Changing Religious Values [Archive]

Greyhawk

10-29-2003, 07:15 PM

If only it were that simple.

The thing is, each religion believes that it is the right one. So the respective followers are duty-bound to support their religion.

Surely paganism, by believing in its own gods, is denying the existence of the Christian God? Is it not as guilty of not agreeing on many paths as any other religion?

The term Pagan is a general term that incompasses the religions that fall outside of the three main reconized ones (Christanity, Judism, and Muslem).

Most pagans I know hold the believe that there is a Goddes and a God, and that all the Gods are one God. I can not say that I speak for all pagans but I do know that the majority of pagans that I have had dealings with DO NOT deny the exsistance of the Christian God but rather see him as part of a bigger picture, and incorporate a feminine aspect into their beliefs and worship. Also as I stated in my earlier post most pagans acknowlage that there are many different paths that lead to the mountain top and the only true path is that path that is true for the individual.

I am always open for an intelligent conversation about religion, and remain open minded about others beliefs.

Greyhawk

carbonize

10-29-2003, 07:25 PM

I somehow don't think that followers of a pagan religion are going to believe in the god of a religion who persecuted them and then used the image of one of the pagan gods, Pan, to represent the devil. Different branches of paganism may believe in different things but we all do live in harmony, where as all the branches of Christianity believe in the same god but argue with each other over how he wants them to live.

Many real pagans have a better knowledge of Christianity than the Christians themselves. I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't think that Jesus was born on December 25th. I think it would be quite funny if people actually realised what December 25th is actually the celebration of.

OK back to the topic at hand, religious symbols. In this day and age where schools pupils come from a variety of backgrounds and religions we should not force a single religion down there throats. I have yet to find a religion other than Christianity that is constantly trying to force it's self on to people. Have you ever had a muslim knocking on your door wanting to talk to you about his god? or a Buddhist stopping you in the street wanting to tell you about the journey undertaken by the father Buddha? I went to a Church of England high school where they still held things like Eucharists and the staff were predominantly Christian but they taught us about a multitude of religions and not just christianity. Yes we burnt a candle for easter and celebrated the Christian holidays but they also respected the rights of people form other religions to practise their own rites and customs (not sure if thats the correct way to word it). The only time I ever saw a crucifix on a wall was in the headmasters room or as a pupils drawing on the hall wall next to the star of David, the crescent, and several other drawings of religous symbols.

Sualdam

10-29-2003, 07:26 PM

It's complicated, isn't it?

My understanding of paganism (the main part, anyway - I know it is a big subject :)) is that the gods it believes in are especially those that existed before the main 'modern' religions. But I guess that it contains 'sects' just as the other religions do.

My view is that belief in any god - hence, any religion - automatically puts the individual in a position where he or she a) automatically supports their own beliefs and b) automatically opposes other people's beliefs that contradict their own.

That's not a bad thing - leastways, I'm not judging - but just a logical outcome to holding any specific belief.

carbonize

10-29-2003, 07:32 PM

Unlike Christianity with it's many branches Paganism is not a religion. The term pagan is used to describe anybody who believes in something religiously that is not a mainstream religion. Thats just a crude explanation but clears it up a little.

As for your comment

automatically opposes other people's beliefs that contradict their own

Thats not true of most religions apart from christianity. I think it's Muslims who say that Jesus was a prophet of Allah so they are not opposed to christianity. Most pagan religions teach peace and tranquillity and an acceptance of everyones right to be. Buddhism teaches you not to judge other people until you get to know them.

Sualdam

10-29-2003, 07:32 PM

I somehow don't think that followers of a pagan religion are going to believe in the god of a religion who persecuted them and then used the image of one of the pagan gods, Pan, to represent the devil.
Well, Christianity isn't as clear cut as people think either.

A great many pagan symbols and rituals were adopted by the early Christian Church in order to attract pagans into its fold. The whole concept of the father, son, and holy ghost (a three-headed deity) originated with paganism, and the cross in one form or another pre-dates Christianity by a long way.

I personally find all symbols and symbolism a real turn-off. In fact, as far as mainstream Christianity is concerned it has been one of the major contributing factors to the various schisms over the centuries ('No! you swing the incense OVER your head,not between your legs' kind of thing :) )

carbonize

10-29-2003, 07:34 PM

I somehow don't think that followers of a pagan religion are going to believe in the god of a religion who persecuted them and then used the image of one of the pagan gods, Pan, to represent the devil.
Well, Christianity isn't as clear cut as people think either.

A great many pagan symbols and rituals were adopted by the early Christian Church in order to attract pagans into its fold.

hence my comment of

Many real pagans have a better knowledge of Christianity than the Christians themselves. I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't think that Jesus was born on December 25th. I think it would be quite funny if people actually realised what December 25th is actually the celebration of.

=op

Sualdam

10-29-2003, 07:35 PM

Thats not true of most religions apart from christianity.
I'm not so sure, carbonize. Almost every religion I can think of treats non-believers differently to its own.

At the very least, each tries to convert non-believers (with the exception of Judaism, I guess). That must be telling us something.

wenwilder

10-29-2003, 08:18 PM

One religion is as true as the next as long as one person believes. You can argue the age of religion, which one is older, which one is newer, but age doesn't make one more true than the other.

You can argue the number of followers, who has more, who less, but you can never know who believes more deeply. The heart can't be measured.

You can argue the trials and tribulations of a belief, who has suffered more over the years for believing and choosing that belief over life.

Everyone believes in something and no one will ever take that belief a way, nor change a person's heart. That's the great thing about being human, we can believe in ourselves, in our choosen religion, and in others. It's when we close our minds and hearts to the world and each other that needless battles are fought.

Personally, I believe in life, yours and mine. I may not have the religious belief's you do, but it doesn't make my religious beliefs more important, more real, or more right than yours. It just makes them different. :)

vfaulkner

10-29-2003, 08:22 PM

To quote myself:
"Personally, I think it better to display different religious symbols, be it a cross, menorah, or koran-ic symbol, to better educate all to the similiarities and differences of each."

What I meant was to display them at the same time side-by-side and/or celebrate the appropriate days of observations.
I would have liked learning about Judaism & Muslim(Moslem?) and other beliefs, even while attending private school.

Carb said..."I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't think that Jesus was born on December 25th..."
Dec.25 was a celebration to a sun god at one point, was it not?
Much theological & 'scientific' study of the Bible and historic accounts & books would place his birth sometime in April, or thereabout.
Also, Jesus NOT a white man, contrary to the Euro-centric Reformers/artisans of the Middle Ages.
(Though what I saw while in Vatican City/Rome was Beautiful!)
Jesus lived & died a Jew... His was not to start a new religion but change the old.

What if we are all wrong...?

carbonize

10-29-2003, 08:58 PM

December 25th is the celebration of the sun god. Jesus' true birthday was January 5th I do believe. A clever Roman emperor, wanting to distance the new born religion of Christianity from Judaism, decided that he would order the Christians to celebrate their saviours birth on the same day as the romans celebrated the sun god. This is why in some pictures of Jesus you see him with a glow around his head to show both Jesus and the sun. This is also believed to be where the idea of halos came from.

mikmik

10-29-2003, 09:23 PM

Thanks again vfaulkner for a great topic that in illuminating our different approaches to understanding reality and purpose (spirituality), we may see a profound commonality amongst us as seekers of truth.
You said :
What if we are all wrong...?

