Jump to content

What religion are you?  

329 members have voted

  1. 1. What religion are you?

    • Catholic
      17
    • Protestant
      39
    • Mormon
      95
    • Jewish
      13
    • Muslim
      12
    • Buddhist
      2
    • Hindu
      3
    • Cosmereism
      7
    • Atheist/Agnostic
      84
    • Other
      18
    • Christian - Other
      39


Recommended Posts

As a believer, I'm not fond of them either. I love the hymns themselves. I love listening to them, singing along in my car or even just enjoying the words. I don't like singing along in church, with everyone else following as a band plays onstage. It isn't stage fright--ivr never really gotten that and have always enjoyed public speaking--so I'm not entirely sure why l don't like singing worship songs in church. I just don't. Never have, really.

See, as far as music goes for me, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I find lyrics hard to listen to (I get them wrong) and whenever anyone links music to me saying the lyrics are great, that's usually irrelevant to me. The music behind the lyrics are much more important. However, if I'm actually singing something like "Jesus is my savior," that's just... I can't. It's a lie, and I figure that if there were divinities, they'd like me to be honest about my beliefs at least :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, as far as music goes for me, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I find lyrics hard to listen to (I get them wrong) and whenever anyone links music to me saying the lyrics are great, that's usually irrelevant to me. The music behind the lyrics are much more important. However, if I'm actually singing something like "Jesus is my savior," that's just... I can't. It's a lie, and I figure that if there were divinities, they'd like me to be honest about my beliefs at least :P

I think God definitely approves of honesty. ;)

For me, that "honesty" moment usually comes when the pasto asks "Don't you just love worshipping The Lord through song?" And I'm sitting there, wondering if I should cheer with everyone else or not. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

YES!! The hymns that always get me are I Know That My Redeemer Lives, Come Come ye Saints, and I Stand All Amazed. Storming amazing songs.
 
EDIT: (don't want to double post) Out of curiosity, are there people who still worship the Greek gods?

 

 

Yes, there are.  I know some of them. :)  They generally refer to themselves as being Hellenic pagans, or just plain Hellenic.  There's a name for everything.

 

Atheist for me. I'm not sure how in depth I'm supposed to share. My dad technically raised me as Christian, but he was the kind of Christian who never opened his Bible or went to Church. Needless to say, it has never been any part of my life, so when I got on my own, I was agnostic. It just wasn't relevant in my life, and I suspect it never will. I then dated a Mormon girl, and I have a lot of respect for Mormons, but... ugh. The conflict that arose in that relationship made me move solidly from agnostic to being atheist. Pro tip: don't date extremely religious people if you aren't religious. But that's an entirely different story :P

Totally unrelated, but as hymns go... let me say that as a nonbeliever, they've made me incredibly uncomfortable in the few occasions I've gone to church as an adult. It's not just the singing in public, but the lyrics do make me very uncomfortable, so in those times I just mouth the words, but don't sing them. It's probably one of the most disconcerting emotions I've had. It makes total sense for believers, but whoa, they are extremely weird if you aren't.

 

My husband is also an atheist, and he had a similar experience with an ex-girlfriend before he met me.  She kept trying to convert him, and it made him really uncomfortable.  They eventually broke up because of it.

 

Now he and I, we have a mutual understanding.  I don't try and convert him to anything, and he doesn't say he thinks I'm crazy when I talk about having Unverifiable Personal Gnosis experiences with deities.  It works well for us. :)

 

And I agree that while the hymns can be quite beautiful pieces of music, I can't sing them, either.  It's just too....weird.  My UU church has some songs and chants that we do, but it's a pretty different kettle of wax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband is also an atheist, and he had a similar experience with an ex-girlfriend before he met me. She kept trying to convert him, and it made him really uncomfortable. They eventually broke up because of it.

 

Now he and I, we have a mutual understanding.  I don't try and convert him to anything, and he doesn't say he thinks I'm crazy when I talk about having Unverifiable Personal Gnosis experiences with deities.  It works well for us. :)

You are a very lucky person, and I'm not going to lie, I am a bit jealous :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are.  I know some of them. :)  They generally refer to themselves as being Hellenic pagans, or just plain Hellenic.  There's a name for everything.

