Religion...

[Tosspot]

The Religion of Islam has a better logo than Tyson Foods.

[Boognish]

One of the more universal themes seems to be that few of us are outgoing or extroverted regarding our faith, system of beliefs, or lack thereof. And this conversation is excellent and edifying.

It does beg the question, though: If we weren't making the room so deadly silent on this core issue of existance, would the lunatics, bullies and extremists sound so deafeningly loud?

[nota]

Sorry, by Yaweh I meant the Christian God.

Yeah, I knew that.

I'm just trying to figure out whether you'd classify yourself as agnostic in favor of the Christian God but agnostic against other Gods from other pantheons (could be Wotan, Zeus, Ra, Apollo, the specific God isn't important). The reason I ask is that, according to my understanding of what you're saying, if I give God a 1 in a billion chance of existing, and you give God a 1 in a billion chance of not existing, then we're both technically agnostic, which is an interpretation I think is interesting. However, I don't know any Christians, even ones who admit they believe there's a small chance God may not exist, that would say they are agnostic.

Actually, that's quite a big thing to make some serious wood burn. My beliefs are Christian because that's how I was raised however, I know some people believe in a totally different "God" or "Supreme Being" I dont' have an ounce of trouble with that as I don't really think any one of us knows what form "God" may take.

My beliefs tend to be more "spiritual" if you will rather than any organized thing. As this evening, sitting on the porch eating dinner, a gentle rain blew up. We watched it come in across the golf course and across the road and into our yard, just a straight line of gentle rain. After a half hour or so of this, a beautiful rainbow appeared. I see God's hand all over those few moments. I'm one of those "my church can be out in nature-it doesn't have to be in a building or organized."

As I age, I find my beliefs change and I have a kinder/gentler outlook on life and death.

Look for a book Gospel of the Red Man by Ernest Thompson Seton. If you can find an older version before they PC'd it up, it would be better. Gives a unique perspective on religion. I think it was written in the 30s or so.

[/quote]

[nota]

Here's an exchange between myself and a guy I met on an internet forum back in 2000. We had many exchanges, but I've saved this one for all this time because in my opinion it was from this guy's heart and heritage. My words in red, his are blue.

You know, White Owl, I have always been fascinated with Indian lore. I lapped up everything I could read as a child and actually a lot since. I admire your people greatly for passing their ancestry on to their children.But tell me about why you are not American. I don't understand. And, I have never talked to an Indian before, but I always wondered--Do Indians consider "Red Man" to be a racial slur? I read a book once that had this term in it and then many years later I read somewhere that it wasn't pc. I was just wondering.


I really hope that you enjoy the book.  You will probably find that
some of the stories seem similar to those told in your bible.  You
must remmeber, our people were telling these stories long before we
had ever seen a white man, though others would have you believe we
stole these stories from missionaries.  We have always been
storytellers.  This is how we preserve our heritage.  Passing stories
on is what makes a great civilization.  You will find this to be true
in all of the ancient civilizations.  This, to me, is one the key
problems with the white man.  He no longer likes to tell his children
his stories.  Maybe he is ashamed of what he has done.

As far as why I am not American.  I was born to the Blackfeet nation
in the Canadian province of Alberta, though I am not Canadian either.
I am Blackfeet as was my father, his father and his father before. 
I am proud of that.  Americans are vain in thinking everyone wants to
be American.  At the same time, they themselves don't want to be
American.  They want to be fillintheblank-American or Italian, or
Greek, or Spanish, or, or, or.

Regarding your other question, I consider "Indian" to be more
annoying than "red man".  We are not from India.  Like
indian, though, I not red either, actually more of a tan "Red
man" is an old expression that appears mostly in books.  It's
usually not meant in a mean way anyway, only to differentiate, like
black and white.  I don't get wrapped up in "racial slurs". 
It is what's in a man's heart when he speaks that matters.  If there
is anger in his heart, he will be devoured by it eventually.  I see
no reason to waste my energy helping him along.

There's only one problem with your theory nota. My ancestors say > that we we have always been here and that we were the ones that left > North America to cross the ice into Asia. It is very vain for the > white man to believe that the oldest "known" center of > population is the only possible origin of the human race. In most > anthropological instances it is found that these people also came > from somewhere else. Expand your horizons and read "When the Sun > Came Down." It's a collection of my ancestors (Blackfeet)beliefs > handed down over the generations. Christianity would have you > believe that civilization started in Tigris-Euphrates area. Science > has been unable to prove this or any other beginning THEORY. Our > people believe that it started in several places. Our tribe's just > happened to have started in the northwest. As far as this question > of nationality. I am not American, but am native to this land. I am > Blackfeet and Proud.

