I'm opening this second Religion thread for a couple of reasons:

First, I am bringing a discussion I'm having with Wolfgir into this thread because it is Off-Topic for the thread we started in <font color="cyan">(Sex before Marriage)</font>.

Second, it will give others a chance to discuss thier religious views and opinions.

I decided not to BUMP Neb's original thread because it was already 6 pages long with 147 entries, so I assume it was close to being locked.

While the opening topic concerns Christianity, the thread is not limited to any particular faith or religious practice. If it concerns a ritual, ceremony, or theological belief, then it's considered to be On-Topic.

Now, to continue my discussion with Wolfgir:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WOLFGIR:

Oki, well in your view (not a degrading thing, this is from pure interest, does the event spoke of when Jesus tells the people that he who is without sin should cast the first stone?
In my view as only "reading" the bible, I felt like Jesus either showed alot of mercy or that he to had done some sins, but that as long as you did the right thing and forgave people and asked for forgiveness to both god and the one you had commited the sin against their was a solution..

And no Cerek, it is not an important part of my view, but since you posted about it I became interested in learning more from your point of view and I hope (paranoia posting) that I haven´t been offending or anything, I question because I am curious, and I have always found your posts very accurate and also with good information. So if you would like to tell me more, please do, either here or by mail!

Cheers!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Yorick and I pointed out, Jesus was without sin. The story you listed above (to bring others up to date) was an example of God's love and mercy towards sinners....and that Christians should never believe themselves to be better than anyone else...because every Christian has also sinned against God.

I mentioned that I had also been taught that Jesus had committed one sin in his lifetime. That was the episode where he threw the moneychangers out of the temple. My Sunday School teacher said that Jesus "had" to commit one "obligatory" sin due to the fact that he was human. It sounded logical at the time, but a good friend later showed me the critical flaw in that logic.

God requires a sacrificial atonement for sin. In the OT, this was in the form of burnt offerings. But in the NT, Jesus was sent as the "sacrificial lamb". He came to be sacrificed on the cross as an atonement for all of our sins. He paid the price required for our forgiveness. If He had sinned Himself, then His death would only have atoned for His sins, not ours.

By living a sin-free life, Jesus' sacrifice atoned for every sin committed by every person from that moment forward. All that is required now is for a person to recognize the sins in their life and accept the sacrifice Jesus made as an atonement for those sins, and God instantly "wipes the slate clean" and forgives them of all their sins.

BTW, recognizing sin in your life DOES NOT mean you're a "bad or evil" person. It just means that we fall short of the ideal standard set by Jesus as to how we should live and conduct ourselves.

Hi Cerek, thanks for your post. I was looking for my bible yesterday to see if I could find the exact phrase, but I´m afraid that it is still in my parents house..

I was trying to find an exact phrase, just when Jesus says that not even he can throw a stone, but this is well, marking words ;) which I hope you guys understand, don´t want to come down on your beliefs here, just interested in seeing how you all interpretate things in it and how that corresponds to my own thinking of it.

I will try and get my hands on the bible or if you can find the esxact english phrase it would be fun to see how they have translated it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I hope this thread gets interesting a one! :D

There's one question I would like to ask: what is religion? How do you define religion? This is not a taunt or challenge of any kind, please, just a question. Does religion (in your understanding) necessarily entail the explicit worship of gods or a god -- of special beings (or just a special being) who presumably created all things and kept things running? Would a clergy and sacred texts constitute a fundamental aspect of religion (in your understanding)? Or is religion ultimately just a conviction, a world view the individual human being endorses regarding the nature of the Universe and what it implies for the human world -- which presumably guides his/her thought and conduct?

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: K T Ong ]</p>

Religion is a man made way of setting up a system where one can earn approval of ones higher power.
Traditions, idol worship, and futile chants are not where its at in my book. To many times religion is like a bucket of cold water thrown on a fire. Spoiling good peoples geniuine desire to fill an empty spot in their lives.
Interpretations have divided kindoms and countrys, as well as the closest of friends. In my experiences I have learned that Historically the Bible is Very accurate. Evidence that demands a verdict to be explored by ones own convictions and tested in light of RELATIONSHIPS ...including the most important one you can have..
Hmmm..I hope you guys dont mind me joining in on this topic. I feel like sometimes if one does not present a theoretical stance at one point people are ignored and bypassed. I promise to stay with this thread and be vigailant to everyones responses. Thank you [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="red">*\Conan/*</font>

Welcome to the thread, brother. As I said in the opening, Everybody's Welcome...that included those with different religious preferences and those with none at all. As long as your reply deals with some form of religion (pro or con), then it is On Topic.

<font color="lime">Let's just keep in nice and show respect for ALL views and opinions.</font>

<font color="orange">K T Ong</font>

Welcome to the Forum. I don't think I've "met" you before. Glad to see you here. You raised a good question - How do you define Religion?.

<font color="silver">fable</font> asked that same question in the original <font color="cyan">Religion</font> thread. I've BUMPed it up to the first page so you could read some of the responses that were given in that thread. The question and responses start on Page 6.

One of the things that really soured me on Christianity *in general* (and I know it is the exception rather than the rule) is the notion that once a person accepts Jesus as Saviour, God forgives all your sins being translated as a blanket forgiveness no matter how you act thereafter. I have known and seen people who go through the motions and after their grand revelation of "finding God" (like *He* was the one lost!) shortly after treating others as or more horridly than ever before, commiting 'sins' and maintaining it was all forgiven due to God's Grace!

Maybe I'm not expressing this very well, and I *do* know this is a minority of self-righteous idiots rather than true Christians, but it still gets me riled.

<font color="red">Garnet</font>

I find that you always speak in a straightforward, yet eloquent, manner.

You are absolutely correct that some Christians think they are on Cruise Control after getting "Saved" and can act however they want.