 

Also out of curiosity, what is the name for someone like yourself who believes in the Egyptian deities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think God definitely approves of honesty. ;)

For me, that "honesty" moment usually comes when the pasto asks "Don't you just love worshipping The Lord through song?" And I'm sitting there, wondering if I should cheer with everyone else or not. :P

 

 

See, as far as music goes for me, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I find lyrics hard to listen to (I get them wrong) and whenever anyone links music to me saying the lyrics are great, that's usually irrelevant to me. The music behind the lyrics are much more important. However, if I'm actually singing something like "Jesus is my savior," that's just... I can't. It's a lie, and I figure that if there were divinities, they'd like me to be honest about my beliefs at least :P

 

 

As a believer, I'm not fond of them either. I love the hymns themselves. I love listening to them, singing along in my car or even just enjoying the words. I don't like singing along in church, with everyone else following as a band plays onstage. It isn't stage fright--ivr never really gotten that and have always enjoyed public speaking--so I'm not entirely sure why l don't like singing worship songs in church. I just don't. Never have, really.

 

 

Atheist for me. I'm not sure how in depth I'm supposed to share. My dad technically raised me as Christian, but he was the kind of Christian who never opened his Bible or went to Church. Needless to say, it has never been any part of my life, so when I got on my own, I was agnostic. It just wasn't relevant in my life, and I suspect it never will. I then dated a Mormon girl, and I have a lot of respect for Mormons, but... ugh. The conflict that arose in that relationship made me move solidly from agnostic to being atheist. Pro tip: don't date extremely religious people if you aren't religious. But that's an entirely different story :P

Totally unrelated, but as hymns go... let me say that as a nonbeliever, they've made me incredibly uncomfortable in the few occasions I've gone to church as an adult. It's not just the singing in public, but the lyrics do make me very uncomfortable, so in those times I just mouth the words, but don't sing them. It's probably one of the most disconcerting emotions I've had. It makes total sense for believers, but whoa, they are extremely weird if you aren't.

 

 

Real quick I just wanna say, everyone, that that all makes total sense. I'm a believer, and I love music, so of course I'm going to love singing with the congregation, accompanied by a pipe organ.... aaahh. Sorry. You were all saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a very lucky person, and I'm not going to lie, I am a bit jealous :P

 

I know I'm lucky; our relationship dynamic is fantastic.  We didn't even meet each other until I was 31 and he was 34, but it was well worth the wait.

 

Also out of curiosity, what is the name for someone like yourself who believes in the Egyptian deities?

 

Kemetic.  Kemet is the original name for Egypt; it meant The Black Land, referring to the fertile soil along the Nile. 

 

Most of the names that people generally know from ancient Egypt have actually been through Roman filters, and thus are actually completely off from what the people of the time actually used.  Egyptus was the Roman name for the land, and that's what got translated more strongly through history.  The names of gods people generally know, like Horus, Osiris, Isis, and Anubis, were actually more like Heru, Wesir, Aset, and Anpu, respectively.  And even then, some of this is speculation, because the ancient Egyptian written languages don't include the vowels.

 

And that's one really neat side effect of wandering down an ancient pagan path; you wind up learning a lot of really interesting history.

Edited by Kaymyth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real quick I just wanna say, everyone, that that all makes total sense. I'm a believer, and I love music, so of course I'm going to love singing with the congregation, accompanied by a pipe organ.... aaahh. Sorry. You were all saying?

I know there are a lot of people who enjoy the singing. Some people make a career out of it--one of my former youth pastors actually started a band that has been growing in popularity on the Christian scene. I see why some people love the singing, but I just....don't. (shrugs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are a lot of people who enjoy the singing. Some people make a career out of it--one of my former youth pastors actually started a band that has been growing in popularity on the Christian scene. I see why some people love the singing, but I just....don't. (shrugs)

 

And that's fine! I was just trying to explain (badly) why I love hymns so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with 'Other', and even if there was a 'Christian' option, I'm not sure if I'd change. Certainly wouldn't be Christian by a Catholic definition (understanding that all Catholic's might not have the same definition - that to believe the Trinity is necessary to be 'Christian').

 

Christadelphian is what I am, if anyone has heard of them. One of biggest doctrines is what we call 'God Manifestation' - that what made Jesus God-like while on earth was his character aligned with God's, and put aside his own will in favor of God's. Because he lived a sinless life, he was resurrected and then given immortality. So, the only difference between us and him was that his father was God. We also view references to Satan/the Devil as just referring to human nature - our own tendency to do the wrong thing. While I could have worded that better, those two things I feel would differentiate us from quite a number of other Christian denominations. Adult full immersion baptism would also be another thing (though at least someone has already mentioned that).

