but it happened. Moral of the story is sometimes you have to separate from something for a while in order to get a handle on something that seems to have gotten out of control, or has become a habit of dubious value. This temporary separation eventually worked to break me free from the catholic church itself, which had become a ten year habit. At which point i adapted more of an agnostic method of research similar to your own. In regards Jesus, i would listen to what anyone had to say, and then i would set it aside to simmer on the back-burner of my mind, for years, not really adopting any convictions about what anybody had to say. Until finally i stumbled upon some new information that really made a lot more sense. I never expected to find any such information, not knowing it even existed, and never mentioned in any of the sources i was reading. All to say that if you've only studied Christianity, Judaism and Islam, you are not yet exposed to all the information available on the subject, but could eventually stumble upon it if you stay true to the idea that this must ultimately make some sense to be worthy of your conviction. Until then, there is no urgency to adopt any particular faith. Indeed, faith itself is overrated, and flawed. I would even call it a S.I.N., as in the worst thing you can do to your mind. The opposite of faith is knowledge, which is unlikely to arrive all at once, but rather in very small doses in the course of a life-time. You have to be able to kind of recognize the value of a small seed of knowledge, and hold onto it for dear life. It could, but wont always come from a book. As an example, my third seed of knowledge was the idea that i was responsible for everything that happens to me. I mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. The world was happening to me, therefore, i am responsible for making this world. I don't recall a single book teaching me this. I just decided to accept it one day. Maybe it made the most sense. Maybe it felt good. Without a doubt, it is the most empowering idea a mind can accept. It meant that if someone shot me dead, i would be responsible. It's not clear how this can be empowering until you kind of accept it and start to see the possibilities that it opens up. It's similar to the Catholic/Christian idea of responsibility when it asks believers to share the responsibility of Adams "sin", so as to share in the collective punishment of his offspring. Catholics call it "original sin", asking us to share in the responsibility. But to be fair, if ever you've studied law, this cannot be a shared responsibility unless, somehow, "i" am actually involved. By adopting this, what i call a seed of knowledge, i actually do involve myself, somehow, in what happens at the dawn of time. But this idea takes even more responsibility, going all the way back to before time began, before any such thing as "history". The idea that i made this world does shoulder me with the responsibility for all the happenstance of history, as if i had orchestrated it all myself. This invokes a much needed paradigm shift if ever one will be able to "overcome" such a world. The power to subvert, and the power to overcome must come from the same actor. That actor, i agreed, could be described in a parable such as the parable of the prodigal son. In this way, i arrived at conclusions similar to those held by Jesus, if you can read between the lines. Presumably he took responsibility for the whole world upon his shoulders, and asked us to "follow" his example. Presumably this means that the story of the prodigal son was also Jesus own story. It was not my intention to follow Jesus. It was only my intention, at the time, to adopt an axiom that made sense to me, that, if i was lucky, would be a seed of knowledge. I planted it, watered it, and in some years time, i did stumble upon more, new information about Jesus that satisfied my curiosity on the subject, and opened up doors to a lot more information that has served to stabilize my mind on this topic. I feel very lucky considering how many don't ever get it during an entire lifetime. Getting to your inquiry: spirituality. What is it? What is a "spiritual path"? By my information, "spirit" is the only legitimate mode of existence. A "spiritual path", then, is a path that leads back to the only legitimate mode of existence. It is not an attempt to blend different modes like "mind, body and spirit" into some kind of "balance". It's an attempt to abandon the body component, which is entirely illegitimate, and resume an original condition of life. You'll notice that most common, "broad path" religions are attempts to legitimize the body mode, and to blend two different worlds together; the "spiritual" world, and the "natural" world (as if there was anything natural about the material world of trees, bees, seas and "me"). If you wish, this can be symbolized by a tree which presumes to combine opposite characteristics into one thing, bearing one kind of fruit, so-to-speak. Let's call that the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". The parable says if you eat the fruit of this tree you will die. Once you realize that eating and believing are the same thing, you'll be able to start to untangle the web of deceit that presumes incompatible characteristics (i.e. good and evil) can co-exit in the same thing, on the same plane, in the same world. Its our belief that incompatible characteristics can co-exist that invokes an experience we call "death". And this is why i call faith a S.I.N. As such, most broad path, common religions are tempting you to eat, continually, from that tree. As such, most religions are the snake leading you into temptation, that is, the temptation to regard this world as god-given, god-granted, legitimate, holy, or even "good". If you follow this poisonous path to its logical conclusion, you will arrive at hell-holes like Islam. But you arrive at hell-holes like Islam via poisons like Judaism and Judaism 2.0 (Christianity), which function as gateway drugs to the really hard-core killing machines. Judaism = Wine Christianity = Beer Islam = Crack cocaine mixed with fentanyl. These religions, called Abrahamic religions, all aggrandize the concept of faith, as if it were the only legitimate currency with which to deal with the spiritual realm and its keepers. Through such faith, a man (Abraham) almost knifed his young son to death, based on voices he was hearing in his head. As you ought to be able to see, faith has no morals, so-to-speak. It is devoid of a value system that respects much else other than narcissism. Which is how you arrive in hell holes like Islam. These, and many more flavor, comprise a collection of ideas that may be called "duality", which again, is the attempt to combine opposite characteristics into one thing, one fruit, one plane, and/or one world. A world filled with faith is totally incompatible with a world filled with knowledge, for example. They can NOT coexist, ever, not even for a minute. It is a totally narcissistic trait to regard one's faith as "knowledge", which is what the most hellish of religious killing machines (like Islam) display. The minute you claim that what you believe is what you know, that is the day the blood starts to flow. People will die in scores. Your job, as an honest agnostic, is to steer clear of the killing machines (and their killing fields and killing zones) long enough to be helped by a seed of knowledge. The monotheistic killing machines are just as deadly as the polytheistic killing machines. Monotheism, as it is currently understood, is still duality. The whole of the material world is a kind of faith fueled religion which functions as a killing (changing) machine. If Islam doesn't get you first, ignorance eventually will. Non-duality is the answer to duality. Any legitimate "spiritual" path will lead along the way toward non-duality. So that is a good place to start a study. My studies have revealed that S.I.N is Seriously Insane Notions about Christ/Reality/Truth. "Death" is rapid radical change. "Life" (to dualists) is gradual, comfortable change. As you can see, life and death, to a dualist, is the same thing: change. On the other hand, "life" (to a non-dualist) is changeless, needing no change because of its perfection. To a non-dualist that is "reality" (a synonym for "truth") or what i call "Christ". It is experienced only in "spirit" having overcome the temporary self-deception that comprises a dualistic "world/reality".
I already apply this in my life—I don’t just take things at face value or believe something simply because it's told to me. For me, faith isn’t about blindly accepting ideas, but about questioning, testing, and finding what truly holds value. Even with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are quite research-driven (they were called Bible Students for a long time, after all), I don’t just take everything as absolute truth. Instead, I extract the wisdom and practical lessons that genuinely help me and others in life. Faith is often portrayed as a virtue, but when it replaces critical thinking, it can do more harm than good. The contrast between faith and knowledge is essential—real understanding doesn’t come in one grand revelation but unfolds gradually, piece by piece, over a lifetime. The trick is recognizing even the smallest seeds of knowledge and holding onto them, because they tend to grow into something meaningful over time. Your perspective on responsibility is fascinating. The idea that we are entirely responsible for everything that happens to us—even things that seem completely out of our control—is a radical shift in thinking. But I get it. It’s not about blame, it’s about power. When you take full responsibility, suddenly you’re not a victim of circumstances anymore—you’re the one shaping them. It’s a mindset that forces you to approach life differently, and honestly, it’s pretty liberating once you lean into it. As for spirituality, I really like your take. It’s not about blending opposites—mind, body, spirit—into some perfect balance, but about recognizing what’s actually real and returning to that. Most mainstream religions try to merge the material with the spiritual, which often just reinforces the illusion instead of helping to break free from it. I see that, and I respect the way you’ve thought through it. At the end of the day, I think the most valuable thing is to stay open, keep questioning, and let understanding unfold naturally. There’s no rush to have all the answers—if anything, the best ones tend to show up when you least expect them.