My answer to that is that there Salvation wasn't genuine. They did - indeed - just "go through the motions" (what a perceptive lady, you are). When you truly accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, the Holy Spirit enters and indwells with your spirit and the person undergoes a true "change of heart".

That doesn't mean that they won't sin anymore - I sin everyday. But now, the Holy Spirit shows me how displeasing my sin is to God and I have to ask forgiveness DAILY. Also, I have to genuinely(sp?) repent of my sin and try to overcome it. So I can't say <font color="yellow">"OK God, sorry about doing that today, and I might as well go ahead and apologize for tomorrow too while I'm here".</font>

That attitude does not reflect an honost effort to resist temptation and avoid sin.

So, as yo can see, Christians are NOT given a FREE RIDE after being Saved. In fact, the opposite is true. Once the Holy Spirit indwells within them, they have even less excuse to act in a manner such as you describe.

Alas, some of them do though, and they besmirch Christianity in the process.

Cerek, I know you're being sincere, but you should see the grin on my face at the thought of you saying "Ok, God, sorry about..... might as well go ahead and apologize for tomorrow too while I'm here". I can't help it :D .

I suppose such besmirchers (your word is so much nicer than ones I might have employed) exist in *all* religions/belief systems.

Glad it gave you a giggle, Garnet.

It was a tongue-in-cheek parody of the attitude some Christians (including myself) take at times.

Hi Garnet !
I have read alot of your posts and you express yourself very well I might add. Self-righteousness is exactly the right words there. What other general things sour your views? Just a question.... it gos for everyone out there also. I am very intrested in knowing. Perhaps some light could be shed any other harbored feelings twards Christianity from past experiences dealing with people in this Religion..? Anyone?
Ive got one; mybe you guys read this in the past once but I received Communion in a Catholic church. I took the bread in my hand and proceded back to my seat to remember what it meant in my own way. I was stopped in the middle of the isle and forced to eat the waffer in front of the whole assembly. Really embarrasing.. I felt 3ft tall. Instead of quietly telling me my mistake in the ritualism of this Church I was chasened and humiliated. I wonder how many others have been caught up in awkward situations where the measurement of faith is reflected upon the responses of men just as myself.? I hope I am making sense of all this and my point of religion..I think I will stop here for now [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
One of the things that really soured me on Christianity *in general* (and I know it is the exception rather than the rule) is the notion that once a person accepts Jesus as Saviour, God forgives all your sins being translated as a blanket forgiveness no matter how you act thereafter. I have known and seen people who go through the motions and after their grand revelation of "finding God" (like *He* was the one lost!) shortly after treating others as or more horridly than ever before, commiting 'sins' and maintaining it was all forgiven due to God's Grace!

Maybe I'm not expressing this very well, and I *do* know this is a minority of self-righteous idiots rather than true Christians, but it still gets me riled.<hr></blockquote>


That Garnet is like a husband repeatedly lying to or cheating on his wife after marriage, then apologising. She may repeatedly unconditionally forgive him, (as Christ does) but what does it do to the relationship?

Christianity is a relationship. The desire to "do the right thing" is so that the relationship is increased, not because any punishment is forthcoming. A Christian that feels they can do whatever sin they like are technically correct, but at an immature stage of walking with Christ.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Yorick ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by WOLFGIR:
I will try and get my hands on the bible or if you can find the esxact english phrase it would be fun to see how they have translated it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I hope this thread gets interesting a one! :D <hr></blockquote>

THere are online Bibles. SOme better than others. Try a search, There may be a Swedish one....

Conan, I've been to several churches (can't think of the exact denominations right now--I've been to nearly all of them!) that what you describe (taking the wafer to your seat) is the norm! I remember as a little girl attending the Christian Church with my great grandma (loved those folks!) eveeryone passing the tray of wafers then a tray of tiny little glasses full of Welch's grape juice. I still can't smell Welch's without thinking "communion"!

Oh no! I see Yorick has joined us! :D :D :D

I should say that I do not follow the Christian faith (just for anyone who might not know already) but was brought up within its context.

Of course, my experiences are a microcosm of what is possible....and I did not base my eventual non-belief (in Christianity) on them.

I can remember as a teen going through a rough time (having nothing to do with normal teen angst...this was really serious) and attending church camp as my mother was determined that this would help me clear whatever was wrong. We were not a religious family by any means, but she meant well. So off I went. It *was* a very positive experience even tho it did nothing to solve the situation. I felt I *had* made that connection with God and it seemed a weight was lifted from my shoulders and heart. But my mother spoke to the minister and they determined that I needed a little more instruction/counselling. Ok, no problem. My dad dropped me off at the church and said he'd be back in two hours. I went in, the pastor wasn't there yet so I plunked at the piano (have always wanted to play). He came up behind me and grabbed my breast. I sidestepped away, thinking he had simply meant to hug me and misjudged his action (he had only one arm). No, he reached for me again and I sidestepped. He told me flat out that "the best way you can serve the Lord is to serve His minister". WRONG! I told him in no uncertain terms *exactly* how I felt about *that* (I've never been shy of words) and went outside to wait for nearly the whole two hours. I refused to go again tho he phoned my mother upteen times and only a few years ago told her what happened. I knew what her response would've been back then--that I was making it up for attention or something since a minister of the Faith *never* would act in such a manner!--so I never bothered.

I have never met another such deviant minister in any religion that I know of, but this memory still churns my stomach.