Maybe that is the most important question that can ever be asked. Is it more important to seek the truth in our lives, at the expense of material values like ego and comparison, or does holding a concept that certain value systems structurally laid out, as in religion, or any belief system, can better serve to give our life purpose and meaning through specific direction.
I bet that you would love stuff like Albert Camus, who in his book "the Stranger" comes to the conclusion, when confronted by dogma as he is about to be executed for a completely capricious and grave error in judgement(he kills someone with out thinking clearly), he concludes that he has lived a good life, with no regrets, by thinking for himself and always being objective and unbiased.
He realizes that even if he wasn't "right", at least he didn't waste his life being "wrong".
I value the ability to learn and understand above all else, and in turn, respect all others right to the same freedom of choice. I can never be honest with myself and at the same time be presumptuous enough to think I know the answers for anybody else. That would mean that I think that I know the mind of God.
I think that by embracing our differrences, we may become enlightened, and having many religious, and non religious philosophies presented in classrooms can teach some tolerance and understanding of each other, and the self esteem to be comfortable with them.
Even blo.... [o;

Sualdam

10-30-2003, 03:28 AM

Jesus' true birthday was January 5th I do believe.
No one knows - they couldn't possibly.

Various scholars have argued that given the fact that shepherds were in the fields then it must have been a certain season of the year.

The fact that it was around the time of a census that has historical support also helps, but that still gives several months to allow for people to travel to their repsective birthplaces.

I've seen justifications for sometime in August or September. I don't recall seeing January, or a specific date, but if someone has proposed that then I guess it shows how unlikely it must be given that estimates range from January through September.

Hey! For all we know, it COULD have been December 25 :)

Sualdam

10-30-2003, 03:42 AM

Quote
Life is pretty straightforward: you live, and then you die.

The secret to making life a happy one seems to lie with some kind of spiritual belief. Whether it be pagan, Christian, whatever.

I'm always sceptical of many 'philosophical' works which try to make sense of belief by either making it horrendously complicated in ways you'd never previously imagined, or rubbishing it by showing how dumb it is to hold any belief at all. The authors of these works often seem to me to turn out to be very empty people who end up killing themseleves one way or another (including suicide or drugs).

What I do find interesting is that everyone who is posting in this thread is effectively pushing their own beliefs - preaching, if you will - whilst simultaneously suggesting that it is wrong for religion to do that.

It seems to be one of those subjects whereby you cannot possibly discuss it without taking a side in the debate.

pete61uk

10-30-2003, 05:07 AM

It has long baffled me that, unless you want to get 'really' dark, virtually all the established religions are based on a practice of tolerance and understanding. However, in the light of day - it has been my observation - that few have ever actually practiced it!

Still, it makes a lot of people extremely happy about themselves for at least one day a week.

Throughout the ages the only real commonality that I can find has been the use of 'selective' religious interpretation as a convenient tool to promote the overt ideals of some; and the covert aims of others seeking personal power and/or wealth.

The times may be changing and, who knows, the tolerance that is claimed will come to pass? I hope so. However, as long as there is a buck to be made, and/or power to be gained.........?

Just a thought......

Sualdam

10-30-2003, 05:31 AM

Well, I think the 'buck to be made' comment stems from people's interpretations of religion rather than the religion itself. The same would be true of war - not many religions say you should go out and have wars, but people who profess to believe still do it.

I guess the interesting point is that no matter what environnment you put mankind into, some form of spiritual belief always surfaces. History has shown that.

Greyhawk

10-30-2003, 08:46 AM

What I do find interesting is that everyone who is posting in this thread is effectively pushing their own beliefs - preaching, if you will - whilst simultaneously suggesting that it is wrong for religion to do that.

Where have I pushed my belief? I stated that there should be no religious symbols allowed in any state run agency including schools, that is to prevent people from pushing their beliefs. I have never said that my beliefs a right for everyone. They are right for me. Your beliefs are right for you. And again I say, It is truley a pity that people can not agree that there are different paths that all lead to the mountain top.

Greyhawk

Sualdam

10-30-2003, 09:11 AM

Now, now, Greyhawk. I worded all of that very carefully because I knew it could be a touchy subject.

I never accused you personally of anything.

I made a simple and accurate observation that everyone (note: everyone) is effectively pushing their beliefs. No matter how hard one tries (trust me - I've been doing this for years) you cannot have this conversation without being on one side or another. It is impossible to sit on the fence, just the same as when you discuss politics.

We don't need to go down this route because I never intended to dismiss anything you said or believe.

However, if we DO end up going down the 'you said/I said' path then the converstaion is doomed. 99% of the time that's exactly what happens with this subject.

So let's carry on discussing it - and agree that if anyone is going to diss anyone else, it won't be by creeping in the back door, but a full-on assault that will not be misinterpreted :)

Greyhawk

10-30-2003, 09:49 AM

Thanks to my girlfreind I was able to see your point of veiw so that even though I didn't know I was preaching my views to others I was just by the simple fact that I stated them. I stand corrected.

Greyhawk
P.S. I am never wrong, just completely mistaken sometimes. :-)

Sualdam

10-30-2003, 10:26 AM

We all are :)

You weren't preaching as such - I just used that word to highlight the religious aspect. Trust me, I wasn't even thinking of what you'd said when I wrote that ;)

Anyways, back to the discussion...

carju1

10-30-2003, 11:33 AM

Going right back to the original article discussion. The fundamental question is should the state and religeon be sperate or can/should a country have a state religeon (regardless of what relegion it is).

If there is a state religeon then I feel that at a state school, they have the right to display the relegious symbols of the states religeon and only that relegion. Just as a demoninational school can as display its symbols. However if the state and religeon are sperate then state schools should be non-demoninational and either display all symbols or none.

Regards
Julian

pete61uk

10-30-2003, 12:58 PM

Sualdam wrote:

"I guess the interesting point is that no matter what environnment you put mankind into, some form of spiritual belief always surfaces. History has shown that."

I don't honestly believe that ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ belief is the same thing.

For example, all religion, unless it is based on an oral history faithfully and accurately passed on from generation to generation has to be, by definition, open to interpretation. The change in european society after the introduction of christianity is a classic case of politically motivated interpretation.

Spirituality, and forgive me if my view differs from anyone else, is more of an 'internal connection', one of belonging that defies interpretation, it just 'is!'.

mikmik

10-31-2003, 02:37 AM

pete61uk:
Spirituality, and forgive me if my view differs from anyone else, is more of an 'internal connection', one of belonging that defies interpretation, it just 'is!'.

YES! I couldn't agree more, it's intensely personal, not a 'thing' but a 'state' IMO. (is this what is meant by "seperation of church and state? [o;)

So then, is 'religion' an attempt at re-creating this experience for others?

pete61uk

11-01-2003, 04:03 AM

MIKMIK wrote:

"So then, is 'religion' an attempt at re-creating this experience for others?"

That is soooooo deep! Personally, I could no more re-create or explain what I believe to another than I would attempt to influence anyone else into believing that what I believe is right. That is too political.

Sadly, history shows that the state and religion have been so intertwined for so long that I have a real problem seperating them. The politics of the state, and the politics between people. Tricky stuff.

wenwilder

11-01-2003, 04:54 AM

Religion isn't meant to be taught, it isn't meant to be preached, it isn't meant to be ruled, or have rules created for it. It's simply meant to be.

Everyone believes something, there's neither a right or wrong belief, nor is there a right or wrong religion. Some find religion annoying, some find it useless, some attribute it to their motivation, there success and why they carry a smile on their face at all times. But religion is a change in the heart that is meant to be.

It's that feeling, emotion, true elation that comes from the simplest thing and turns into the greatest. The beauty of a babies smile, is religion. The wildflower blooming in a vacant lot, surrounded by the remains of a burnt building, that's religion. The last person you hugged or shared a smile with is the truth behind religion.