Yes faith versus knowledge is so conflated in a confused world, its a full time job for an honest agnostic, or a fortuitous philosopher to keep them distinct. The effect of holding dualing, incompatible characteristics in mind (in one mind) is cognitive dissonance. This, really, is the normalized state of mind of all mankind. It strikes me as arrogance, and in a worst-case scenario, it is obviously narcissistic. But in a strange world, faith can also be respectable, for example, science. If you can repeat an experiment, you can move beyond theory and start to call it knowledge. Unfortunately, science can't go further than the observation of persistent phenomenon initiated by faith. For example, faith installs the mountains, originally. A scientist can then observe water, how it persistently flows downhill off the mountain, and how evaporation brings water back to the top of the mountain via clouds coming from the sea. We then call this knowledge and are able to improve society by exploiting the persistence of such phenomenon. But we haven't moved beyond the observation of persistent, faith-based phenomenon. Carl Sagan would not have been happy to learn he was still a faith-filled believer in John Muir's church. At best, faith can point to some kind of knowledge, aka "truth". But for a compromised mind, it is very much like landing on a predicted number at the roulette wheel. And this is because of a maxim, describing the nature of faith, which says that : We only ever believe what we want to be true. This can be problematic when one's mind includes a mechanism which is intent on proving true what one believes. This was mentioned in a book called "Money Is My Friend" by Phil Laut. There is a "thinker" and a "prover" mechanism in man's mind. The prover will immediately start looking for, and finding, "evidence" that what it thinks is true...is true! This seems good enough until you realize that the prover will also start to manufacture evidence in an effort to force evidence to "exist". And so, faith is very much associated with force, which turns bloody when one religion starts to force its conclusions on other peoples of faith. People, whose worlds are founded on faith, eventually collide with other people, whose worlds are founded on faith. In a worst-case scenario, this means hot war. In another scenario, this means politics, which is war by other means. Another term for politics is "gnashing of teeth", a fairly constant culture in the heated half of hell. Knowledge is absent any kind of force component. If, for example you were willing to accept what the next number will be at the roulette wheel, you stand a good chance to be able to predict it. This is versus faith, which will tend to brute force to the next number, sometimes seeing the "evidence" of its positive thinking, but gradually doing damage to one's wallet for going against the prevailing wind. A good philosopher will constantly keep foremost in mind that the generally observable material world, including galaxies, stars, planets, trees, bees and seas...is the product of faith, which has forced otherwise incompatible characteristics to co-exist, no matter how unwillingly, in one space, in one world, as one thing. Despite this force, sometimes even whole galaxies will collide, and force rapid radical change (death) on one or both galaxies. The lucky inhabitants of one of the galaxies might try to invoke the force to be benevolent toward themselves. But anyone who lives by the force, may also die by the force. No surprise, anyone who lives by a star (the sun) may also die by said star, when it eventually morphs into a white dwarf after it first explodes. Better not to "live" on a "planet" in the first place. That is accomplished through knowledge. And if this becomes one's experience, knowledge is how one escapes hell, where artificially separated minds get trapped in prisons made of matter (bodies) which are then subject to the laws of physics, and other absurdities. Escaping hell, however, is most often accomplished over a relatively long period of time, which may typically span multiple life cycle experiences (birth-death-change cycles) per persona. So, there is plenty of time, so-to-speak, to replace the faith the fouls one's mind with cognitive dissonance, by gradually washing it out with actual knowledge. This washing is the clearest meaning of "baptism", accomplished typically over multiple incarnations, once it is decided that knowledge, and only knowledge, is accepted as one's destiny. Drop by drop, century by century, cleansing comes to any mind which welcomes a downpour. As water washes away dirt, knowledge washes away the cesspools of material existence. The concept of a body, founded on the voidness of null oriented faith, is no more. Having never been, the body is no more as an experience. This is similar to how drugs wear off. Hallucinations gradually go away as the drugs/poison/faith fade away from circulation. What is saved, then, is knowledge from the deleterious effects of faith. This is why it is important to be vigilant of the distinctions between real knowledge, and fake counterfeit knowledge (faith). But you knew that already!