I will read your book, but probably not till winter. Too much to do in the summer for much reading.

[mean]

It does beg the question, though: If we weren't making the room so deadly silent on this core issue of existance, would the lunatics, bullies and extremists sound so deafeningly loud?

I think the answer is that it is the lunatics, bullies, and extremists who want to be deafeningly loud. They are in fact defined as lunatics, bullies, and extremists by that very loudness. If we were to raise the volume of our discourse, they would be compelled to rise above it by their nature.

Here's an exchange between myself and a guy I met on an internet forum back in 2000.

That's pretty cool, thanks for sharing.

[Maitre D]

That is common sence and isn't needed to be explained to most people, let alone pounded in to their heads as most preachers think.

As a wise man once said:  "The problem with common sense is, it's not so common"

He also died for our sins so does that imply my need to sin or else he died in vain?.

The Church teaches a doctrine known as "Original Sin".  That means, you were born with sin and hence, cannot escape sinning even if you tried.

[KCKev]

As a wise man once said:  "The problem with common sense is, it's not so common"



The Church teaches a doctrine known as "Original Sin".  That means, you were born with sin and hence, cannot escape sinning even if you tried.

We where also born with common sense, and loose it with teaching then. Maybe an act of the devil?

[kcdcchef]

As a wise man once said:  "The problem with common sense is, it's not so common"



The Church teaches a doctrine known as "Original Sin".   That means, you were born with sin and hence, cannot escape sinning even if you tried.

so, you have christian beliefs, and you are born a sinner, you die at the age of 4 before you are able to ask for christ to be in your heart, quote unquote, and you are then condemned to hell, based on chrisitan teachings.

am i following this correct??

how can one be born a sinner, you have never had time to do anything!!!!

[Maitre D]

I don't actually think of Jesus as a teacher to me (although like I said before, it's impossible to know whether I would have come to these beliefs myself without Jesus/Catholicism's influence -- I'd like to think I would, but I'll never know for sure), which is maybe the part that doesn't entirely make sense to you, how you could allow yourself to be taught by someone who was clearly at least partly insane.  I think of Jesus as a guy who had some good ideas, many of which I share with him.  If Jesus were around right now (uhhh...ignoring all the religious/Apocalyptic implications of the Second Coming, that is), I don't think I'd necessarily follow him because I would probably recognize that this guy claiming to be the son of god is not totally right in the head.  But if he's saying good things, he's saying good things, regardless how crazy he might be. 

The problem with the Brittany Spears example (man WHY of all people did this twit find her way into our thread????) is that people don't go a Church every Sunday to hear her words.  People don't pray to Brittany Spears and they don't worship her.   What Jesus said, has been said before by many others.  And since.

Ergo, the people who follow him surely see him as different.

I'll freely admit that Jesus said a lot of good things, but I don't turn to the Bible for life lessons. 

The Christian life (since you mentioned the Bible) is 90% about your daily life and 10% about your spritual one.  To the extent you don't find any valuable life lessons in that book - and I don't see how that's possible - then the Bible isn't for you.   And won't help you here on Earth.

[Maitre D]

so, you have christian beliefs, and you are born a sinner, you die at the age of 4 before you are able to ask for christ to be in your heart, quote unquote, and you are then condemned to hell, based on chrisitan teachings.

am i following this correct??

Even among the Christian sects, there is a lot of disagreement on this topic.  Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."  Lutherans/Methodists baptize at infancy to clear both hurdels. 

But Baptists baptize when the person is an adult so he can accept religion on his own.    If a Baptist child dies, does that mean he's screwed? 

how can one be born a sinner, you have never had time to do anything!!!!

I don't necessarily accept that doctrine, personally, for the reason you state.

[Maitre D]

Hell sounds more interesting than worshiping somebody or something.  If there is a god, I don't look forward to going up there and bowing down every five seconds.

I'd rather go play with fire or something.  Lava is pretty cool stuff,  I watch the discovery channel.  I can throw stuff in it and watch it melt.

Clouds are boring and following god around in the clouds?  It just doesn’t sound like fun.

  Re: Heaven, the Bible doesn't say anything about you floating in clouds with a white robe on, belting out Amazing Grace. 


As for Hell, it's quite likely it doesn't even exist.  The Hebrew word was "Sheol" which means loosely, large grave.  People have taken Sheol to be a burning pit where the miserable spend eternity.  But many religious scholars say that going to Sheol ('hell') is just another way of saying you were buried into the ground.