You can argue religion for all you are worth, but what it comes down to is you. What you believe, how you believe and whom or what you believe in, that's all you. You make the choice, no one else. The person next to you may not believe as you, but then they are not you, they do not have your heart. How they believe and what they believe is unique to them, just as it is unique to you and unique is how it is meant to be.

Human beings as a whole are perfectly flawed and I rather like that fact. So whether my words are preaching or just ramblings, I will sit back and watch and keep believing. We are who we are because we are who we are. There is no religion written or preached that will ever truly define the nature of human belief.

Be glad that you can believe, be glad that you are unique, and be glad that you are perfectly flawed. I am glad you are all those things, just as I'm glad I am. :)

mikmik

11-01-2003, 05:38 AM

Said W.L.:
Religion isn't meant to be taught, it isn't meant to be preached, it isn't meant to be ruled, or have rules created for it. It's simply meant to be.

Everyone believes something, there's neither a right or wrong belief, nor is there a right or wrong religion. Some find religion annoying, some find it useless, some attribute it to their motivation, there success and why they carry a smile on their face at all times. But religion is a change in the heart that is meant to be.

No. Deciding that something is "meant to be" is a value judgement and also implies a conciousness, a decision i.e. - it's supposed to be. I maintain that that is religion, an interpretation based on a concious process, a judging, a conclusion. By saying that something is 'meant to be' implies that you know something fundamental that imposes certain parameters, those being flexible.
All we 'know' is what are perceptions tell us, and what we experience is therefore unique. That is all you can 'know' for certain, you can't 'know' anothers perceptions, and therefore what exactly it is that they experience.
Spirituality is the raw experience, the state of being, without interpretation. It just 'is'. It's not 'meant' or intended.

(Although I think somehow we basically agree what's going on but just have a different way of putting it[o; ) I don't know if what I just said is right or not, but it is perfectly what I said. I do, however, 'believe' that it is right!
Now is that clear as mud, or what! [o:

(Oh ya, it's alright for me to pick on 'the blonde' (titter titter), 'cause I'm a 'dumb jock'!

wenwilder

11-01-2003, 08:13 PM

...change in the heart that is meant to be.

I associate certain phrases with songs and forget that not everyone knows the songs. This phrase is a re-phrasing of a song by Rushing Wind. Or was it Petra or Don Francisco? hmmm I can't even remember that right now. But...the phrase was running through my head at the time I wrote my reply. The full phrase is: "They say it's in the heart, this change that comes to be. He had done his part, the rest was up to me."

It is Rushing Wind, the song is Don't be like the world tonight.

You do make a good point though mikmik and I do think that there are times that your mind thinks a bit straighter than mine. And I do think we are saying the same thing only re-phrasing in our own unique ways. :)

By the way, I'm the DITZY blonde! And I highly doubt you are the 'dumb jock.' :)

pete61uk

11-02-2003, 06:53 AM

A smattering of cynicism towards dogma, balanced by an effort to live up to your own - belief system is not a word-grouping I want to use - sense of ‘self’ (possibly better), is a healthy thing?

Said W.L.:
Quote:
Religion isn't meant to be taught, it isn't meant to be preached, it isn't meant to be ruled, or have rules created for it. It's simply meant to be.

The only hole in this statement is that the point at which a person is capable of rational independent thought, based on personal experience and observation, is reached, if at all, is after long exposure to the prejudices pressures and dogma of their role models and peers.

mikmik

11-02-2003, 12:34 PM

From pete61uk
...sense of ‘self’ (possibly better), is a healthy thing?

I am finding that my "sense of 'self'" leads to a 'healthy living', just out of respect for my existence.
(OH man, that makes me an "existentialist"! I was trying for "logical positivism" or "rational humanist", although "ditzy blondelism" must also be regarded highly IMBO - in my biased opinion)("comical cynicism" does not have 'official' status yet)
Also pointed out by pete61uk :

The only hole in this statement is that the point at which a person is capable of rational independent thought, based on personal experience and observation, is reached, if at all, is after long exposure to the prejudices pressures and dogma of their role models and peers.
The bane of the righteous!

rocky1

11-02-2003, 12:51 PM

Religious Beliefs - I believe with all my my heart, that I am closer to God whilst in my boat Sunday morning, than all those devout Christians are in Church! They've got a roof over their head, I don't! (Think about it.) Rocky - http://www.rtfi.us/webmaster.htm

Have to agree with MikMik, organized religion is about recreating the experience for others, whereas I feel it should not so much be about that, as it is about a way of life. About how you treat others. And, doing right by them. The "sense of self" pete61uk cites.

Rocky

pete61uk

11-03-2003, 02:15 AM

I'm definitely not pc. I can be naïve and have a tendency towards speaking with my heart that could be interpreted as tactlessness. I delight in the sweet smell of grass after rain, of coastal breezes and smell of the sea, the way the hairs of my nose tingle before snow falls, the rich diversity of life on our planet, and of opinion, the differences that unite us. The sense of peace and tranquillity during periods of quite contemplation and/or inspiration in the land of my soul, the way a child giggles with delight, and the sweet scent and caress of a woman.

I try to listen, to learn as much about myself as I do others. I fail, often, but I am trying.

I am gloriously flawed and pleased to be so.

redcircle

11-03-2003, 09:40 AM

the cross in one form or another pre-dates Christianity by a long way.

I thought the cross was symbolic because Jesus was crucified on the cross.

minstrel

11-03-2003, 09:55 AM

the cross in one form or another pre-dates Christianity by a long way.

I thought the cross was symbolic because Jesus was crucified on the cross.

That too, but there are different varieties of "the cross" that existed in religions prior to Christianity - for that matter, there were a lot of people executed by crucification before Jesus - the symbol of the cross was used to symbol His sacrifice to humanity, but it was probably also adopted to assist with integrating Christianity with and making it more symbolically attractive to pre-Christian religions.

By the way, somone a few days ago noted that December 25 wasn't the birth of Christ, which is certainly true - it was, as suggested, adopted because it was close to the the winter solstice (?) which was already a religious day for non-Christians - the poster suggested that His true date of birth was sometime in January: I'm not sure that the date has been determined accurately but previously I read that it was suspected to be some time in March.

FWIW...

wenwilder

11-03-2003, 10:00 AM

the cross in one form or another pre-dates Christianity by a long way.

I thought the cross was symbolic because Jesus was crucified on the cross.

The cross predates Christianity by thousands of years. The basic cross (intersecting lines) is found in every culture in pre-historic times. The Romans were the ones who used the cross as a form of capital punishment, that's where our familiarity with it comes from. They began using it a few years before christs time and reserved its use for non-romans. Near the end of the first century, Justin Martyr acknowledged that everywhere he looked he saw the cross. In the second century, Tertullian talks of making the sign of the cross on the forehead. With Constantine, the history of the cross took a different direction. The Roman emperor told of seeing a cross in the sky, emblazoned with the words "By This Sign Conquer." On a pilgrimage to Israel in 326 A.D., Constantine's mother, Helena, purportedly found the "true cross" or ultimate relic.

During medieval times the cross was used to mark graves and was very much a part of the art and architecture of the era. The 'cross' even became the floor plan for many churches.

The Latin cross is the traditional and most popular form of the cross. The one most people think about when you mention a cross. The Greek cross, or equal armed cross, is the symbol used by the Red Cross and I believe the Knights Templar used it....or was that the Tau cross? hmmmm, no, the Tau cross resembles a 'T' The Knights Templar's symbols resymbols the Jerusalem cross.

Anyway, in the beginning the cross wasn't a symbol for christianity, instead they used the ichthus or fish.