(And don't worry--I have had positive experiences with ministers and with Christians! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by *\Conan/*:

Ive got one; mybe you guys read this in the past once but I received Communion in a Catholic church. I took the bread in my hand and proceded back to my seat to remember what it meant in my own way. I was stopped in the middle of the isle and forced to eat the waffer in front of the whole assembly. Really embarrasing.. I felt 3ft tall. Instead of quietly telling me my mistake in the ritualism of this Church I was chasened and humiliated. I wonder how many others have been caught up in awkward situations where the measurement of faith is reflected upon the responses of men just as myself.? I hope I am making sense of all this and my point of religion..I think I will stop here for now [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

Conan, I find going to church (whichever denomination) for events such as funerals, weddings etc. a complete nightmare - hopefully there will be someone kind who will tell me if I do anything offensive, but I think it is too much to expect everyone to know what to do in each church, whether you are just there for a one-off occassion as an atheist attending a family event, or a different church to your usual.

For what it's worth, perhaps many churches like you to take communion at the altar rail because should any be dropped, according to some denominations, the floor must be dealt with in the proper way - in my Church of England church as a kid (during my brief spell of religious involvement), we had carpet tiles - if the communion wine or wafer were spilled onto it it had to be replaced - I think a stone floor surface would have to be chipped away slightly. I don't know if this is usual though, I don't have much experience with this sort of thing.

One thing that happened to me once, which I was extremely angry about, was at a friends funeral. My friend was agnostic, and would no doubt have been amused at having a Christian funeral - and doubly amused at me (an atheist) being in a chapel for it! When it came to saying prayers, I bent my head out of respect for any Christians present, but not to say prayers myself - well the women next to me chewed me out for not praying audibly, right in the middle of the funeral!!! At least I know my friend would have been laughing had she seen it. I was also too cut-up to sing the hymns, which also earned me another earful from the same woman. This was completely unnecessary and unfeeling IMHO.

Yep, yep, know what you mean, Epona. Hubby and I were invited to one of his co-worker's wedding a couple years ago (geesh, has it been that long?). There we were, a pagan and a witch in a Catholic church attending a wedding Mass. No lightning strikes, nok burning sulphur, I'm happy to report [img]smile.gif[/img] . Budha's family is mostly (non-practicing) Catholics and I know the Book of Common Prayer responses from a bout with the Episicopal church, so we were able to follow most of the responses. We were quite sincere in our responses--the ones we could not in good conscience repeat,we didn't. No one turned and glared when I said "goddess' instead of 'god' or 'her' instead of 'him'. It seemed the important thing (and we agreed whole heartedly) was the celebration of their union.

Same thing with Budha's grandpa's funeral (Catholic) last year. The family knows of my religious beliefs (and accepts them if a little perplexed). I went to the (statue of the) Madonna and had quite a lengthy talk with Her--no one (who knew me, that is) thought it odd.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:

One thing that happened to me once, which I was extremely angry about, was at a friends funeral. My friend was agnostic, and would no doubt have been amused at having a Christian funeral - and doubly amused at me (an atheist) being in a chapel for it! When it came to saying prayers, I bent my head out of respect for any Christians present, but not to say prayers myself - well the women next to me chewed me out for not praying audibly, right in the middle of the funeral!!! At least I know my friend would have been laughing had she seen it. I was also too cut-up to sing the hymns, which also earned me another earful from the same woman. This was completely unnecessary and unfeeling IMHO.<hr></blockquote>


That's so horrible, Epona! How dare she do that on your friend's funeral, that's completely out of bounds! :( It's one of my pet peeves anyway when people feel the need to criticise others on funerals. I find it completely tactless and almost inhuman. Grief is so personal, and on a funeral I'm willing to accept almost all strange behaviour from mourners, who am I to condemn the way they mourn?
I'm sad that your personal experience with church funerals was so bad, but it doesn't have to be that way [img]smile.gif[/img]
My boyfriend's grandparents both died shortly after one another last year and they were deeply Christian. Of course, the funerals were both held in church. Both ceremonies were truly beautiful and moving, the preaching was VERY well done, very personal and not without humour and warmth, and it was very fitting for both of them. It left me feeling awed and peaceful. So it can be a great thing too [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
Yep, yep, know what you mean, Epona. Hubby and I were invited to one of his co-worker's wedding a couple years ago (geesh, has it been that long?). There we were, a pagan and a witch in a Catholic church attending a wedding Mass. No lightning strikes, nok burning sulphur, I'm happy to report [img]smile.gif[/img] . Budha's family is mostly (non-practicing) Catholics and I know the Book of Common Prayer responses from a bout with the Episicopal church, so we were able to follow most of the responses. We were quite sincere in our responses--the ones we could not in good conscience repeat,we didn't. No one turned and glared when I said "goddess' instead of 'god' or 'her' instead of 'him'. It seemed the important thing (and we agreed whole heartedly) was the celebration of their union.

Same thing with Budha's grandpa's funeral (Catholic) last year. The family knows of my religious beliefs (and accepts them if a little perplexed). I went to the (statue of the) Madonna and had quite a lengthy talk with Her--no one (who knew me, that is) thought it odd.<hr></blockquote>

Garnet, glad it's not just me who goes through this! I do actually agonise over it, because I really don't like to be disrespectful for the sake of Christians present, but at the same time I don't want to pray to a deity I don't believe exists. My Uncle's funeral last year was also religious (my Aunt's choice, Uncle was atheist). There were a few people at the gathering, including me (atheist) and my mum, dad and brother (all pagan). When it came to the hymns, none of the Christians opened their mouths, so there was silence, and the 4 of us felt compelled to give it a good belt out just so there was some noise at the appropriate place! So I was mumbling a bit, my bro was confidently inserting 'goddess' in the appropriate places (with a look on his face which clearly said 'well no-one else is singing, so there'd better not be any complaints') and my parents mumbled the same, looking self-conscious about it.

What a fiasco! In all fairness, the only Christian present was my Aunt who was too distressed to sing, but I think given the circumstances it might have been better to play some recorded music or just have an organist or pianist instead - I don't think a single other person there felt comfortable with it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yorick:
That Garnet is like a husband repeatedly lying to or cheating on his wife after marriage, then apologising. She may repeatedly unconditionally forgive him, (as Christ does) but what does it do to the relationship?