Religion is just a total mystery to me.

It is to everyone.  If it weren't, we'd all have the same beliefs.

[ShowMeKC]

The Orthodox Church teaches "Ancestral Sin", which is washed away in Baptism. It also says that human death is inherited in us from Adam.

The Church teaches a doctrine known as "Original Sin".   That means, you were born with sin and hence, cannot escape sinning even if you tried.

As for AKP's comment about Peter...

The Early Christian Church has MANY Churches and MANY Bishops. There were five main Patriarchates... Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Those Patriarchates could trace themselves back to the Apostles (though NONE of the Apostles ever actually held a position in any Churches)

(Now the Roman Catholic Church)
-Rome could trace itself back to Ss. Peter and Paul. He was called the Pope and was the first among equals, but had the same voting power as all the others. However, it and the other four split from each other 1000 years ago after disagreements about his supremacy rather than primacy (and other doctrinal disagreements). The current Pope is Pope Benedict XVI. (Orthodox Churches do not recognize any Popes since the Great Schism)

(Now the Eastern Orthodox Church)
-Constantinople is home to the Ecumenical Patriarch. It was not founded by an Apostle, but rather in 330 A.D. when the capital was moved to Constantinople. The current EP is Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. The EP has the same status (in the Orthodox Church) that the Pope once held, the "first among equals".

-Antioch is one of the earliest churches and was where we were first called "Christians". It's succession can be traced back to Ss. Peter and Paul. It's Patriarch is Ignatius IV of Antioch.

-Alexandria is also one of the early churches. It's succession can be traced back to St. Mark the Evangelist. Today it is headed by Pope and Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria.

-Jerusalem is also an early church. It's succession can be traced back to St. James the Just (brother of Christ). Today it is headed by Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem.

In the EO Church, there are now additional Autocephalous churches:
The Church of Russia
The Church of Greece 
The Church of Romania
The Church of Georgia
The Church of Serbia
The Church of Bulgaria
The Church of Cyprus
The Church of Czech Lands and Slovakia
The Orthodox Church in America

Not trying to promote my faith, just trying to give people the historical facts in response to AKP's post.

[Jess]

One of the more universal themes seems to be that few of us are outgoing or extroverted regarding our faith, system of beliefs, or lack thereof. And this conversation is excellent and edifying.

Which makes it interesting that the churches that are flourishing, overall, are the intensely evangelical, more fundamental megachurches.  Moderate, less "extroverted" churches are largely having a hard time keeping even their comparatively modestly numerated pews filled, counting basically on the attendance of the elderly. Particularly when you look at the demographics (as I used to have to do, holding a church job as a young adult), and see the dearth of 20-30-something churchgoers, EXCEPT in the charismatic megachurches.  It's tough to find people my age who incorporate the active practicing of a religion into their lives, period, and it's damned near impossible to find ones that are of a more moderate stripe, more understated in any evangelism, and/or more liberal in their viewpoints overall. 

[kcmetro]

Which makes it interesting that the churches that are flourishing, overall, are the intensely evangelical, more fundamental megachurches.  Moderate, less "extroverted" churches are largely having a hard time keeping even their comparatively modestly numerated pews filled, counting basically on the attendance of the elderly. Particularly when you look at the demographics (as I used to have to do, holding a church job as a young adult), and see the dearth of 20-30-something churchgoers, EXCEPT in the charismatic megachurches.  It's tough to find people my age who incorporate the active practicing of a religion into their lives, period, and it's damned near impossible to find ones that are of a more moderate stripe, more understated in any evangelism, and/or more liberal in their viewpoints overall.   

I have a theory that some people....some....flock to mega churches for the anonymity of it all.  They can simply blend in with the enormous crowd and therefore not stand out...or be called out....by the pastor.  It's a way of "doing your time" for the week in an environment where nobody is going to notice you...so being a zombie and spacing out during the entire service is that much easier.  It also becomes a great venue for people-watching, as well as making new friends.

[mean]

Which makes it interesting that the churches that are flourishing, overall, are the intensely evangelical, more fundamental megachurches.  Moderate, less "extroverted" churches are largely having a hard time keeping even their comparatively modestly numerated pews filled, counting basically on the attendance of the elderly. Particularly when you look at the demographics (as I used to have to do, holding a church job as a young adult), and see the dearth of 20-30-something churchgoers, EXCEPT in the charismatic megachurches. 