Just as a last thought. The Latin Cross along with the Greek Cross and Tau Cross form the basic shapes used in all other cross designs.

mikmik

11-03-2003, 01:56 PM

wen =
Anyway, in the beginning the cross wasn't a symbol for christianity, instead they used the ichthus or fish.

There you go, rocky1. You are closer! LOL

rocky1

11-03-2003, 02:55 PM

MicMic
There you go, rocky1. You are closer! LOL

Yeah.... and you guys all thought I'd been exposed to the elements to long! }:~)

Rocky

minstrel

11-03-2003, 06:50 PM

Yeah.... and you guys all thought I'd been exposed to the elements to0 long! }:~)

Well, of course, those things are not mutually exclusive - it's possible for you to be right and exposed to the elements too long... :-)

"There's a fine line between fishing... and standing still." - author unknown

pete61uk

11-04-2003, 05:27 AM

wenwilder

11-04-2003, 12:46 PM

An additional cross for you, the CELTIC CROSS:

Adapted by the first christians in the British Isles in order to make christianity more acceptable to the then Celts.

It was a merging of the Celtic Knot - symbol of eternity, and the celtic relationship with the land, etc. - and the cross of christ.

And then there is: Anchor cross, chi-ro cross, graded cross, orthodox cross, St. Andrews cross, Celtic, Egyption, St. Peters, Patriarchal, Papal(sp?), Fyliot, etc.

The Celtic and Egyptian are by far my favorite - they have a character and peaceful quality to them - IMO. :)

mikmik

11-04-2003, 06:43 PM

and the Cross walk...

minstrel

11-04-2003, 09:27 PM

... and cross stitch, hot cross buns, Banbury Cross, Southern Cross, crossword puzzles...

wenwilder

11-04-2003, 09:40 PM

Something tells me that this isn't what this thread started out about. :) Talk about getting off topic. What was the original topic again? :)

mikmik

11-04-2003, 09:50 PM

We're actually closer than you think, sorry wrong choice of words, something aboot cymbals on the walls disrupting class -

pete61uk

11-08-2003, 03:08 AM

Another symbol, that of the 'Saint' formerly known as 'Christopher', patron Saint of travellers.

He must have had a bad press agent?

webweaver

11-11-2003, 08:37 PM

The twists the turns, the deep thoughts, my head is spinning!

No really, there is one thing that I have noticed while scrolling through the thread. What about those who are without religion? Not everyone has or desires to have a religious alignment or consideration. Many consider themselves Atheists. So, wouldn't any religous symbol or statement made in accordance with a government entity be just as offensive as choosing one religion over the other to represent the masses?

I personally am a Pagan witch, I embrace many philosophies and respect all spiritual paths. I don't necessarily have to respect particular followers or leaders who are specifically aligned with a "religion". My husband is Atheist. He doesn't have any spiritual or religious persuasion, by choice. It comes down to choices we make. Do we choose to allow for favortism in our government whether it be religious or special interest? Or do we let them choose for us?

Politics and religion these days are more interwoven than ever. The lines between seperation of Church and State have been blurred ever since the 1950's when the money and the Pledge of Allegince were inserted with God. This was to combat against the "Red Scare" of communism since they were secular. Then again it comes round circle to the media and the messages the masses were receiving and therefore believing. Not much has changed, if anything it's gotten worse. Politics and Religion and Media are all very powerful mediums to shape opinions and world views.

Okay well my brain hurts now,lol.

Blessed Be Pagan brothers and sisters,and may peace be with everyone.

pete61uk

11-12-2003, 12:02 PM

Webweaver:

A Pagan Witch 'married' to an atheist? That must have been an interesting ceremony.

webweaver

11-12-2003, 06:19 PM

Webweaver:

A Pagan Witch 'married' to an atheist? That must have been an interesting ceremony.

It was actually a really emotional and touching ceremony. We did a unity candle and had a friend/mentor officiate. I myself have officiated several marriages and vow renewals. All unique as the individuals involved.

Love isn't bound by religion, or lack there of.

minstrel

11-12-2003, 10:50 PM

What about those who are without religion? Not everyone has or desires to have a religious alignment or consideration. Many consider themselves Atheists.
Isn't atheism a religion, really?

webweaver

11-13-2003, 02:24 PM

What about those who are without religion? Not everyone has or desires to have a religious alignment or consideration. Many consider themselves Atheists.
Isn't atheism a religion, really?

Well since I believe that Atheism loosely means "without god" and that those who claim to be Athiestic choose to be non-religious. Religion in my opinion is an organized sect of spiritual believers that are lead by some hierarchy, usually patriarchal.

So I don't believe that Atheism is a religion, it doesn't seem to bear the qualifications that would lend it to be considered one. It's the opposite, it's more like a lack of religion. IMHO.

minstrel

11-13-2003, 07:44 PM

I don't know - I think one can make an argument that it is...

Religion basically has to do with your beliefs about your connection to the universe; the existence (or non-existence) of one or more supreme beings; your beliefs about the afterlife (or lack thereof); your concepts of birth, death, souil, etc. If I describe myself as an atheist, I am saying that I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods - that's as much a "faith"/religion as it would be if proclaimed myself to be a pantheist or monotheist (sp?), I think...

janeth

11-13-2003, 08:01 PM

I read one time where a solider wrote there are no Atheists in a fox hole.

Greyhawk

11-13-2003, 11:14 PM

I read one time where a solider wrote there are no Atheists in a fox hole.

That is very true Janeth, when under fire you become very close to whatever gods you can think of, and even make up a few just to be on the safe side. Having experienced combat I started praying to the God of Not Dying Todayness

Greyhawk

pete61uk

11-14-2003, 02:45 PM

Minstrel - I'm not so sure atheism could be considered a religion. But I think I know where you are coming from.

After all, it is a conviction, 'of sorts'. Without empirical evedence doesn't that imply some kind of belief system or 'faith?'

minstrel

11-14-2003, 09:36 PM

I'm not so sure atheism could be considered a religion. After all, it is a conviction, 'of sorts'. Without empirical evedence doesn't that imply some kind of belief system or 'faith?'
Yes, that's kind of how I think of it - since we can't prove there is a god or that there is not a god, any thing you believe about the existence or non-existence of a god is by definition a "faith" or religious conviction.

("I know, kids... I'm scared too..." - Homer Simpson)

mikmik

11-14-2003, 10:48 PM

This is my kind of discussion!
The definition of religion as given in 'Funk and Wagnalls International Edition":
1. a belief binding the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being, as involving a feeling of dependence and resposibility, together with the feelings and practices which naturally flow from such a belief,
2. Any system of faith and worship,
3. An essential part or practical test of the spiritual life,
4. An object of conscientious devotion or scrupulous care.

It is plain, that to enable a lucid and understandable exchange of idea's, a 'commitment' must be made to follow a set of defining guidelines which includes the meaning of the language used , in order to establish precise intent and understanding.
I am not religious, and there is no faith involved(ideally) in my outlook or understanding of existence and reality other than expectations that arise from previous experience and common sense reasoning. I do not see any possibiliy of a 'consciousness' prensense or direction to our universe. To suppose such a state of nature introduces a 'long ago(at least 2000 yrs) well understood', ultimately fatal dilemma, known as the "principle of first causes".
It is not a choice between competing or available 'explanations' that I make, but the attempted understanding of 'what is' made with objective and uncolored perceptions.
To suppose a 'favoured', or even the necessity of an explanation, or 'reason that I'm here' is to bias me and blind myself to 'the reality'. Of course it "cannot be proved" and can eventually be reduced to "that's just another viewpoint" by 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, granted, but all argument is ultimately rendered meaningless by such a semantic approach.
I don't need an explanation as to why things are, I choose to face up to my limitations of understanding no matter how uncomfortable they are, including my mortality, and I therefore can endeavor to rcognize how my own fears and wishes taint my perception and understanding.
I feel very, very, very small and insignificant when I try to understand the immensity, not just in size, but also complexity and shear apparent meaningless of anything, and I see the virtually complete insignifigance of my existence as part of the profoundly beautiful nature of "what is", for how can I respect a belief or viewpoint that places any more importance on my(our/earth's/etc) position in the grand scheme of things as anything but self-serving ego centeredness. How dare I decide such matters, for again, to decide or judge what is or isn't important supposes a grave presumtion of 'better than' or 'more knowledgeable' and therefore separates me from that with which I wish to connect to and understand.

