What is your religion.

[the_Baron]

if you're not shy to answer, what religion were you born into, and what do you practice currently?

[Mitchell]

I was born Jewish, but I'm not religious. I dont go to temple or observe holidays or such, so right now I guess Iam practicing nothing. Both sides of my family are Jewish, but no one really is an active observing or practicing Jew.

Mitch

[Krokus]

Satanism yes, it's true

[Miss Wriggles]

I'm a non practising Christian. I like the ethics but not many of its advocates..............

[Haltickling]

I was raised as a Roman-Catholic, but I became an agnostic by the age of 16. The dogmatism, intolerance, and hypocrisy of the official church was too much to bear for me.

Nowadays, I live my life based on social conscience and common sense. But I am very tolerant towards all religious people of all faiths, except the fanatics of all brands.

[ShadowTklr]

I am an Awakenist. Although its not a religion, per se, it is aimed at religion. I attempt to deprogram religious fanatics who come to my house preaching religion by creating so much doubt, that even the most motivated religion-solicitor leaves with more questions than they asked. It's an art, more than a religion, but it works!

[Xodlirv]

I was not "born into" any religion. I received no religious training in my childhood. I'm told I was baptised in a Methodist church and my mother thinks that makes me a Methodist, but I have no memory of ever having been in a Methodist church in my life and I have had no instruction in the Methodist beliefs. I was in a New York City delicatessen once, too, and it didn't make me Jewish.

I currently attend a Quaker meeting house and practice the Quaker faith. I have only recently (the last year or so) been attending, but the Quaker beliefs so dovetail with my own that I feel I have been a practicing Quaker all my life and didn't know it.

One point where the established Quaker beliefs vary from my own, and I understand there are many other Quakers who share my belief, is the divinity of Christ. I believe that a philosopher named Jesus Christ lived two thousand years ago; I also believe that the moral code that he left us is the greatest the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. But frankly, I feel that calling him the Son of God is fairy tales.

[drew70]

from Xodlirv
I currently attend a Quaker meeting house and practice the Quaker faith. I have only recently (the last year or so) been attending, but the Quaker beliefs so dovetail with my own that I feel I have been a practicing Quaker all my life and didn't know it.Does that mean you eat lots of Oatmeal and Cap'n Crunch exept on Fridays? :D Just kidding.
from Xodlirv
I believe that a philosopher named Jesus Christ lived two thousand years ago; I also believe that the moral code that he left us is the greatest the world has ever seen, or is ever likely to see. But frankly, I feel that calling him the Son of God is fairy tales.This is a very popular school of thought. It's one thing to reject the Bible, the Gospel, and Christianity in general. But to say Jesus was a great and moral philosopher but not the Son of God is among the most easily disprovable notions. Why? Because Jesus Himself more than once claimed to be the Son of God. He talked about His Father quite often.

Matthew 16:17
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

John 6:32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

John 10:25
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me"

John 8:54
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

There are other references too numerous to list here, but the point is simply this: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Given this, there are only three possible answers. Either

1) Jesus lied about being God's Son, which would negate any idea of being a highly moral philosopher

2) Jesus was dillusional, and believed Himself to be the Son of God due to mental instability, which would blow away any credibility for anything else He might say.

or

3) Jesus actually was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be.

Those are your choices Xod. Choose well.

[MrMacphisto]

I'm Agnostic, bordering on Atheist....

[Xodlirv]

Gee, a Quaker cereal joke. I never heard one of those before.

How about a fourth option, Drew? The Bible is not the infallible "word of God" that some people like to believe it is. The Bible was not faxed in from Heaven, nor did it fall from the clouds in a leatherbound edition with the words of Christ in red. The Bible was written by men. And since its original transcription it has been revised, edited, and translated so many thousands of times that any original accounts have most likely been lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't reject the Bible completely. It contains very valuable moral teachings and parables that are as valid today as two thousand years ago. But I don't believe it to be the direct "word of God" any more than I believe Jesus Christ to be the actual son of God. I also very strongly disagree with those who use it to justify their own hatreds and prejudices. People have been doing that since it was first written and are still doing it. I think there's a special circle of Hell reserved for people like that.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by drew70
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Given this, there are only three possible answers. Either

1) Jesus lied about being God's Son, which would negate any idea of being a highly moral philosopher

2) Jesus was dillusional, and believed Himself to be the Son of God due to mental instability, which would blow away any credibility for anything else He might say.

or

3) Jesus actually was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be.