 


 

Though I suspect 'hymn' means something different to me than some of you (our hymns are (for the most part) 4-part harmonies that are classical (used as a catchall for older, less modern music, rather than exclusively the musical period), sung to a piano or organ accompaniment) I would say I love singing them.

 

See, as far as music goes for me, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I find lyrics hard to listen to (I get them wrong) and whenever anyone links music to me saying the lyrics are great, that's usually irrelevant to me. The music behind the lyrics are much more important. However, if I'm actually singing something like "Jesus is my savior," that's just... I can't. It's a lie, and I figure that if there were divinities, they'd like me to be honest about my beliefs at least :P

That makes sense. In our hymn books there are some hymns which I would not agree with the content, and I'd just not sing them if they came up. But no, having a think through the various hymns we have, a lot would say things not relevant to a non-believer (though I don't see that as an issue necessarily - believers who want to worship through song are going to want words relevant to their beliefs (not that you're saying they shouldn't)). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense. In our hymn books there are some hymns which I would not agree with the content, and I'd just not sing them if they came up. But no, having a think through the various hymns we have, a lot would say things not relevant to a non-believer (though I don't see that as an issue necessarily - believers who want to worship through song are going to want words relevant to their beliefs (not that you're saying they shouldn't)).

Oh totally, I get why they happen, and that's cool. It's just--like a lot of things churches do--they are a bit irrelevant to nonbelievers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kaymyth, did you say earlier you mainly focused on three of the Egyptian deities? Which ones?

 

Bast - Known more commonly as Bastet.*  She's pretty well-known as the Egyptian goddess of cats, but she's also one of the protectors of the Pharaonic line, and named one of the Eyes of Ra.  She can be gentle or fierce, as the situation calls.  Her earlier depictions have her as a lioness, but she's eventually more commonly associated with domestic cats.  She's also got a motherly streak, and will go into full-blown angry lioness mode when children are in danger.  From me, she demands regular offerings of chocolate and delights when I create pretty things.

 

Djehuty - Romanicized name of Thoth (pronounced with a hard 't' on the front and a long 'o'; no I don't know why it's spelled that way, either).  He's the god of knowledge, wisdom, magic, and writing.  He's also darned clever; not a rulebreaker, but will absolutely game the system and bend the heck out of them to help those he deems are in need of it.  He insists that I never stop learning new things and wants me to write more.  He also likes fig newtons and macaroni and cheese.

 

Set - Yeah, most people have heard of this one.  He's got a rough rep, thanks to the Osiris myth cycle, but the sense I've always gotten is that he did what needed to be done at the time, but nobody else would or could do.  He's the god of storms, the patron of foreigners, and generally a force of necessary chaos.  He'll buzz in, shake you up, and smash everything to pieces.  Then he'll sit down with you and show you how to put it all back together again, only better this time.  He is, on occasion, a pain in my rear, but he's also the force that keeps me from getting too comfortable and stagnating.  I need regular shakeups to keep my creativity fresh, and he provides those in spades.  He likes rum and red foods. 

 

 

 

*This was actually thanks to a mistake caused by lingual drift.  The first writings dug up that mentioned her had an extra 't' hieroglyph on her name.  It was originally thought to be an extra feminine ending, but scholars eventually realized when they found earlier writings that ancient Egyptian had undergone a change in language that had caused people to start verbally dropping 't's on the end.  The extra symbol was there to indicate that it was to be pronounced and not silent.  We still have it wrong anyway, and her name was probably something more in the ballpark of "Ubashte", but I'm really just babbling now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally unrelated, but as hymns go... let me say that as a nonbeliever, they've made me incredibly uncomfortable in the few occasions I've gone to church as an adult. It's not just the singing in public, but the lyrics do make me very uncomfortable, so in those times I just mouth the words, but don't sing them. It's probably one of the most disconcerting emotions I've had. It makes total sense for believers, but whoa, they are extremely weird if you aren't.

 

Which is why I am soo glad that you were a good enough friend to sit through them all at my wedding, haha.  Or maybe that was just because I was super sneaky and ambushed you with crazy music ;)

 

While I love hymns, I also have this problem with singing some of the words sometimes.  Some of the Hymns we sing in church are pretty out-dated, so it can be disconcerting to be loving the sound of a great song only to realize that what it is about is kind of messed up.  For me, I think this discomfort is a good way of checking and testing myself, but I totally get that from another perspective it comes across as just weird.  I've also always been a bit more of a cognitive christian, meaning I understand my faith more at an intellectual level than on an emotional one.  Because of this, in church, the music portions are usually just enjoyable for me, and I get more of a spiritual interaction during sermons or group discussions.  I'm more likely to get excited when a favorite or familiar hymn gets picked than to feel some sort of spiritual high while singing.  I might not be the person to talk to about the religious significance of hymns, since for me, they are more of a cultural enjoyment.  