I would rather have no answer than the wrong answer, and given that there is no "right answer", I choose to remain open, and to try to understand as much as possible about what makes me me, you you, nature nature, and how our "relationship to everything - DEFINES OUR OWN REALITY"
I understand that placing more importance on beliefs or certain views at the expense of another is only my imposed value system and not an intrinsic characteristic of anything!

minstrel

11-14-2003, 11:09 PM

Funk and Wagnalls
Can you say that in these forums?

I am not religious, and there is no faith involved (ideally) in my outlook
Now I must take issue with this statement - I think there is a lot of faith involved in Outlook. It's also way too confusing. That's why I use Outlook Express.

I feel very, very, very small and insignificant when I try to understand the immensity, not just in size, but also complexity and shear apparent meaningless of anything, and I see the virtually complete insignificance of my existence as part of the profoundly beautiful nature of "what is", for how can I respect a belief or viewpoint that places any more importance on my(our/earth's/etc) position in the grand scheme of things as anything but self-serving ego centeredness. How dare I decide such matters, for again, to decide or judge what is or isn't important supposes a grave presumption of 'better than' or 'more knowledgeable' and therefore separates me from that with which I wish to connect to and understand.
After the word "small", I must admit I started to get a bit rattled...

I would rather have no answer than the wrong answer
see, I'm too hyper to do that - I'd blurt out the wrong answer...

and given that there is no "right answer", I choose to remain open, and to try to understand as much as possible about what makes me me, you you, nature nature, and how our "relationship to everything - DEFINES OUR OWN REALITY"
Is it just me, or does mikmik frequently type his words in duplicate?

I presume you know by now that I'm not really making fun of you, Mik - but it's very late, and I am old and easily confused - and there are wolves outside.

mikmik

11-14-2003, 11:11 PM

I also want to point out that I suffered an extremely quick onset of anaphylactic shock in 1991, in which my airway closed in a matter of 5 or 10 seconds, leaving me incapable of comunicating with anyone the nature of my distress.
Subsequently, it took some moments before anyone understood enough to call an ambulance + the time to get to me + time for paramedics to try to diagnose the situation by questioning the others (two people, and they did it fast) - finding out nothing + into ambulance and ride from Sherwood park Freeway to U of A Hospital an Friday evening @6:30(about 3 or 4 miles), without the minor courtesy of an intubation tube for a total of about 6 - 8 minutes of holding my breath and trying to relax to conserve any residual oxygen in my system.
I had lots of time to think, I passed out halfway there, and I KNEW I wasn't going to make it.
At no time did it cross my mind to pray, or think of "god, if you're there..." bargains I seconds left of my conscious existence, and was doing everything I could, as I understood it, to stay alive.
Not the slightest. That is the depth of my "faith" as an agnostic by definition only, for cannot prove there is no god or purpose, and I wish with all my heart and mind that there was, but 'I am "without knowledge of God" (def. agnostic), and I don't think we'll find one looking in the same places as always.

mikmik

11-14-2003, 11:17 PM

Minstrel observed
Is it just me, or does mikmik frequently type his words in duplicate? - Two personalities in simultaneous control?
Also
I presume you know by now that I'm not really making fun of you, Mik - but it's very late, and I am old and easily confused - and there are wolves outside. Well somebody better then, I sure take myself a bit to serious at times like this!
Then it's back to back to the important stuff - picking on each other!
Now that's fun!

minstrel

11-14-2003, 11:45 PM

Minstrel observed
I presume you know by now that I'm not really making fun of you, Mik - but it's very late, and I am old and easily confused - and there are wolves outside. Well somebody better then, I sure take myself a bit to serious at times like this!
Truthfully, Mik, I did not intend to suggest that you take yourself too seriously - the key in my post was the word "confused": it's Friday and it's been a heck of a long week... and I know no one believes me but sometimes there really are wolves outside...

pete61uk

11-15-2003, 02:42 AM

mikmik.

Methinks you do protest too much!

You choose to describe yourself as agnostic. A pragmatic position that, having played devils' advocate most of my life, I can well appreciate.

However, from your earlier posts the impression I get, (call it a gut reaction) is that you are a very empathic and spiritually aware person.

As for mortality, if you can truly say that you will get through this life having made no impression on anyone or anything 'at all'; then, by any standard will you have acheived insignificance and true mortallity. Else, you are extremely significant and immortal!

Brian Bennett

11-15-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:
Yes, that's kind of how I think of it - since we can't prove there is a god or that there is not a god, any thing you believe about the existence or non-existence of a god is by definition a "faith" or religious conviction.

I am truly amazed every time by this: that well-spoken, allegedly intelligent people can come up with a discussion on religion, or something about God, and ALWAYS figure out a way to disprove it. I don't see any discussions on the validity of Abraham Lincoln's previous existence. How can so many people be so ignorant about so much information on the subject? The answer: proof & arrogance!

The proof is that Satan is alive and well and very much able to control even those intellectual souls who may believe they are impervious to anything and fairly sure they know best.

The real answer: read the Bible, follow Jeus Christ, learn to love, and live forever. Pretty simple concept with great reward. Why is that so hard to understand?

minstrel

11-15-2003, 10:54 AM

As for mortality, if you can truly say that you will get through this life having made no impression on anyone or anything 'at all'; then, by any standard will you have acheived insignificance and true mortallity. Else, you are extremely significant and immortal!

Well said! "Immortality" (aka "legacy") is achieved by whatever effects you leave behind you, positive or negative, on the people who have interacted with you during your life - what I love about that concept is that it gives us all a choice: do we want this interaction/encounter to be a positive one? or a negative one? After that, it's a ripple effect both across "space" and across time.

The latter concept, I believe, tells us that even seemingly inisgnificant interactions may have a significant impact on someone you haven't even met - because of the ripple effect from the people you have directly influenced.

wenwilder

11-15-2003, 11:28 AM

In 447 c.e. The Council of Toledo defined the Devil as the personification of evil in Christian doctrine. It was a simple move to equip him with horns and so identify him with the Horned God of the Hunt worshipped by Pagans, or Pan. The church was trying to establish itself as 'the ONLY right religion' while condemning religions it was stealing from.

Many churches were built on pagan worshiping grounds in hopes of killing off the religious beliefs and practices. The bible itself was selectively composed by Constantinople who only allowed what information he thought important into its writing.

Many people believe that Christianity and Catholicism was meant to be feminine not masculine.

Many of the "Rituals" practiced by the Catholics and Christians a like are based on pagan rituals, beliefs and religious icons. In fact the Catholics taught reincarnationation until 553 b.c.

Your beloved Jesus was married to Mary Madelano, a fact that the church has surpressed for years, because the 'men' of the church would lose their control. Even Da Vinci new that fact, and put it blantantly in his Last Supper painting. There is historical evidence to back this up, yet the church repeatedly surpresses it, how honest is that?