Those are your choices Xod. Choose well.
Oh, I can think of several other viable options. Most of them circle around the fact that the New Testament was written over quite a stretch of time after Jesus's life and death. Maybe he didn't speak those words himself, instead they were ascribed to him by the evangelists to lend more credibility to their view of his teachings?

Besides, being "delusional" (= insane?) about a certain aspect doesn't mean being stupid. The border between genius and insanity is often quite narrow. Leonardo da Vinci was considered "mad" when he presented his theories about flying, he even invented the concept of a submarine in the 16th century! The ideas of a "delusional" philosopher can be quite ingenious nonetheless.

And there is also the psychological phenomenon of "projection": Anonymous ideas from several different sources are sometimes projected on a charismatic person, because people can identify better with a certain person than with any anonymous idea...

And what about several billions of people from other faiths? Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism? Are they all just misguided, even "delusional", because they don't accept Jesus as the Son of God? Certainly, to some people with a narrowly restricted horizon, they are! That's one of the reasons why I became an agnostic.

Just a tiny morsel of thought...

[Cosmo_ac]

Well said, Hal and Xod. Personally, i'm not a memeber of any religion per se, however i imagine my views are closer to that of the christian faith, without the biggetry. I also do not believe in Hell. Personally, i find a god who would make a place like hell, or let people who Sin go to hell to burn for eternity, more then pathetic. I don't believe things are that black and white. I also question who the fuck god is to have the right to pass judgement on us. Seriously. How is a devine being, that is supposed to be infalible, able to understand a human stealing bread for his family? What about people who have never even heard of god? Like i said, way to black and white for my liking.

Now, thats not to say i don't believe in paying for ones consequences. I remember talking to tickleDuo Ann about this back a while ago when she used to visit the chat room. Pergitory seemed to be the word we came to. Basically, a person who commited a crime, say they killed somebody, when they died, they would be sent to pergitory, and there, they would live the life of the person that they had wronged, from there birth, to the point of there death. One could argue that it is the epitomy of the eye-for-an-eye rule, however, it would be meant as a teaching tool, something to help one understand, as the victom would also have the choice of living the life of there assailent as a way of understanding what happened. In the end, one would hope all parties would find their peace.

[drew70]

From Hal
Oh, I can think of several other viable options. Most of them circle around the fact that the New Testament was written over quite a stretch of time after Jesus's life and death. Maybe he didn't speak those words himself, instead they were ascribed to him by the evangelists to lend more credibility to their view of his teachings?There's all kinds of maybe out there Hal. The Gospels are eye-witness accounts of the things Jesus said and did. If you can provide more reliable documentation to the contrary, bring it on.
From Hal
Besides, being "delusional" (= insane?) about a certain aspect doesn't mean being stupid. The border between genius and insanity is often quite narrow. Leonardo da Vinci was considered "mad" when he presented his theories about flying, he even invented the concept of a submarine in the 16th century! The ideas of a "delusional" philosopher can be quite ingenious nonetheless.Da Vinci was presenting scientific theories, not moral philosophy. The most reliable documentation we have regarding the things Jesus said and did are The Gospels. Jesus is quoted several times referring to himself as the Son of God. If He is not the Son of God, that makes Him delusional at best, a liar at worst. It's no more complicated than that.From Hal
And there is also the psychological phenomenon of "projection": Anonymous ideas from several different sources are sometimes projected on a charismatic person, because people can identify better with a certain person than with any anonymous idea...Very lofty ideas, Hal. Do you not get the "documented from several sources" part, or are you just ignoring it altogether?
From Hal
And what about several billions of people from other faiths? Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism? Are they all just misguided, even "delusional", because they don't accept Jesus as the Son of God? Certainly, to some people with a narrowly restricted horizon, they are! Nice try, but you won't steer me into such a discussion. Perhaps we'll cover this in another thread.
From Hal
That's one of the reasons why I became an agnostic.Interesting.