 

When Craig and I got married, we invited a lot of non-religious folk, and making the service accessible to everyone, while including the important  parts of our Menno heritage, was important to us.  It's a delicate balance though, which is why we're lucky to have such accepting and patient friends.

 

One thing that I didn't realize was weird about my Mennonite Heritage (which might be similar to some other denominations) is learning to speak in unison and just knowing the right intonations to use.  As an adult, I attended other churches who perhaps don't speak in unison as often, and got seriously weird-ed out by people speaking out of time with each other.  I realize that, to people unfamiliar with the practice, we probably sound really culty or mind control-ish, but growing up with it made it seem pretty normal to me.  

 

Yes, what you've just read may have confirmed for you that I am part of a large hive mind. Our name is Canada ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I am soo glad that you were a good enough friend to sit through them all at my wedding, haha.  Or maybe that was just because I was super sneaky and ambushed you with crazy music ;)

 

 

You...you mean that not everyone is crazy like I am and hires a Celtic folk band to play the classic Battlestar Galactica theme and a mash-up of Pachelbel's Canon and the Buffy the Vampire Slayer theme at their weddings?

 

I'm not sure what to make of this world anymore...

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. There were way more posts here than I was expecting. Please note, there were a lot of interesting posts made here, and I'm responding to them in no particular order, except in the order I think of them.

 

First of all, thank you all for being able to talk calmly about this. Can I just say, I would be afraid to post this virtually anywhere else on the internet. You guys are awesome!

 

Second of all, I have added a "Christian-Other" choice in the poll, pending some peoples concerns. I probably should have thought of that before, but never mind. Kudos to you, Comatose.

 

Next, I had a sort of different interpretation of the definition of agnostic and/or atheist to Argent. I'm not trying to contradict you, but I'd always been led to believe that Agnostics did for certain believe in a god, they just didn't identify with any religion (e.g. Catholicism, Hinduism, etc.) while atheists didn't currently believe in a god.

 

And re. Orlion, I did specifically put Mormon down, because I was curious as to whether there was a limited fanbase in terms of religion like there were with other authors. It was one of the reasons why I was against using simply the term "Christian" as an option, though I did consider it when I first made the post. Also, as this is a mostly American community, I figured there would be more people who identified with Christianity than any other religion.

 

Also, @Kaymuth, I had no idea that Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Greek religions were still around. I found it particularly interesting reading about the changing names, etc. I intend to do more research into that. It sounds intriguing.

 

@Nait Sabes, I technically agree with Kipper. If theoretically there were a god (which I don't believe there is, but more on that later), then wouldn't they define what is right and wrong? Just a query.

 

Regarding singing, I agree with Chaos that I usually prefer the melody of a piece of music than the lyrics. Don't get me wrong, there are some pieces of music that could be considered religious that I think are fantastic. But I think it is fantastic because of it's melody.

 

Also, is there a particular song that you hear when you see the words "Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints" that I haven't heard about? Or is it just a random thing that has nothing to do with Mormonism whatsoever?

 

Okay. I suppose I should talk about my religion (or lack of it). I have always defined myself as atheist (though by Argent's definition, I would define myself as agnostic). My parents weren't religious, but there were a few other reasons involved as well.

 

For a start, as I was growing up, I kept hearing about the scandals in the Catholic Church that were just beginning to be exposed. In my mind, that completely devalued any worth the comment "It's right, because God said so." ever had.

 

Also, I had a colleague once who kept on trying to convert everyone he ever clapped his eyes on. If anything, it had the opposite effect. I suppose it's unfair for me to dislike religion because one annoying person kept trying to convert me to it, but I did anyway.

 

Kaymuth raised an interesting point as well when he mentioned how much the perception of Egyptian mythology has changed. I couldn't help wondering, how much has the Christian religion changed? Certainly, a few hundred years ago, they were putting people under house arrest for saying that the earth orbited the sun (something which, by the way, it took them until 1992 to admit they were wrong about in any official capacity).

 

So, if the Bible were absolutely correct, why are they changing their stance on these issues (including women's rights, astronomy, and everything else they changed their stance on). And if they're wrong, then why should we believe in it?