An exceptionally beautiful contribution—deep, thought-provoking, and resonating on a level beyond mere words. It is rare to find thoughts that not only inform but also awaken something within one's own convictions. As a Jehovah’s Witness, I do not see the essence of these reflections as a conflict between faith and knowledge, but rather as their harmonious connection. It is not faith itself that deceives, but faith without foundation—faith that is not questioned, not examined, not allowed to grow. Likewise, knowledge without direction remains empty if it is not carried by wisdom. We, who reject all forms of violence, understand that truth cannot be forced. It does not reveal itself through conflict or coercion but through the quiet constancy of what remains when all illusions fade. The order of the universe, the harmony of natural laws, the intricate mechanisms that sustain life—none of these point to mere chance, but rather to a source of unparalleled intelligence. Not an arbitrary belief, but the logical conclusion of an open mind willing not just to see, but to recognize. And that is precisely what leads me to Jehovah—to a God who does not impose but reveals, who does not subjugate but guides. Truth is not a doctrine but an invitation. It does not unfold in the noise of those who claim it, but in the clarity of those who seek it.
How do you know it's Jehovah? How do you know Jehovah? What brings you to this conclusion? By the prattling of men whom you believe! Were you raised in Iran, then your god would be named Mohammed.
It is true. Where we are born and how we are raised influence our beliefs. That is undeniable. But does that mean truth itself is a product of geography? If I had been born in Iran, would truth itself be different? Would reality shift simply because my starting point was elsewhere? If faith were purely cultural, then every belief system would hold equal weight and truth would be nothing more than a matter of perspective. But truth by definition must be absolute, unchanged by time, place, or perception. Just because many conflicting beliefs exist does not mean there is no truth. It only means that finding it requires effort, examination, and the willingness to let go of what is convenient in favor of what is real. So why Jehovah? Because when I applied the same critical thinking I would use in any serious endeavor, whether in finance, philosophy, or history, I found that biblical prophecy, historical integrity, and the nature of Jehovah's sovereignty offered the most rational, coherent, and unshakable explanation for existence, morality, and purpose. Unlike many belief systems shaped by national identity or political power, Jehovah is not the god of one nation nor a concept crafted to serve human institutions. He is woven through the very fabric of history, independent of shifting ideologies, and his principles remain consistent regardless of time or culture. If I had been born in Iran, would I have first encountered Islam? Probably. But just as a trader does not stubbornly hold onto a position simply because it was his first trade, I would not cling to a belief system without subjecting it to scrutiny. Truth must be tested, refined, and measured against reality. When examined not through the lens of tradition but through evidence, reason, and practical impact, one does not arrive at faith by default but by conviction. I do not believe in Jehovah simply because of what others have said. That would be blind faith and blind faith is not a virtue, it is a trap. Instead, my belief is the result of questioning, comparing, and confirming. Truth is not found in the noise of human opinion but in what stands firm when questioned, challenged, and examined against the weight of reason and history. ^^
Yeah but every one strives to do that and the world in regards to religion is like herding cats with sheep dogs. How you think and I think is nothing special, you will never arrive at truth no matter what you believe. Give it up! It's like christians attempting to achieve perfection, it's stupidity.
Is love the reason Norway took away the JWs favored religious status? They were stripped of government monies.