*edited because you know better*

[giggleygirl25]

raised Methodist(believe me, not really missing out on all that much Xod)...but at the moment believe that anything and everything is possible, who's to say one is right over another...i mean i could start a religion based on the Tooth Fairy and her lil minions, doesn't make me right or wrong (alittle unhinged but that's for another time).

anyway, i think everyone should practice or not whatever they are comfortable with (unless people or animals are harmed)

[Cosmo_ac]

Drew, can you prove Jesus was the son of God? What about the Koren? What about Hindu? Budism?

[venray]

Cos...can you prove he was not? ;)

"prove" is a rough term when most religious beliefs are founded on faith.

Personally I believe that all of us are sons and daughters of God...Jesus was merely the first to realize it....

(there I go giving my opinion again:rolleyes: Damn you Mac!)


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

Certainly i can't Ray ;) But then, it matters little to me. People will believe what they choose, despite any contradictory evidence. However, i do feel that if your about to bash ones beliefs, you should have a little more proof then "Well, i have some old book thats like really old, and it says this guy who died, like a thousand years ago, he was like the son of god." Ah well. Like i said, People will believe what they choose to believe. Perhaps however, i can ask some of these religious people some questions i've wanted to ask for a while.

first big question. This is something you tend to hear from religious people, so i'll ask. Does god have a plan for each and everyone of us?

[Mimi]

Originally posted by Xodlirv
The Bible is not the infallible "word of God" that some people like to believe it is. The Bible was not faxed in from Heaven, nor did it fall from the clouds in a leatherbound edition with the words of Christ in red. The Bible was written by men. And since its original transcription it has been revised, edited, and translated so many thousands of times that any original accounts have most likely been lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't reject the Bible completely. It contains very valuable moral teachings and parables that are as valid today as two thousand years ago. But I don't believe it to be the direct "word of God" any more than I believe Jesus Christ to be the actual son of God. I also very strongly disagree with those who use it to justify their own hatreds and prejudices. People have been doing that since it was first written and are still doing it. I think there's a special circle of Hell reserved for people like that.


Wow, wonderfully written, Xod. You just earned a buttload of my respect with that post (not that you didn't have it already from our discussions in the chat room).

I don't belong to nor do I practice any specific religion. I was born Protestant (or so I am told), but I have chose to make my own opinions of spirituality based on what feels right for 'me'.

Do I believe in God? Yep. Do I believe in Jesus? Yep. Do I believe the Bible is the end all to be all guide for us to base our lives upon? Nope. Don't get me wrong. I do believe in and subscribe to many teachings of the bible (as in we are all Gods children, love thy neighbor, honor thy mother and father, etc.), but as Xod said, I do not approve of the Bible being interpreted as a crutch to support prejudices and hatred. I personally like to believe in a God of mercy and love and acceptance...one who does not banish his children based on tendencies they are born with and have no control over.

Mimi

[venray]

Much as I would like to answer you fully, Cos... I would have to present you with my views in their entirety (something I've oft threatened BigJim with)

I will say this... if by a "plan" you mean is everthing we do pre-ordained then I would answer no....If you mean..is there a purpose for our being? then I would say yes ...most definitely...;)

I too believe in the priciples of Christianity Mimi while not in the methods of organized religion...

Ray

[drew70]

From Cosmo
Drew, can you prove Jesus was the son of God?Nope. Just that He said He was.

What about the Koren? What about Hindu? Budism? No, I can't prove they were God either.

[kurchatovium]

Faith is a feeling, an intense emotion. It can not be proved, anymore than you could prove you love your wife or your mother. Religion is based on Faith. You either have it, or you don't. Some people do find it on their journey through life like me.

[Cosmo_ac]

See, i got the impression, that everything was ordained, or at least thats what i got from the "God has a plan for each and every one of us." Comments i've heard.