I can see that, and in some ways it isn't surprising. Younger people always seem to be looking for edgier, more confrontational types of everything than their parents, from music to movies to political and religious beliefs. In some ways this is probably a good thing, but in others it appears to be putting us on a collision course. I tend to think atheism is growing in the US, much like it has in Europe since WW2, and that puts us in direct opposition to the megachurch evangelicals. This phenomenon is in evidence in our politics today, and may become even more pronounced in the future. Personally, I don't like it. I don't think either side holds a monopoly on truth, and while I cast my lot with the atheists, I don't see any good coming from hostilities between the two sides. At the end of the day we're all humans, we all deserve each others' respect, and getting bogged down in petty skirmishes only serves to empower those whom we both oppose.

[IraGlacialis]

My dad is a Lutheran. My mom is a Theravada Buddhist.
Our household never really went to church (services at Scouting don't count), and I myself could almost be considered an agnostic when i was younger. Yeah, I believed in spirits and the afterlife, but the idea of God never appealed to me. For some reason, when I was a teen and especially in my high school years, I suddenly became quite religious. Ironically, this happened at a time when many people I knew were becoming agnostic and even atheist.
I somehow chose to become a nondenominational Christian (with more of a Catholic/Orthodox mentality than one that is Protestant) with a syncretistic outlook. I believe in the core values of Christianity (Jesus' teachings and the fact (to me) that he was the son of God) and I read the Bible every Sunday, however I am willing to take in some philosophies of other religions as long as there are no conflicts with the core beliefs.
I also believe that once virtuous person dies, they get another chance to accept God, regardless of their beliefs. If anything, I have an inclusivist philosophy. A virtuous atheist has a better chance of getting into heaven than a dishonest Christian.  

Though for my beliefs, I have taken my fair share of flak. I get insulted by some atheists as being a backwards, brainwashed, and delusional individual who has this idiotic notion that it is possible for creationism & evolution to be inclusive (though the idea of putting "intelligent" design in public schools is purely ludicrous beyond belief). At the same time, many evangelical-types berate me for not attending church, believing in a metaphorical interpretation of Revelations and the first part of Genesis, having an open mind about most other religions, and believing that practically all of Mosaic law, except for the Ten Commandments, has been done away with (I admit that I find homosexuality morally distasteful, but I do not think it warrants damnation).

Oh and I do not tolerate zealotry of any kind, whether they be jihadists, firebrand preachers, proselytizing atheists, or those fuckers in Topeka.

Apparently you don't know many or have not looked into other cultures that don't involve gods.  There are many past tribes who believed their ancestors guided them, not gods in the way you perceive them.  They don't suddenly develop a sense of gods (or your god) at death.  Quite wishful thinking of you.  I can see though that when/if a person is at their death bed with enough time to ponder, they will ponder all post-life possibilities they've been exposed to, including possibly the one you believe in if they've had any slightest exposure to it.  The more exposure they've had to it, the more it may be considered, especially if there is a fear of death.

Well, under atheism, not even those philosophies would be relevant. As long as there is something supernatural involved (Gods, spirits, ancestral guidance, transcendence, after-life), a person can not be considered a true atheist in my book.
Though frankly, atheism itself can become a religion. Look at the Soviets and Chinese.

[mean]

A virtuous atheist has a better chance of getting into heaven than a dishonest Christian.  

I really rather like that. I like to think that someone like me, who tries to live what I consider to be a good life, would have a chance to go to heaven if there is a God. I mean, sure, today, I don't believe it at all. But I don't feel like that's my fault. I can't make myself believe something is true, that I believe is false. Can you make yourself believe in unicorns? Santa Claus? Leprechauns? It's just not fair, in my opinion, to cast me into hell (or exclude me from heaven) due to what ought to be considered very human and uncontrollable failings by a loving God. I wouldn't mind believing in God, I just can't. And I have to think that if there is a God, he's the one who made me this way, and therefore it is his responsibility to make me see the reality of his existence, if he exists.

[nota]

Not believing in Leprechauns is just plain wrong!!!!

[KCMax]

The problem with the Brittany Spears example (man WHY of all people did this twit find her way into our thread????) is that people don't go a Church every Sunday to hear her words.  People don't pray to Brittany Spears and they don't worship her. 

Of course not. They think Jesus is the son of God. I thought we were talking about those of us that don't believe he is the son of God. He has no mysticism to us. But his lessons are still good, even though he has delusions of grandeur.

Here's an exchange between myself and a guy I met on an internet forum back in 2000. We had many exchanges, but I've saved this one for all this time because in my opinion it was from this guy's heart and heritage. My words in red, his are blue.

You know, White Owl, I have always been fascinated with Indian lore.

[beautyfromashes]

^^^...spiral...spiral...spiral.....CRASH!!!!