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Yorick ]<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I've been in the above situation--and it quickly destroyed the relationship!

Trust and faith are flipsides of the same coin, in my opinion. Without one, the other cannot exist.

You and Cerek approach this from a Christian view, and I from a pagan one. While we may disagree on what to name 'God' or the exact whereins and wherefores, I suspect that we agree far more than we disagree!

Yikes!! Epona that was a horrible experience...sheesh I have been to a LOT of different churches (lived in 11 different states) of many different denominations and have been fortunate not to have had anything like this happen....sheesh that would definatley turn me off to a religion.

I am catholic by birth but after about 25 years of educating myself and thinking and reflecting I now folllow a modified catholic code. It is taylored to me as an individual and is based on me following the moral values and codesof honor that I picked for myself. The religion I follow is a partnership between me and the almighty, being christian I acknowledge Christ as my savior but feel no need to push my religion or religious beliefs on anyone else.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

One of the things that bothers me about American churches (I can't say how this applies to those elsewhere) is their willingness to pursue a political agenda--and more: to regard it as tied to their religious one. I realize my status as a Wiccan almost certainly makes me more sensitive to these matters, but I'm not making it up. For instance, my wife and I attended a Primitive Methodist church in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, when we went to visit her grandfather with her folks a few years back. It was the church my mother-in-law had been taken to as a child by her mother, so there was sentimental value involved.

But during the sermon, the preacher spent his time lashing out at the evils of science--by which (and I'm not joking) he meant evolution! He told parents not to send their children away to take science curricula in colleges, and gave addresses where people could and should write to demand that textbooks which taught evolution, which was of the Devil, should be burnt. He also reminded the congregation who to vote for in local, state, and federal elections.

One of my wife's set of an aunt and uncle is active in the Southern Baptist Church. They seem pretty decent folk (well, he does; she couldn't melt an ice cube if she held it for an hour), but they believe that the political views of those who join their church should be known beforehand, and that this should be taken into account when a person seeks to join the their "worship in Christ." From what I've been able to tell, quite a few of their congregation, and indeed, of the Southern Baptists, appear to feel the same way. And they are a fairly large, and vocal church in the US.

It is also known for a fact that one of Bush's support groups is the so-called Religious Right. I don't care whether it's right, left, center, or anything else on a 3D object--it just seems to me somehow bizarre and frightening that people would worship a god they feel is universal, but attribute to that god a political tier of opinions. Does God oppose contraceptives, mixed race marriages, affirmative action, social welfare, etc? To listen to these churches, I find myself concluding that either the deity they worship does, or there are an awful lot of people taking their god's name in vain. And I'm not honestly sure which it is.

For the record, I'm not a liberal--or a conservative: I take an individual stand on each issue I come across. And I've never approved of political discussions, much of less stances, in any Wiccan coven I've been part of, or started. So this isn't a case of my saying one thing with one side of my mouth, and then speaking out of the other when it comes to my own activities.

I just want to say how impressed I am with everybody's attitude on this thread so far. Even though several of you have listed "bad" experiences, this hasn't led to any "Christian-bashing" or "flaming". Everyone has been very mature and respectful in their Posts and I deeply appreciate it. Keep up the good work.

<font color="silver">Epona</font> - I'm also sorry to hear about your experience at the funeral. That type of behavior is exactly what <font color="plum">Garnet</font> was referring to in her first Post.

<font color="plum">Garnet</font> - I realized quite a while back that our core beliefs are really very similar, despite our "opposing" theologies. That's one reason I enjoy your Posts so much.

Now, just to show you that "bad" experiences aren't limited to non-Christians, here's one that happened to my wife and I (both of us are Born-Again Christians).

When we were first married, we would alternate between our two churches (go to mine one week, hers the next). Her church - where we were married - was your typical <font color="lime">"little country church"</font> and the sermons were usually <font color="yellow">"follow the Bible or you'll go to Hell"</font>. My church, on the other hand, was the <font color="lime">large "city" church</font>. While our pastor doesn't shy away from hard sermons, his approach was more along the line of <font color="yellow">"this is HOW to follow the Bible"</font>.
One week, we were at my wife's church and the preacher really started getting into the message. He was walking up and down the aisle and "Bible-thumping" for all he was worth. One of the ladies in front was also getting caught up in the sermon and saying "Amen, pastor" or "Preach it, brother", etc. I don't have a problem with that because I've heard some sermons that moved me like that too - but this just wasn't one of them.
Suddenly, the preacher took a new tack and told the entire congregation "You should get EXCITED about God's word like this sister up here....and if you can't, then maybe there's something wrong with you".
My wife and I couldn't believe it! That was the last service we ever went to at her church.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]</p>

Hey <font color="silver">fable</font> - It's good to see you here.

Hmmmm.....I don't really know what to say about your Post, though. Speaking as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you that my political affiliation has NEVER even come up in ANY church I've ever gone to.

I DID take issue with my current church the very first night I went there. It was on Wednesday night (small service) and a deacon's wife got up to inform the crowd about "the evils of AD&D". Since I was an avid gamer at the time, I went up to her after the service to find out just what she really knew about the game....the answer was "Not Much". But I digress.

While a lot of people do seem to be bothered by the Religious Right supporting a particular candidate, I personally don't see a problem with it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to support the candidate that they feel represents their values? Other organizations and corporations do it and there is rarely any mention of it being wrong (except for cases like Enron - but even that won't change the practice). Corporations are expecting political favors down the road and organizations are hoping for favorable legislation.

And, IMHO, "separation of church and state" doesn't apply. The "church" isn't trying to take over the country. There "lobbying" for favorable laws just like any other organizaiton - from the NRA to PETA - and I feel they have the same right to have thier voice heard as everyone else does.