[kurchatovium]

I believe everyone does play a role and God does have a plan. I was told by a rabbi once that God has made us each a masterpiece and it is up to us to apply the last few brushstrokes. :D

[ShadowTklr]

Originally posted by venray1
Cos...can you prove he was not? ;)

"prove" is a rough term when most religious beliefs are founded on faith.



You're right Ray. That's every reason why religious followers should not make statements of fact, without proof.

Bear in mind, that the burden of proof does not lie with the non-believer. It lies squarely on the shoulders of those faithful followers who would represent their claims as indisputable fact.

It's one thing to say "I believe" in X. Its another thing to make factual declarations about things which cannot be proven. Here's an example of a couple of options that Drew left out of his multiple choice question that would give an expanded range of consideration to his claim:

4.) The fact that there are thousands of translational errors that have forced biblical scholars to accept certain phrases as "likely" or to the "best of their ability," because they could not accurately decipher the ancient Aramaic syntax.

5.) Jesus never actually said that, but rather the phrase has been attributed to him, posthumously. Is it possible? Of course.

6.) Jesus also referred to himself as the "son of man." So, which one is the true title? How do you know?

Since most biblical scholars cannot agree definitively amongst themselves as to the accuracy and meaning of the phrase “son of God,” and since it has also not been definitively agreed upon that this phrase was used by Jesus to describe himself, rather than having been attributed to him by biblical authors AFTER his death, there is no universal factual foundation for the claim that Jesus was, in fact, the one and only son of God.

So, if someone wants to claim that Jesus walked on water, arose from the dead, or was God incarnate, then the burden of proof lies with them. Otherwise, people could go around making all kinds of claims, and then blame doubters for not being able to prove them wrong.

I think it is best that people believe in their hearts whatever it is that gives them the strength and conviction to be good people without force-feeding their personal beliefs on the rest of society.

Is this not a God-like philosophy?

[venray]

There is no burden of proof shadow... nothing needs to be proven..you either believe or you dont. Difference between those like myself and religious fanatics is they feel the need to prove they are right as I accept what I believe and respect the beliefs of others....that is why organized religion has no real place in my life...I keepmy own relationship with God and it works well for me....I dont pretend that it will work for others....;)


Cos..you hear the words..ordained and plan for us from those who would have you believe that there is only one point of view...they forget about "free will"...these are people who need to "prove" that they are right in order to believe that they are...they have the least faith of all...

Ray

[redway10]

There are many people who believe that the Bible is the word of God.

However -

The Bible has a number of logical contradictions and factual errors that automatically make it imperfect (mistakes God would not have made). If you argue that these are translation errors or the like, the whole book is up for an incomprehensible level of reinterpretation.

See for some good examples.

This alone should be enough reason to reject this book as the guideline for the care and handling of one's eternal soul.

Also-

The Bible mentions slavery 67 times and does not once say it is wrong. Would an infinitely intelligent creator not point out that owning another person is a sin, especially when it was so common at the time? The Bible has no problem pointing out that other religious beliefs are wrong (repeatedly) - why not slavery?

There is no exception in the Bible for children, the mentally handicapped, or good non-Christians. None. Most people assume that there is, but there isn't.

Many "true believers" today point to the Bible to condemn homosexual behavior and the denial of Jesus Christ as the only path to "salvation". However, just 150 years ago slaveowners in America (overwhelmingly Christian) pointed to the Bible to justify the practice of slavery against abolitionists (also mostly Christian). And they were correct in their assertions. American slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, not the Bible.

The fact that at least 95% of people are born into their permanent lifetime religion makes the entire premise preposterous. The fact that people are free to become a different religion is irrelevant; God knows that nearly all souls of people born in China, etc. will not be going to heaven. Right.

Condemned to hell for eternity for being born in a non-Christian country (billions of souls)? No intelligent being would ever permit the existence of such a system, the concept of hell alone is simply unfathomable in a universe with an infinitely intelligent creator.

Would any intelligent being under any circumstances permit anyone or anything to be punished forever??? Would God have created the universe in the first place knowing that this scenario would take place?