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable believing in a relgion that is based on deceptions and lies, and then asks me to be honest, faithful, loving, and give 10% of my earnings to fund priests and pastuers who lie, cheat and steal.

The bible is a great work of fiction. I'm probably going to get some flack for saying that, but I base the statement on research and historical documentation. I don't preach a religion but even if I did I wouldn't support one that: 1. Is a fairly new religion. 2. Stole from other religions and then tries to pass itself off as the "One true Religion" and 3. Repeatedly surpresses information that does NOT support their religious view point. The book The Da Vinci Code written by Dan Brown became a documentary because of the facts it contained. Even though it was written as a work of fiction, the whole book is based on facts! A point which has the churches up in arms. ABC got a bit of flack about that one, but I applaud their bravery.

I'm not saying there's no reason to believe in Christianity and Catholocism, faith sometimes is all we have and hope the only thing keeping us going. Believe what you want to believe, but take a little time to research what you are believing in.

*This is only my opinion and the facts stated herein have supporting facts thanks to science, archaeology, and history.

mikmik

11-15-2003, 11:42 AM

The real answer: read the Bible, follow Jeus Christ, learn to love, and live forever. Pretty simple concept with great reward. Why is that so hard to understand?
Well, Brian, it's not hard to understand - as any 5 yr. old Sunday schooler will tell you.
What I fail to understand, is that "bible thumpers" cannot let an intelligent, deeply reasoned and analyzed discussion between people (who have obviously learned to think for themselves) proceed without trying to impose their 'solution'. On top of that, said 'bible thumpers' seem especially adept at destroying their own credibility by, hypocritically acting in the exact manner they mistakenly accuse the smart ones of doing!
But I know you wouldn't do that, Brian, would you (o;

mikmik

11-15-2003, 11:49 AM

mikmik

11-15-2003, 11:59 AM

http://homokaasu.org/gematriculator/rate.gas
Just tested 'phoenixgolfsource' on this analyzer. Interesting! My site had the EXACT opposite score!!

Greyhawk

11-15-2003, 12:26 PM

The real answer: read the Bible, follow Jeus Christ, learn to love, and live forever. Pretty simple concept with great reward. Why is that so hard to understand?

Brian, I have read the bible and for many years I was a Sunday school teacher for the United Church. Then one day I re-read the bible and some things did not make sense and seemed to contridict themselves, like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "An eye for an eye" and "Turn the other cheek". After some very serious thought on the matter I left the church because I had questions that needed firm answers and I started to study religion. Did you know that christians started more wars than any other religion known throughout history? Or that Adolf Hittler was a devout Catholic?

If you (or anyone else) would like to know just how true the bible is then try this simple experiment: get together with 9 friends, have one friend come into a room with you and tell him a story. You then leave the room and someone else goes in and hears the story, after which person number 2 comes out and number 4 goes in and 3 tells them the story. This goes on until the story has passed from person to person back to you. By that time it will not be the same story. Why? Because we all change a little something to suit our needs. The same is true with your precious bible. It is a set of stories handed down from generation to generation with people's own personal slant on each one.

The bible was written by MEN to rule and make women subservient. To control people. As a PROUD PAGAN WITCH I believe that I cannot interfere with anothers freedom of choice, and although I do not follow or believe in them, your beliefs are right...for you, NOT and I repeat NOT for me. I don't need a house to worship my Gods, I don't have to pay to sit in a service or to follow a song that someone else wrote to express my love for them.

I take offence to your remark
that well-spoken, allegedly intelligent people can come up with a discussion on religion, or something about God, and ALWAYS figure out a way to disprove it.

You found your God. Good for you - we are happy for you. Now leave others alone and let them worship in their own way.

And as for the title of you post
Atheists, agnostics or whatever how about, in this case, Christian, Hypocrite, or both.

Greyhawk

Sualdam

11-15-2003, 12:47 PM

Ditto, wen
*My opinion also based on facts and empirical evidence that is not only 'researched' but said research is gladly and necessarily presented openly for evaluation and merciless critique in order that it stand the test of 'verifiable'
Be careful what you consider to be 'facts'.

Those 'facts' that wenwilder posted (with a disclaimer that they were her opinion at the bottom) are far from being factual. That doesn't make them wrong, but since we're touting 'facts' we maybe ought to try using them in arguing this point ;)

It is barely possible to historically prove that Jesus existed, let alone that he was married, had two kids, a nice house by the Sea of Galilee, a 5BC-Pontiac hay-cart, and farmed donkeys when he wasn't making quality furniture to sell in Nazarea.

'Research' doesn't just mean finding something you like or agree with. It needs balancing up with other information that you may not like.

Arguing that Christianity is 'feminine' (what the heck does that mean, anyway) appeals greatly to feminists. Whatever Jesus was or wasn't doing in the first century AD is a thousand light years away from what the Catholic Church decided several centuries later (and in subsequent centuries). Arguing that the Christian or Catholic Churches are 'feminine' is still further removed from events in the first century by a similar gulf.

It is a definite fact that the Bible is NOT a work of pure fiction (you get flack for stating that it is, not believing that it is). At least, it can be demonstrated that it is factual in many places. I don't think there is a single historical detail in the Bible that has been proven wrong by conventional historical and archaeological means. At best, things the Bible says remain unproven.

For example, it is a fact that Pontius Pilate was not known for certain to have existed historically until the early 1960s. Up until that point the Bible provided the only evidence and so Pilate was considered perhaps never to have existed by some historians.

This is just one example.

Furthermore, the Christian churches assimilated other beliefs into their ranks - they didn't 'steal' them.

Finally, to suggest that one would be uncomfortable believing in a religion that was based on deceit and lies - isn't that what every religion has been based on at some point if you look at it as a non-believer?

Brian Bennett

11-15-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable believing in a relgion that is based on deceptions and lies, and then asks me to be honest, faithful, loving, and give 10% of my earnings to fund priests and pastuers who lie, cheat and steal.

Quote:

Believe what you want to believe, but take a little time to research what you are believing in.

Uh-oh, a real live debate on...(religion, Christianity, or whatever you want to call it). Taking my words and interpreting them into something else is probably a fundamental problem with these kinds of debates. I could sit here all day and explain every word and every meaning to try to get everyone to understand the whole meaning of whatever I was saying, and there would always be some sort of confusion or misunderstanding. Therein lies one of the biggest problems in life: communication. So let's assume that we're using the english language and standard meanings for the words used, and not fuss over secondary meanings or where they came from.
Take a little time to research huh. One posted note and you surmise that I haven't done enough research? That would be like me seeing your blonde hair and determining that you are a 'valley girl'. I never called my beliefs religion. I never said that 'you' had to join a church and pay hard-earned money to less-than reputable churches. If you choose to avoid all of the painfully obvious clues and history, that is your choice. It's all about intelligence and choice. That's why I believe that the 'Big Bang' THEORY is a ridiculous joke. One big explosion and most of the results turned out 'round'. Not much of a theory, but that's the real game. Use your God-given intelligence, do some research, and test the facts. There is more material representing Christ and the Bible than one could read in a lifetime, yet we had confusion here in less than 4 lines of text in English.
Your honor, I rest my case.

(Sorry if I offended anyone, but I may have been sarcastic in defending my position, and I surely wouldn't classify myself as a Bible-thumper. There are those that know, and those that don't on every subject, but assigning 'categories' or names is probably un-called for.)

minstrel

11-15-2003, 01:22 PM

I'd also point out that since "religion" and "religious beliefs" and "faith", whatever those terms may mean to you, ultimately reduce to a set of personal beliefs and opinions that cannot be directly proved OR DISPROVED, and therefore can be neither "right" nor "wrong" in any absolute sense. They simply are, because they work for you.