Just my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img]

Oh no, Cerek, I finally found something we disagree on! :( I *do* have a problem with an overt mixing of church and state in that it applies to actively putting forth a set of values which may not reflect the majority. Evolution vs. creationism comes to mind as a minor example. In the now infamous case in KS, certain schools tried to throw out all scientific teaching of anything resembling evolution because it was 'ungodly'. BIG mistake and they ended up making a laughing-stock of themselves. Some schools still refuse to teach evolution based on religious beliefs, but a public school cannot by law do so.

The religious groups who lobby for new laws involving animal treatment and civil rights are fine since they act for the good of all. But the ones who advocate, for example, returning America to some ideal of a religious utopia under a highly specified set of *their* version of religious doctrine is harmful to the populace at large since it does not reflect the majority--it reflects only those who have the funding to make a public presence known. *I* do not want nor do I wish my children to be forced to act or not act in a certain manner simply because the Powers That Be have decided it goes against what they believe God has said. Imagine if (really silly tho not implausible example :D ) pagans came into power somehow through lobbying and it was mandated that *everyone* observe the four Quarter festivals and four cross-quarter ones as well as monthly esbats.....

The division between church and state, while the line has become blurred over the years, is a very important distinction and one which should be maintained.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
One of the things that really soured me on Christianity *in general* (and I know it is the exception rather than the rule) is the notion that once a person accepts Jesus as Saviour, God forgives all your sins being translated as a blanket forgiveness no matter how you act thereafter. I have known and seen people who go through the motions and after their grand revelation of "finding God" (like *He* was the one lost!) shortly after treating others as or more horridly than ever before, commiting 'sins' and maintaining it was all forgiven due to God's Grace!

Maybe I'm not expressing this very well, and I *do* know this is a minority of self-righteous idiots rather than true Christians, but it still gets me riled.<hr></blockquote>

Miss Garnet Ma'am,
Christains are not perfect we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. I agree about the blanket, and disagree too. Very confusing God's forgiveness through Christ is a blanket for those that continue to follow God. For those that through weakness, willful disobediance (sp?), lack of Faith fall away they have turned their back on God. God says He is faithful if we are faithful. A Christain can be saved and fall away or not depending on their heart. The Aposle Paul constainly has to remind the early church in his letters to them: "To walk in a manner worthy of your calling". Or So-in-So has turned away from their first love(Christ). If they were covered under this blanket and could not get out from under it. Paul would of had no reason to remind them, after all they are covered right? If their conversion was not real, then why did Paul say "your calling"? Why didn't he say "There are some there that think they are saved but not really, their conversion wasn't real", after all Paul writing was inspired of God.

Miss Garnet Ma'am,
I just read your other post about the minister, I'm sorry that happened to you. That kind of action is NOT taught in the Bible as the actions that a Christain is supposed to ingage in.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Hey <font color="silver">fable</font> - It's good to see you here.<hr></blockquote>

Why thank you, Cerek. I appreciate your welcome, and the atmosphere that's been maintained, here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmmmm.....I don't really know what to say about your Post, though. Speaking as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you that my political affiliation has NEVER even come up in ANY church I've ever gone to.

You're obviously in a better way to know about the SBs than I am, then. But I know that my wife's aunt and uncle do canvas for church-selected candidates, and they've spoken about "national slates" of candidates in our presence for which the SBC as a group was going to "get out the vote." Perhaps their own views of this are skewed, or maybe I misheard. On the other hand, while your views are those of a member of the SBC, your attitude in dealing with heinous demons like myself ;) are clearly other than standard.

I DID take issue with my current church the very first night I went there. It was on Wednesday night (small service) and a deacon's wife got up to inform the crowd about "the evils of AD&D". Since I was an avid gamer at the time, I went up to her after the service to find out just what she really knew about the game....the answer was "Not Much". But I digress.

Yes, but an interesting digression, nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's a shame how quickly people are willing to condemn that which they do not understand. And that's as true among pagans, I might add, as it is among Christians, Jews, etc, because when you get right down to it, we all suffer from a common affliction, humanity--which, under other circumstances, can be quite a boon.

While a lot of people do seem to be bothered by the Religious Right supporting a particular candidate, I personally don't see a problem with it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to support the candidate that they feel represents their values? Other organizations and corporations do it and there is rarely any mention of it being wrong (except for cases like Enron - but even that won't change the practice). Corporations are expecting political favors down the road and organizations are hoping for favorable legislation.

Like Garnet, I must disagree on this point. I have spoken to too many people who have felt that their God, speaking through their minister/priest/rabbi/whatever definitely wanted them and the congregation to support a particular candidate or vote against another one: never mind the candidate's opinions on a range of issues, or their ability to deal with representing a much broader constituency. The important thing was to unite with discipline and fight for laws that would favor a certain religious viewpoint, and work against other, dissimilar viewpoints.

I'm a strict constitutionalist: even some of the most devout members of the original US Constitutional Congress, like James Madison, worked hard and spoke out against the mix of church and state. Freedom, as he and others saw it, could not stand the restrictions put upon it by such potentially powerful but fringe groups as those representing any religious denomination.

Gosh, how many responses this thread has received overnight!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Welcome to the Forum. I don't think I've "met" you before. Glad to see you here.<hr></blockquote>

Thank you for the warm welcome, Cerek. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>You raised a good question - How do you define Religion?.

fable asked that same question in the original Religion thread. I've BUMPed it up to the first page so you could read some of the responses that were given in that thread. The question and responses start on Page 6.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks, I'll go look it up.

Asian schools of thought such as Confucianism actually offer interesting alternative ways of viewing the nature of things and the human condition. Confucian and Taoist philosophy for example envisage the Cosmos as a single supergiant living organism with all things being its constituent parts, humanity included. Because all life thus shares the same fundamental identity, to inflict any form of harm upon another would amount to hurting oneself. This would also imply a view of human nature as being fundamentally inclined towards being morally good, i.e. towards the affirmation rather than the negation of others, by virtue of the intuitive awareness of the identity of one's being with that of others.