How the concept of religion has lasted in this Country (US) into the 21st century is incomprehensible (still the most Protestant country on Earth). But, hey, it makes people happy to be righteous. Or self-righteous. Or something.

btw - I am a non-believer (religion, psychic powers, numerology, astrology, etc.)

[kurchatovium]

I believe the Bible is man's interpretation of the word of God and hence because it is a work of man yes it is flawed. Course that is just my opinion. :D :D :p

[desdemona]

(all right, I'll probably regret this, but here goes)

Born and raised Protestant. Baptised through a United Church of Christ. My father was raised a southern baptist, my mom was an agnostic. I used to walk to the Methodist church down the street to sing in the choir on Sundays - music was one of the truly spiritual communions I enjoyed. Nowadays, I'm pretty much non-partisan by choice, or I'll drive a distance to an Episcopalean church where I know the music director and I can sing some incredible tunes. I'd have to say I fall under the category of naturalist/deist - if you really believe in titles. Some divine being created this universe (call him/her/it what you will), but nature governs. Perfection defined :) - where else could you find a double helix perfectly aligned as the center of life?

I come at things from a scientific angle. I know it has very little to do with faith. Scientific knowledge and theory only take me so far - but I marvel as we continue to unravel some of the great mysteries of the world around us. My scientific take on things will only go back so far though - no big bang theories or whatever the latest origins of the cosmos is. But I'm also a big proponent of evolutionary theory. When I had to read Origin of the Species in college, I cringed. It truly is a difficult book to ponder - not because of the concepts, but because Darwin could write volumes on next to nothing (example: check and see how many books about barnacles the man wrote). But most of his ideas had merit (even if he wasn't the original one to come up with these theories as other naturalists claim). I listened to my classmates poo poo the whole thing - and a good portion of them were pre-med. Their idea was that Darwin was a nice guy who just didn't get it - and their mantra was what the Bible told them. Of course, this was in Indiana, bible belt central. My opinion of them? They just fell to the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. The great thing about the human mind is that it is complex enough to grasp dichotomies such as these - how can we read something and then be asked to accept something that goes against what we just read? Science doesn't ask for faith. It asks for a hypothesis to be proven by the scientific method. Doesn't work in reverse as others have said - that which cannot be seen or touched or sensed in the physical world cannot be proven as so many theologists wish. Faith truly is blind :)


And for me, I find it sad that things have become so literal. More and more I find people who believe everything they read on the internet is "gospel" (not to be confused with the biblical reference). Sad and wrong. Then there are those fundamentalists who take the Bible literally. Take just one commandement: Thou shalt not kill. Ok...kill what? Each other? Other animals? Mammals? Insects? Obviously, can't be inclusive of all animals, since in the Old Testament there were calves sacrificed. And obviously fish was acceptable to eat, too. I "kill" on a regular basis (or euthanize rather) - and I don't recall Dante having a special circle of hell for such instances. But I have a friend who will define "fruit" - as in the forbidden apple - as meat and use this as an interpretation for why he is vegetarian (not vegan mind you). And that's just fine by me - just don't ask me to give up steak :) I take a broader approach - since as others have mentioned much of the transcription of "God's word" has been lost through translation or creatively edited to fit the times and needs of civilization. But everyone must find his/her own moral compass - and I believe that all major world religions hold the same basic tenets - just different spins on the Golden Rule (which boils it all down to the basics, doesn't it?). All right, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[Oblesklk]

Originally posted by venray1

I will say this... if by a "plan" you mean is everthing we do pre-ordained then I would answer no....If you mean..is there a purpose for our being? then I would say yes ...most definitely...;)

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, Ray: our raison d'etre without the predestination bit. The older I get, the more I'm thinking the human race is some magnificent, horrendous mistake. A wonderful dinner, if you will, that was left on the burner too long :D

I do enjoy reading others' opinions on the matter. So if you've the time, I'd love to read your thoughts, either here or by email.

Myself, I was born a godless heathen and I guess that's where I'm still at today. Agnostic would be the proper terminology, I suppose. Boring, but true.