Consequently, religion/faith is ultimately something that one must come to one's own personal terms with. This means that one is free to offer one's opinion if the other person agrees to hear it, but it also means that it is highly unlikely that anyone can change another person's beliefs by threat, force, or personal attack, or by starting with the conviction that somehow your beliefs have some "divine correctness" that invalidates the beliefs of others.

And that, as always, is only my opinion... :-)

carju1

11-15-2003, 02:18 PM

Ok all,

Until today we have kept this thread very hypothetical and friendly, fairly free from bigotry, no confrontational and reasonably non prosteltising. I'm not pointing fingers at members or Mods but its starting to get a bit temperamental.

Its a very difficult topic to be dispassionate about but lets keep it nice and pleasant or it will get locked down. The original topic was about religeous symbols and the state and then moved into a 'what is religeon debate'. Lets stay clear of mine v yours and faith v science or you are all switched to decaf and no cookies.

Carju1 - Moderator

mikmik

11-15-2003, 02:34 PM

... and get orange caps put on and made to cheer for Ajax in league play(which I do already-got to make up for the habs!) and the Dutchmen vs Scotland.

Brian Bennett

11-15-2003, 02:43 PM

As I insinuated, this discussion is not about semantics, but beliefs on the subject most refer to as 'religion' (my take on some of the post results). Let me site some examples that I think are worth noting as examples, from a logical standpoint.
I'm holding a book in my hand. I tell everyone that I 'believe' it to be a book. Well, it is not a book because 'I' believe it is. It is a book regardless of what I think or believe.
My point about Bible history or the example about Abraham Lincoln is that it doesn't matter what I think, it is what it is. Whether people decide over time to question historical validity due to simple disagreement, a questioning nature, science, archeology, unproveable documents (dead-sea scrolls), being a doubting Thomas, or whatever, only shows a lack of ability to dig deep to find the answers or a lack of caring in the matter. In the end, frankly, there is a winning team and a losing team. I really have nothing to lose if I'm wrong, but those on the other sidelines have everything to lose, like eternal life. So be it.
There will always be people who can easily distrust the Bible, teachings of Christ, and the almighty and only God, but easily accept other concepts and beliefs (Jim Jones cult or Mormonism). Sadly that is what Satan is like, and he stands to be the big loser in the end. Frankly I would rather be on the 'winning' team and have eternal life than be stubborn and arrogant and avoid the collosal information available. By the way, I am not Catholic, but simply a Christian, and not stupid enough to interpret the Bible the way I want to. I'm leaving it up to God. It's the toughest concept there is when intelligence and choice are around. It's called FAITH.

Greyhawk

11-15-2003, 03:25 PM

wenwilder

11-15-2003, 03:39 PM

So my faith in science, archaeology, and facts is satan inspired and makes me arrogant? Interesting. Here I always thought people actually liked me because I was me.

My arrogant and 'wrong' perspective is based on having 'kicked the bucket' three times this year.
Dying, as reported, has the ability to change one's outlook on life, religion, and ones self. So while you get upset and start the name calling (Something I believe isn't supposed to be part of the Christian belief system, isn't it love thy neighbor?) I'm going to go on believing as I do based on what I know to be true.

You do know that there were two scrolls found, not just the Dead Sea Scrolls, but a second the Catholic church had supressed?

and not stupid enough to interpret the Bible the way I want to.

But you do interpret the Bible the way you want to, or you wouldn't be stating your 'opinion' here. The bible has been re-written so many times and the wordage changed just as many, yet people re-interpret it everyday, specially on Sundays.

The saddest part is that the bible was orginally written in a beautiful language, one you can learn online (http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/aramaic.html) if you'd like, then maybe you'd see how hard it is to translate. Aramaic is a beautiful language. had I a choice I would have lived in the time of Jesus just to hear the language. But like Egyption Heiroglyphs it is often misinterpreted.

There are still debates over what is said in the bible to this day. The bible is an interpretation of journals written by the disciples in an age where writting wasn't the norm. The Jewish Kabalah is much closer to the truth of the time than the bible ever will be. Jesus was Jewish afterall. Yet you don't see those of the Jewish fail 'bible thumpin' it all over the place.

How you act supports your belief, not shouting it from the roof tops and name calling. I believe what I believe from experience and doing more than putting my faith into one book.

Living your beliefs is much harder than simply believing in them. My faith is in what I believe and if that is stupid and arrogant then so be it. (Considering I have never once posted what it is I do believe - I could be a Christian for all you know)

See, after all that I've been through, I really do love thy neighbor, I respect his opinion and his right to have one, I also respect his right to have his own beliefs and faith. However, I do not condone name calling, I leave that up to children and teenagers. And I know, when I wake up tomorrow, I will treat people exactly the way I did today, because people really are worth it.

Will you live your beliefs or will you be a 'parttime parishoner' like so many people I know. The kind that go to church on Sunday to ask for forgiveness for what they will do on Monday. Be sure to practice what you preach because we are ALL the type of people we are preaching too.

wenwilder

11-15-2003, 03:51 PM

Until today we have kept this thread very hypothetical and friendly, fairly free from bigotry, no confrontational and reasonably non prosteltising. I'm not pointing fingers at members or Mods but its starting to get a bit temperamental.

Sorry Julian I wish I would have seen your post first. I'll stay off my soapbox now.

carju1

11-15-2003, 04:49 PM

LISTEN UP

When I say Time Out "Lets stay clear of mine v yours and faith v science" I mean it.

Brian that does not mean that 30 minutes later you post an inflamatory post with such goodies as "Sadly that is what Satan is like, and he stands to be the big loser in the end" and "It's the toughest concept there is when intelligence and choice are around. It's called FAITH."

Wen I know you were replying to a reply but your soapbox is hereby turned to Jello don't try and climb on it again.

That is a final warning folks. One more inflamatory post and the thread goes. I don't care if you say intellectually I shouldn't supress your freedom of speech or emotionally I shouldn't stop your faith.

As MOD I'll stop the thread because the WPW rules say "Be respectful of others' opinions" and "DO NOT deliberately start arguments. Debates are great, as long as they remain respectful!" and both of those in this case over ride the "Allow your fellow members to voice their opinions WITHOUT CENSORSHIP" because if you can't voice them without giving offense then I'll stop the voicing.

Carju1 - Moderator

mikmik

11-15-2003, 04:52 PM

I wich to complain about Brians behavior and name calling.

If you choose to avoid all of the painfully obvious clues and history, that is your choice. It's all about intelligence and choice. That's why I believe that the 'Big Bang' THEORY is a ridiculous joke. One big explosion and most of the results turned out 'round'. Not much of a theory, but that's the real game. Use your God-given intelligence, do some research, and test the facts.

I am truly amazed every time by this: that well-spoken, allegedly intelligent people can come up with a discussion on religion, or something about God, and ALWAYS figure out a way to disprove it. I don't see any discussions on the validity of Abraham Lincoln's previous existence. How can so many people be so ignorant about so much information on the subject? The answer: proof & arrogance!

There are those that know, and those that don't on every subject, but assigning 'categories' or names is probably un-called for.)

being a doubting Thomas, or whatever, only shows a lack of ability to dig deep to find the answers or a lack of caring in the matter. In the end, frankly, there is a winning team and a losing team. I really have nothing to lose if I'm wrong, but those on the other sidelines have everything to lose, like eternal life. So be it.
There will always be people who can easily distrust the Bible, teachings of Christ, and the almighty and only God, but easily accept other concepts and beliefs (Jim Jones cult or Mormonism). Sadly that is what Satan is like, and he stands to be the big loser in the end. Frankly I would rather be on the 'winning' team and have eternal life than be stubborn and arrogant and avoid the collosal information available. By the way, I am not Catholic, but simply a Christian, and not stupid enough to interpret the Bible the way I want to. I'm leaving it up to God. It's the toughest concept there is when intelligence and choice are around. It's called FAITH.