The question arises as to how people could then engage in acts harmful to other people. The answer given is ignorance. People who do so -- compulsion from external factors aside -- are not sufficiently aware of their interconnectedness with others and with all of life at large. And one solution is education.

Constraints of time do not permit me to elaborate more, but should it merit everyone's interest and pleasure I can always do so in a future post. And what do you think? Would you call the above... a religion?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
Oh no, Cerek, I finally found something we disagree on! :( I *do* have a problem with an overt mixing of church and state in that it applies to actively putting forth a set of values which may not reflect the majority.

....<<SNIP>>...

Imagine if (really silly tho not implausible example :D ) pagans came into power somehow through lobbying and it was mandated that *everyone* observe the four Quarter festivals and four cross-quarter ones as well as monthly esbats.....

The division between church and state, while the line has become blurred over the years, is a very important distinction and one which should be maintained.<hr></blockquote>

Chin up, <font color="plum">Garnet</font>, [img]graemlins/funnysad.gif[/img] we're still not all that different. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

I also would not want an "overt" mixing of church and state. Naturally, I appreciate Pres. Bush's religious ethics, since they closely resemble mine (I hope they're for real and not just show), but I would NEVER vote for Pat Robertson.

I didn't state my position very well, and I'm still having a hard time finding the right words. You're fears of the Religious Right wanting to "return us to a religious utopia" are NOT unfounded. I'm sure that is what they would ULTIMATELY like to see. But - as you pointed out with the KS example - if it ISN'T in the interest of the overall majority, it will most likely get shot down.

I just don't feel that simply supporting a candidate or petitioning for certain legislation violates the "separation of church and state" ideal.

However, <font color="silver">fable</font> made a very good argument in support of your view, so I'm willing to admit that my personal view may be wrong.

<font color="yellow">GASP! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] a Southern Baptist that not only tolerates "pagans"...but admits that THEY may be right and he may be WRONG!!!</font><font color="red"> QUICK! Somebody run to the window and make sure the Earth is still rotating on its axis!!!</font> [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] :D

You are correct, <font color="silver">fable</font> that I don't conform to the mainstream school of thought for Southern Baptist.

My atheist friend even convinced me that mandatory prayer in school is wrong. <font color="red">(OK...now I KNOW the Earth has left it's orbit)</font>

However, that was only in regards to a prayer said over the P.A. that everyone was forced to listen to, regardless of religious affiliation. I still FIRMLY believe that ALL students should be allowed to have a time specifically set aside for individual prayers.

As I've said before...I love this type of debate. I thoroughly enjoy hearing views that differ from mine (as long as they're done respectfully). Sometimes, you may convince me I'm wrong. Sometimes, maybe I can do the same.


BTW, <font color="yellow">Yorick</font>, I REALLY liked your example of the "cheating spouse". That was an excellent allegory. I had never even thought of it that way.

<font color="lime">K T Ong</font> - I don't know if the Confucian and Taoist philosophies(sp?) would be considered religions, per se, but they certainly provide an interesting Point Of View.
And there is even some common ground between thier view and mine.
"if you harm someone else, you just harm yourself" is pretty close to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] BTW, how do you include "multiple" quotes in your Posts? Half the time, I don't even get to see the other responses when I'm Adding a Reply

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

BTW, <font color="yellow">Yorick</font>, I REALLY liked your example of the "cheating spouse". That was an excellent allegory. I had never even thought of it that way.

<font color="lime">K T Ong</font> - I don't know if the Confucian and Taoist philosophies(sp?) would be considered religions, per se, but they certainly provide an interesting Point Of View.
And there is even some common ground between thier view and mine.
"if you harm someone else, you just harm yourself" is pretty close to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
<hr></blockquote>


Why thankyou Cerek.

In answer to your Taoist/Confucionist question, they're considered more worldviews and moral codes than full religions. Together with Buddhism, all three make up the Chinese Religion.

As Taosism identifies and elaborates on 'the Tao' it could be construed as a theology, and thus in some definitions a religion I suppose.

Confucionism works independently from or co-operationally with religious thought. It's more a moral philosophy. The 'Proverbs' of the Orient.

Cerek, I feel sure the earth is still revolving-- a little more tilted perhaps ;) . (But I think I just saw a pig fly across the yard outside [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] .)

None of us are out to prove anyone else 'wrong', you know. (yeah, I know you know, just figured I'd reiterate in case someone not familiar with our little debates might be reading.)

Re. prayer in schools: well, I really have no problem with this...AS LONG AS every student has the clear and unfettered choice to decline and the prayer does not reflect any particular doctrine. This may sound like I'm equivocating, but not really. It seems to be common concurrence that only Christians (incl. Jewish, Muslims, and Catholics) 'pray'. Not so! Nearly every (if not every) religious/spiritual belief 'prays' in some manner. I know I do and I'm sure fable does as well (to use only two examples of wicked [img]smile.gif[/img] pagans) We simply don't do so in the same words and to the same name. So if the Powers That Be (ie the govt and the schools) could figure a way to implement a plan in which all faiths could freely pray in the public school venue, I'd support it.

Hmm Garnet and Cerek, thats an interesting thiong you have going here. Religion and state.

In Sweden one king (Gustaf Vasa) seperated the church from the state once and for all. The church had for a long time been influencing the choice of kings and since the northern countries have been influencing each other hand sometimes had an arch bishope for the whole region, a danish bishop voted for a danish king on the Swedish throne and so on and vice versa. However Sweden pretty quickly adopted to the protestantic church, but Gustaf Vasa seperated the State from the church. IE the church held obidience to the Crown, and had to pay taxes for their land they held.