[Mephistopheles]

My family's muslim, I'm atheist.

[the_Baron]

Desi -

i could listen (read)to you and never be bored. you/ve got quite a gift!

[Haltickling]

Imagine you met somebody on the subway today who claims to be God's Son, returned to save mankind again because they're still committing the same mistakes as 2000 years ago. Maybe he'd look like a hard-working middle class guy. Or like a black rapper from the slums. Perhaps he'd return as a female today, claiming to be God's Daughter. You'd hear some miraculous things being told about him/her, about unexplained healings, or about his/her multiplying food for the homeless. Would you believe him/her?

Just another guru/televangelist/Yehova's Witness, or just nuts, people may think, and if that mysterious person should damage anything, he/she'd be arrested and dumped in some asylum for lunatics. I can highly recommend Sir Peter Ustinov's book "The Old Man and Mr. Smith" on that topic, it's hilarious and full of deep thoughts at the same time.

Now, why should I believe something just because some obviously indoctrinated guys 2000 years ago claimed to have seen and heard it? Why should I believe in some religion which claims to have the only truth, excluding billions of human beings from "salvation" by that?

If you believe in God and Jesus Christ, please do so. If you believe in Allah or Yahve or Shiva, please do so. Just don't try to prove that you're right and everybody with a different faith is wrong. All you'd get is the deserved contempt from others.

[QBWeaver]

I went to Catholic school for the first 8 years of my life. I rarely go to church but I still pray to a Supreme Being that I refer to as God.

In my way of thinking it doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Buddist, Muslim, or if you just worship Mother Nature. You can call your Supreme Being, God, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddah, Jehovah and or Tulip. The religions teach the same basics...

The Golden Rule - Do unto others as they would do unto you.

[TummyDragon]

I was born into the Southern Baptist culture. I went to a baptist school from 4th through 9th grades. I studied theology. All of which must have been sins, because everything a Southern Baptist does is either sinful, or related to sinful nature in some way. I don't really buy into religion at all anymore. I think spirituality is far more self enlightening than religion of any persuasion could possibly ever be. If there is a god, I am positive that he/she is totally amazed at some of the idiotic behaviors and beliefs humans have espoused in the name of god and religion.


As I've mentioned a couple of time here and there...

Now I'm a Frisbeterian, we firmly believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

[venray]

Originally posted by Oblesklk
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, Ray: our raison d'etre without the predestination bit. The older I get, the more I'm thinking the human race is some magnificent, horrendous mistake. A wonderful dinner, if you will, that was left on the burner too long :D



AS I owe BigJim a bit more more details into my thoughts on the matter, perhaps it is time for me to write them down and at some point soon share them with others....

I shall endeavor to put the thoughts into written word and share them with you. It will take a bit of doing, but I will make the time.

Ray

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

"...a bit of dong"? ;)

[Limeoutsider]

whatever suites me (and it depends on whsoe asking)

[WraithTickler]

Born and indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic church. Not practicing, but still philosophizing on the matter.

Just to answer a few questions or ideas that came up in the course of this thread.

The issue of Hell is a matter of personal choice. God does not condemn us to Hell. It is a choice we make. We are given grace to accept God or to not. If one believes in an all powerful spirit as the source of life and existance- one that is ultimately good and best defined by the word love, then turning away from it would be Hell in chosing to reflect away from that light and love, but it is ultimately up to us.

I believe in providence and that there is some divine plan. Mircales can happen. However free will is the qualifier for destiny. We can chose to live a moral life and fulfill our part in the plan- or we may not. I would think that God's will is done regardless, though He would call on us to carry it on for him. Probably the biggest fallicy one can have- believing they know the whole plan.

Christianity is a religion I was brought up in and for the most part I believe in its moral/ethical tenants. I have questions surrounding the issue of Jesus' divinity which is a major stumbling block for me. I think the two key commandments, and the concept of a God that would sacrifice Himself for us and our redemption is the kind of God I would believe in.