Frankly I would rather be on the 'winning' team and have eternal life than be stubborn and arrogant and avoid the collosal information available.

The real answer: read the Bible, follow Jeus Christ, learn to love, and live forever. Pretty simple concept with great reward. Why is that so hard to understand?

Up until he joined the 'conversation, I was enjoying the taking turns expressing our individual "belief's"
and the RESPECTFUL discussions and questioning that ensued.
At no time did any of us imply, let alone specifically state, that our opinions were anything more than that, or that they should apply to others.
I found it a passionate, at times, but safe place to express myself and give the respect to others to do the same.
I am extremely disappointed that a member who chose to , not just ignore, but stomp on our right to freedom of religion and expression, has been allowed to keep participating.
This is/was the single most intelligent discussion about our values and belief's that I have ever been involved in, and I don't see why we shouldn't have the priviledge of being able to continue without disrespectful interruption.

mikmik
in my outlook or understanding of existence and reality.......and to try to understand as much as possible about what makes me me, you you, nature nature, and how our "relationship to everything - DEFINES OUR OWN REALITY"
I understand that placing more importance on beliefs or certain views at the expense of another is only my imposed value system and not an intrinsic characteristic of anything!
pete61uk
Minstrel - I'm not so sure atheism could be considered a religion. But I think I know where you are coming from.

After all, it is a conviction, 'of sorts'. Without empirical evedence doesn't that imply some kind of belief system or 'faith?'

webweaver
So I don't believe that Atheism is a religion, it doesn't seem to bear the qualifications that would lend it to be considered one. It's the opposite, it's more like a lack of religion. IMHO.

minstrel
Yes, that's kind of how I think of it - since we can't prove there is a god or that there is not a god, any thing you believe about the existence or non-existence of a god is by definition a "faith" or religious conviction.

rocky1
Have to agree with MikMik, organized religion is about recreating the experience for others, whereas I feel it should not so much be about that, as it is about a way of life. About how you treat others. And, doing right by them. The "sense of self" pete61uk cites.

Also Everyone so far, Greyhawk, wen, janeth, and everyone else I didn't get a quote from, we all took responsibility for our beliefs and let others the same, I can't find word showing otherwise!

Until....

I am mad, If you don't like what were saying, then go somewhere else. It's not all about YOU!~!!

Brian Bennett

11-15-2003, 04:54 PM

Boy, how did we get so far off the tangent? I thought I was speaking to a forum of people. I am not going to sit here and retort to every single comment made, but to them as a whole. 'Wenwilder' assumes that I believe that her ways are 'satan inspired'. 'Greyhawk' insinuates that other's beliefs are being shoved down throats! I can only assume that they think I MEAN THEM. My specific retorts are based on my beliefs and comments made DIRECTLY to me in the posts. 'Stupid enough' means deciding for yourself what something means without research and investigation. I didn't mean that anyone here was STUPID. Hey this is a great example of how it has been in the ongoing centuries-old religion debate. Say one thing, get interpreted incorrectly, and it's off to the races.
All I stated was my opinion and 'mikmik' and 'greyhawk' are deeply offended. What would anyone think or say if someone came up to them and claimed to be a PROUD CHILD MOLESTER? Would you say this is a free country and they have the right to believe whatever they want? I never said that everyone had to 'do it my way'.
As for 'wenwilder', your initial comment back to me was to 'do a little research'. Wow I'm sorry I forgot to ask you what I should think or do. My real response was "you've got to be kidding!" I did a search on this Mary gal you propose as my 'beloved Jesus' wife. Couldn't find a thing. I suppose that means it was surpressed (sic). You calling my saviour 'beloved' does offend me, and that is what makes you a non-critical thinker. I guess the rule is 'talk first, think second, right? When you do get off your soapbox and decide to quit trying to teach me EVERYTHING I don't know, you will finally be able to get your foot, calf, knee and thigh out of your mouth! Meaning? You interpret my posts wrong and then decide you're going to be my personal teacher. You can retire now.
I attend the church weekly, have joined the choir, and donate technical assistance to Young Life. If you have had bad experiences with churches and religion in the past, I guess that and the rest of this says something about your decision-making power, doesn't it. Well, here's a tip for yuh. This is the way it was mean't to be. God's plan with our intelligence, and free choice thrown in. Don't like it? Who cares. You and 'mikmik' and 'webweaver' can do or say whatever you like, because the sky is blue regardless of what you think.

mikmik

11-15-2003, 04:56 PM

I'm sorry carju1! I tried to delete it as soon as I saw what you posted. I was just frustrated that the first time didn't resolve things.

My apologies again, my last post was unnecessary!!

carju1

11-15-2003, 05:34 PM

MikMik,

You are perfectly correct and unfortunately because one member 'Brian' can't keep his assertion of a personal faith to himself this has now degenerated beyond what is acceptable in a professional business forum. The thread had been a perfect example of educated pepole from diverse backgrounds with diverse beliefs discuaaing a very sensitive, difficult and emotive topic. Brian has now moved it beyond that and regretfully for the others involved I am now locking this topic and referring it to Brittany.

If anyone has any comments or want to say anything further then please PM Brittany.

Carju1 - Moderator

However taking my moderator hat off and appearing as myself a simple member. Brian you say "
I did a search on this Mary gal you propose as my 'beloved Jesus' wife. Couldn't find a thing. I suppose that means it was surpressed (sic). You calling my saviour 'beloved' does offend me, and that is what makes you a non-critical thinker. I guess the rule is 'talk first, think second, right? " Well what do you know I searched under Mary madalano and found it as an alternative spelling of Mary Magdalen and then found on a site called http://www.magdalene.org the following.

Were Jesus and MM married?

Although it is a tempting legend to accept, there is no direct evidence that they were married or had any kind of conjugal relationship. There is, however, circumstantial evidence that points toward that conclusion. The Gosple of Philip calls MM "the companion" of Jesus, the original language often being interpreted more accurately as "the consort." The Gospel of Philip also makes reference to Jesus kissing MM often on the mouth(1); while this could be seen as an apostolic transmission, we don't hear of Jesus kissing his other disciples on the mouth.

Additionally, there is good evidence that MM has been set up as "the Bride of Christ" in the early centuries BCE, but it isn't clear if that was intended to reflect a literal or figurative teaching.
Gee Brian looks like your the man I want if I need research doing or like most people who have such faith are you just plain scared of anything that may rock the very leaky boat you inhabit. I guess the rule is 'faith first, ignorance second, think never, right?

Then you went on to Wen
If you have had bad experiences with churches and religion in the past, I guess that and the rest of this says something about your decision-making power, doesn't it. Well, here's a tip for yuh. This is the way it was mean't to be. God's plan with our intelligence, and free choice thrown in. Don't like it? Who cares. You and 'mikmik' and 'webweaver' can do or say whatever you like, because the sky is blue regardless of what you think.

No it means she thought, unlike people like you who's supposed god given brain they never use for the purpose it was meant when exploring the boundries and falsehoods of religion. And BTW the sky is blue because of light refraction and the chemical make-up of ozone not cause god thought blue was a pretty colour.

To the rest of the member I appologise for the outburst above on a professional business forum(which I why I took the Mod hat off) and I appologise to you for closing this thread. To Brian I just say "Think"

Julian