However christianity was held as the states religion for centuries and until somewhere in the 1970-s church and school was seperated. Freedom of belief mean s that you can´t force a kid to read the prayers in church, and thus, they can´t have it anymore. Religion is still a subject in school. And now there are also "freeschools" that can be more or less religious.

This is a problem though since the laws regarding schools states that any child hs the right to go to any school, religious or not and have their beliefs respected.

Another problem is that some religions finds the evolutionary theories blasphemy to their religious beliefs and they are not taught them correctly. This is in the school laws as well as one subject all have to learn!

So I guess that personally I would like to see a total seperation of religion and state and schools. You have the oppurtunity to go and pray in all schools. Muslims have the right to leave for praying and thus all can be treated equal, but some standards regarding education has to be met. Religion is an aspect of your own mind and can be taught properly in a church, Moské or at another religious place regarding your religion. School are to give all children an equal education. IMHO this would be the best solution.

If I ever have kids I would like for them to go to a none religious school so they have the oppurtunity to choose of their free will what or if they will believe and follow a religion.

Well that is at least how I see it..

Yesterday some of us posted bad expriences we have had in the past with visiting or being involved with a religion or Church affiliate. I would offer my respect to Epona ,Garnet, and to all who have experienced bad actions by people in the wake of this all.
Today, I wanted to tell you all of one of the great times I have had in the past in the same area.. [img]smile.gif[/img]
One time when I was stationed in Germany I went to Mittersil, Austria on a religous retreat. I would say 50 people altogether took this trip. We skied all day and got together for different reasons at night. Singing, praying, eating, and studies in the Bible. Although I have lost contact with people I met there I will always cherish that time. None of us wanted to leave after the week and during that short time we all grew a little in our "faiths" because of it. I am non-denominational and beleive in a relationship with God through Christ... many more people there were also. But no one cared about that..we just cared about each other. I want to keep this same attitude twards you all here. I just want to understand your alls convictions and beliefs. This is why I am replying in this thread.
I think prayer in schools is good... just as long as it wont effect anyones school work..and everyone gets to choose if they want to or not.
(Off topic...Garnet I love to arc weld ... the smell... the sparks. [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I agree with Conan--let today be "good religious experience day"! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

About three years ago I went to North Carolina to visit my mother and along the way we stopped in SC to visit my baby sister who was at the time still in the Marines. There was a very old Episopalian church there with some incredible grave markers (a strange like of mine--the history and evocation in those simple markers!) that my mother thought I would appreciate. We wandered the church yard and discovered there was to be a healing 'mass' in a few minutes all were invited to attend.

Now, my family suspects I'm not exactly your basic good Southern Baptist girl anymore (like I ever was ;) ) but really is pretty vague about my beliefs (and I leave it at that as my mother has already sent my uncle to 'save' me and 'bring me back to the church' :rolleyes: .) I was a little nervous about going into the church--too used to derision and unwelcome by Christians in general--but once I got inside, there was such an air of welcome tranquility......It was truly a holy and loving place. You could *feel* the presence of the Divine in the very air, I swear! The priest conducted the service which included prayers for those ailing and not present as well as those there and invited all regardless of their personal church affiliation to participate in the sacrament if they felt the call! I was floored!!! This went against everything I'd been taught and experienced in every other church I'd ever attended! My mother and sister encouraged me to participate (I did not take communion, tho) though they declined since they were Baptist and did not feel it appropriate to follow an Episopalian ceremony.

I still feel the peace acceptance of that experience.........

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Garnet FalconDance ]</p>

I can never figure how we can think of separating religion from politics. How can religion be separated from any aspect of human existence?

But I suppose it all comes down to how we define religion. To me, religion is about ultimate concerns. What's the point of our existence? Is human life a fundamental or an incidental feature of the Cosmos? Where will I go when I die? To be religious is to be serious about finding answers to these and similar questions, and to believe it's worth our time finding out. You can go to church unfailingly every Sunday and donate millions to the poor like Oprah, but if you don't ask questions like these, then you're not a religious person.

In this sense of being religious, though, you can no longer settle for ready-made answers. You can't be dogmatic. Dogma would murder religion (in the sense in which I understand religion) -- and by dogma I can mean the dogma of the hardliner atheist as much as that of the fanatical believer. Instead you must be constantly searching, and retain an open mind. Dogma is just sheer intellectual laziness and it puts an end to all further inquiry.

Understood in this way, it should be perfectly possible for truly religious people to sit down together and talk, to share their insights and find out what they have in common, rather than fighting with each other over the respective dogmas to which they stubbornly cling (and they'd have no dogmas to cling to if they were truly religious, as I said). And religion of this nature should be an integral part of politics -- and science, art, philosophy etc etc. It should be an integral part of life itself.

Agree?