In regard to other religions and even Christianity, I admit I know nothing. Religion is a means to an end, be it personal faith or organized religion- God is that end, beginning, etc. I think each religion has a bit of truth or grace to it to it- grasping a part of the divine, but no one has the whole truth due to human limitations and inability to grasp the Absolute and the divine. I think that religions facilitate how we accept that grace which is freely given to all people. I think Christianity as I see it has a larger share than the rest, but I think there may be some eccumenical drive or evolution of religions in the future for a more complete, but not perfect or whole picture while on this mortal coil.

I think there is a right to try and evangelize and preach ones religion- to a point though. Each may have some portion of the truth and most have a well thought out ethical/moral system that would surpass most secular philosophies in my opinion. One should above all avoid trying to act out of self-righteousness when they do this (easier said than done) and should keep in mind grace extends to all people and is freely given regardless of their preference (or lack there of).

[venray]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
"...a bit of dong"? ;)

ROFLMAO!
Doing....I just cant type these days ...;)

[drew70]

Imagine two Bibles. The first is completely authentic and reliable, transcripted in toto from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. A Bible that reads plainly in an easy to understand fashion. Imagine this Book that not only serves as spiritual inspiration, but serves as a reliable historical document, more accurate than any other of it's kind. This would be the kind of book where you wouldn't be able to say, "Oh, well everybody has to interpret it for themselves," in order to justify lifestyles that contradict The Book. Because The Book reads plainly and clearly with very little open to interpretation.

Imagine now the second Bible is one that is unreliable at best, because nobody is sure which scriptures come from God, or which were "ad libbed" by man. As a result you have people who pick and choose the scriptures that look good to them, like a salad bar, and disregard the rest. This would be a book that has no clear moral blueprint for mankind. Any scripture that denounces a certain behavior or lifestyle, or puts it in an unfavorable light can be rationalized away by claiming "it was written by men," or "it was faultily translated."

Now, imagine further that you are God Almighty, and you want mankind to have a Book that contains your message to them. This would of course be a very important, THE most important Book because it not only tells mankind the way to redemption, but how to live a life that's pleasing in Your sight. Would you want that Book to be the first Bible or the Second? Would you take steps to make sure that the Book you intend for them remains uncorrupted as it is translated into other languages? Would you make sure the message remains clear and intact, undiluted by words of "men"? Or would you just let mankind flounder around, trying to figure it out, maybe chuckling as you watched them scurry around like rats in a maze?

[Cosmo_ac]

Or perhaps there was never a book at all? Who knows, though i suppose if you belive in Hell, then you have to imagine God as a bit of a sadist, so i say we got the second book.

[venray]

I have to go along with Kurch on this one..The Bible is the interpretation of the word of God as perceived by those that wrote it.

Seeing as it was written by different men at different times, it is hard to consider it a single work. God gave us free will..Thus the scurrying around that we do so well.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

ah, but do we really have free will, Ray, or mearly assume we have free will? ;)

[TklDuo-Ann]

Originally posted by Venray1
Seeing as it was written by different men at different times, it is hard to consider it a single work. God gave us free will..Thus the scurrying around that we do so well.

Not to mention the fact that much of the Scriptures (both old and new testaments, though more the OT) were passed down through what Scripture scholars commonly refer to as "oral tradition". The original way of passing on the faith was by witnessing to what was experienced orally...often around nighttime bonfires along well-travelled roads. That was how most news was spread in those days. You ran into someone new and asked what news they had, and shared any you had. It was the same with the faith. It was often only years later that OT stories were written down...and most often not by those who were there. It would be easy for personal feelings and prejudices to get added to the mix as stories were passed along. In contrast, the vast majority of the NT was written by those who were actually there. Not all was immediately written. But, I consider it more reliable since it was first-hand accounts...for the most part. To say that time changes the way we see things would be accurate. But, I've experienced the hand of God in my life plenty of times. No matter how much time passes, I still remember those times as if they were yesterday. I can easily see those who passed on their experiences first-hand as having had the same experience in that regard.