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: K T Ong ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by K T Ong:
[QB]I can never figure how we can think of separating religion from politics. How can religion be separated from any aspect of human existence? <hr></blockquote>
For thoose that have no religion? For thoose whoose religion that would suffer, politics are not about religion. To say that religion should be part of politics would IMHO mean that you would live in a religious country. And for me, I want to live in a free land where you can say and believe what you want without the everyday aspects being influenced by any religion. (This is not bantering you, I´m just giving my view since we have oppostie parts here..)
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
But I suppose it all comes down to how we define religion. To me, religion is about ultimate concerns. What's the point of our existence? Is human life a fundamental or an incidental feature of the Cosmos? Where will I go when I die? To be religious is to be serious about finding answers to these and similar questions, and to believe it's worth our time finding out. You can go to church unfailingly every Sunday and donate millions to the poor like Oprah, but if you don't ask questions like these, then you're not a religious person.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly, I agree with you here. But don´t overlook thoose that aren´t religious, they might still ponder the same questions, but with some different angles on them.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
In this sense of being religious, though, you can no longer settle for ready-made answers. You can't be dogmatic. Dogma would murder religion (in the sense in which I understand religion) -- and by dogma I can mean the dogma of the hardliner atheist as much as that of the fanatical believer. Instead you must be constantly searching, and retain an open mind. Dogma is just sheer intellectual laziness and it puts an end to all further inquiry.<hr></blockquote>
Wow, very well said, a similiar thing I view life with, always trying to learn new things, learn how to better solve problems, trying to evolve. Very well said!
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Understood in this way, it should be perfectly possible for truly religious people to sit down together and talk, to share their insights and find out what they have in common, rather than fighting with each other over the respective dogmas to which they stubbornly cling (and they'd have no dogmas to cling to if they were truly religious, as I said). And religion of this nature should be an integral part of politics -- and science, art, philosophy etc etc. It should be an integral part of life itself.[QUOTE]
Oki, here things get a bit blurred together. Science and, art, philosophy integral part of religion? Nah, why do that? You force things into religious aspect. To consider them for religious people though fine.. I can´t argue there. But to mix them in the common room of debates for everyone is wrong, that leads to thoughtcontrol and no freedom. I don´t know if I might have missread you here somewhere. But I also agree that each area can consist in religions. Art that is religious do exist but they also exist in all other areas as well. Pure political art and art for arts sake exist. Don´t forget that some people are happy without any religion, that I guess is my most important viewpoint of this. To make a system religious will more or less lead to a more narrow thinking. At least in the past we have seen how this has developed..

Though I agree with your view points here, about keeping the discussion open and the evolving matters are indeed important matters.
[QUOTE]
Agree?
<hr></blockquote>Only to some degree I´m afraid ;)

But I enjoyed reading your thoughts and see things from your viewpoint!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>To say that religion should be part of politics would IMHO mean that you would live in a religious country. And for me, I want to live in a free land where you can say and believe what you want without the everyday aspects being influenced by any religion.<hr></blockquote>

You're still adhering to the idea of religion as dogma -- and that I have already disowned. To me, free inquiry should be an essential part of religion. And to bring religion into politics is (according to my definition of religion) not to require of the rulers or the people that they be Christians, or Jews etc. It is simply to be serious about questions like: how should rulers rule? In such a way people will be happy? Why? What's the point? And, having asked such questions, to seek to work out answers that everyone will share, the rulers and the people alike.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But don´t overlook thoose that aren´t religious, they might still ponder the same questions, but with some different angles on them.<hr></blockquote>

In my definition of religion, to seriously ponder such questions in any way at all is already to be religious.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But to mix them in the common room of debates for everyone is wrong, that leads to thoughtcontrol and no freedom. I don´t know if I might have missread you here somewhere.<hr></blockquote>

I think you have. [img]smile.gif[/img] Look again at what I've said above. To mix a body of truly concerned people in the common room of debates for everyone leads to thought control and no freedom only if certain members of the group seek to enforce their views -- what I've already called dogma. I would only encourage people to sit down together and talk, though, and not force them. (Hey, if they were truly religious then they wouldn't need me or anyone to encourage them to do that anymore -- they'd do it themselves.)

Hope I've clarified a few things regarding my views...

You're still adhering to the idea of religion as dogma -- and that I have already disowned. To me, free inquiry should be an essential part of religion. And to bring religion into politics is (according to my definition of religion) not to require of the rulers or the people that they be Christians, or Jews etc. It is simply to be serious about questions like: how should rulers rule? In such a way people will be happy? Why? What's the point? And, having asked such questions, to seek to work out answers that everyone will share, the rulers and the people alike.

So your religion is to be serious? I think I understand better your viewpoint, but still you and I talk I think about to different things, and what I get stuck upon is the religion (not your version) but Religion as it is integrated with politics and the way of life.
And how can we get people to see your view upon religion? No more thn we can make my point of view I guess.

What we both can agree on seems to be the discussions. You say that your religion is also free from the rules of Jewish, Christain and Muslim beliefs. But how would they see it?

And also in you way to ponder questions is to be religious, but to others they ae exestantial without being religious. I think hehe that we are getting closer and closer to start defining what religion is and how to define it.. ;) And oh yes, I missread you hehe. BUt you missread me as well.. Darn it, I would like to have this discussion over a cup of coffee somewhere LOL!
Though I have to disagree upon general nastiness here with your last point.
"To mix a body of truly concerned people in the common room of debates for everyone leads to thought control and no freedom only if certain members of the group seek to enforce their views -- what I've already called dogma. I would only encourage people to sit down together and talk, though, and not force them"

This is in my Humble opinion a bit close to Utopia, sorry, I would like that if there were a solution to it! But I can´t see it in any near future, my belief in mankind I guess is to pessimistic I´m afraid. But even so I like more and more the "picture" you paint up for me!! :D

I've never actually told anyone this before but I really don't study any religion at all, never wanted to and still don't, I was supposively a christian, but I never go to church, don't pray, or nothing, I have no religion to beleive in, and like I said, I really don't want one, so plz don't take anything I just said offensive, its just I'm not religous. (Thats a major secret to me so, plz)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Black Dragon:
I've never actually told anyone this before but I really don't study any religion at all, never wanted to and still don't, I was supposively a christian, but I never go to church, don't pray, or nothing, I have no religion to beleive in, and like I said, I really don't want one, so plz don't take anything I just said offensive, its just I'm not religous. (Thats a major secret to me so, plz)<hr></blockquote>


Black Dragon... no worries bro. You can believe or reject what you like. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It concerns me that you don't feel you can openly question the religion you are "supposedly" part of. Christianity to me is freedom. Doubts are something I relish as they are followed by a new level of understanding. Go on a search. Or don't. What you do is your own business and you shouldn't need to feel ashamed no matter what path you take.

Peace.