I personally believe this to be the reason why God seems like such a vengeful overlord in the OT, spouting what amounts to prejudice and hatred in some cases, demanding that people follow all sorts of formulas and jump through hoops to please Him and prescribing ruthless punishments for failings. Does God hate sin? I believe He does. Does He exact the types of penalties that we see in the OT? I truly doubt it. Perhaps that's why he sent Jesus to straighten us out?

Look at the contrasts between what the old and new testaments teeach. I believe in God as Jesus revealed Him. (And, yes, I DO believe that Jesus is the Son of God...and is God.) I believe in God as a loving, caring father who wants nothing but the best for us. The "evil" in the world today is brought on by our own free will being abused. I often question why He doesn't just take away that free will. But, I have yet to figure that out. It's one of the first things I plan to ask Him when I see Him face to face.

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
I remember talking to tickleDuo Ann about this back a while ago when she used to visit the chat room. Pergitory seemed to be the word we came to. Basically, a person who commited a crime, say they killed somebody, when they died, they would be sent to pergitory, and there, they would live the life of the person that they had wronged, from there birth, to the point of there death.

Actually, Cos, that's a bit off from what I believe myself. Purgatory is a place of purification. Scripture tells us that nothing unclean/impure (whatever word you want to use) will enter the kingdom. Well, if that's the case, we'd all be burning in hell, because none of us is perfect. UNLESS, there's another alternative. Thus, the realization of somewhere other than heaven or hell...taking its name from its function.

If nothing impure can enter heaven, then we have to be purified. Yes, Jesus' blood took away the penalty for our sin...IF we accept that gift. But, we are still weakened by things...sin, faults, hurts, unbelief, whatever. If we are to truly enjoy the fullness of God's presence and the depth of His love, we have to get other junk out of the way. Purgatory is a place for all of these things to be cleansed and healed. Rather than a place of punishment, which is how even many Catholics see it (though it isn't what the Church teaches), it's like a hospital for the soul. Picture a patient in a burn unit. There's a chance for new skin to grow back. They may even get to the point of looking as they did before the inury. But, it's a process that takes time. Infection has to be avoided. Skin grafts may be necessary. Etc. That's kind of what purgatory does.

Than, we can fully rejoice in God's presence because there's nothing in the way.

Now to answer the original question, for the record...

I was born and raised Catholic, looked around a lot, examined every other faith that I could get access to and finally came to the decision that the Catholic Church comes the closest of anyone to teaching what I truly believe. I don't agree with everything that's ever been taught or done by the Church as institution. But, it comes closer to what I see to be the truth than anything else. I don't attend Mass as often as I'd like thanks to health problems. But, I have a conscious ongoing relationship with God that, like any other relationship, has its ups and downs.

Ann

[Cosmo_ac]

heh, sorry Ann, i should have explained that better. Purgitory was the word we came to, as it was most accurrate to what we were talking about, but we both had different views of what it was like ;) Although i think in essence it is basically the same. In the end, all people find redemption and cleanse themselves of there hate and anger. As i've said before, i don'y believe any being of infinant wisdom or mercy could allow a place like hell to exhist. I mean, say if even you do live by the word of good. hell, you could become a priest, but say your sister or mother or something is a non-believer or committed a sin or something. When you got to heaven, do you truelly think you could be at peace knowing they were burning in hell? I doubt it.

[TklDuo-Ann]

;) No sweat, Cos. Look what you did to me though. You got me to actually post in the P&R forum! Yikes! Good thing I'm leaving on vacation or it could become a habit. The reason I don't post here is that I hate talking about politics. And threads about religion generally turn into a "my faith is better than yours" arguement. I think God (for those who believe He exists in some form) would puke at much of what we do "in His name".

OK I'm off and running. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

Ann (a Catholic who thinks everyone has a right to believe as they wish)

[crydun]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
Faith is a feeling, an intense emotion. It can not be proved, anymore than you could prove you love your wife or your mother. Religion is based on Faith. You either have it, or you don't. Some people do find it on their journey through life like me.

Good point, kurch. I agree. Faith is the substance of things not seen. Why do you have faith in something? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you do.