 

I know I've focused on Catholicism a lot here, and not a lot on the other religions. But I guess my last argument can be carried over to most religions I am aware of.

 

I would go into specifics, but I don't want to start a flame war. As it is, if anyone has an issue with what I've said, then feel free to post/PM me and I'll try and find a less offensive way of presenting my arguments. Thanks again, guys (and girls).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you all for being able to talk calmly about this. Can I just say, I would be afraid to post this virtually anywhere else on the internet. You guys are awesome!

This is a sentiment I would agree with!

 

Second of all, I have added a "Christian-Other" choice in the poll, pending some peoples concerns. I probably should have thought of that before, but never mind. Kudos to you, Comatose.

Shifted my vote to that.

 

Kaymuth raised an interesting point as well when he mentioned how much the perception of Egyptian mythology has changed. I couldn't help wondering, how much has the Christian religion changed? Certainly, a few hundred years ago, they were putting people under house arrest for saying that the earth orbited the sun (something which, by the way, it took them until 1992 to admit they were wrong about in any official capacity).

 

So, if the Bible were absolutely correct, why are they changing their stance on these issues (including women's rights, astronomy, and everything else they changed their stance on). And if they're wrong, then why should we believe in it?

 

I know I've focused on Catholicism a lot here, and not a lot on the other religions. But I guess my last argument can be carried over to most religions I am aware of.

Treading carefully, I know that I would tend to agree with you (and I know we'd also point to scripture (Revelation) as saying such things would happen). I guess this is where everyone believes they have the whole truth (really, if you are going to identify with a religion, it's in some ways necessary).

 


Because these things can be sensitive, I will say this: if you feel I've stepped over a line, PM me and I'll remove stuff, and will be happy to continue a conversation there if that is what you wanted.

Edited by Haelbarde
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaymuth raised an interesting point as well when he mentioned how much the perception of Egyptian mythology has changed. I couldn't help wondering, how much has the Christian religion changed? Certainly, a few hundred years ago, they were putting people under house arrest for saying that the earth orbited the sun (something which, by the way, it took them until 1992 to admit they were wrong about in any official capacity).

 

So, if the Bible were absolutely correct, why are they changing their stance on these issues (including women's rights, astronomy, and everything else they changed their stance on). And if they're wrong, then why should we believe in it?

As someone who studies in the joint disciplines of the philosophy and history of science, I have to note that the situation with Galileo was more complicated than that, and really, a lot of people tend to oversimplify it in the popular discourse. (It had to do with a lot of things including the Counter-Reformation, people like Giordano Bruno, the understanding of Aristotelian standards of evidence, and most importantly--lots and lots and lots of capital-P Politics, including doctrines of Papal infallibility. (Papal infallibility works like this: if a Pope speaks in his capacity as the Pope about Church doctrine, he can't be wrong.--I'm drastically oversimplifying it, and I'd appreciate if any Canon lawyers out here might better explain it, because I never really finished Cathechism class >>))

The easy answer to why people change their stance is because ways to read the Bible end up differing. A lot. At least in my Church classes, we were never encouraged to take the Bible literally. You have to put a lot of thought into interpreting it, and you have to realise that some of these interpretations involve your own prejudices or talk about practices that were essentially localised to a very specific socio-cultural context at this period in time rather than being universal. Which is why no one ever really uses Leviticus to conduct their daily lives (let's leave aside the problematic issue of same-sex marriage for now since a lot of people cite it there.) I mean, the most obvious case: people were arguing a lot about what the 'days' in Genesis meant. An era? A thousand years? A day? There were many heated debates about the age of the Earth, and some of them revolve around how to interpret 'days' to fit with what our best science tells us.

The case of women's rights is interesting IMO. It's interesting because there is a direct link to Greek philosophy: Aristotle wasn't so big about the rights of women. Plato was. And surprisingly, one of the major (not only) push-backs against women's rights came from the union between Aristotelian thought and Church thought, courtesy of Thomas Aquinas. History is always complicated: there are many links and factors to keep in mind. This is only one of them. We live in a complex world; so did our ancestors, and all these tiny connections add to build a better picture of what was going on back then.

I'd like to understand that last question better though. If a stance changes, does that mean it's wrong? Why is it wrong? And rather: why should we stop believing in something if it's wrong? Let me give an example. If we look at the past history of science, we've frankly had a very rubbish track record. Lots and lots and lots of really bad theories have been surfaced and discarded. So, there's a good chance our current theories will be wrong--and they often have been wrong in the past. (See: the emergence of Einsteinian physics as an example of a major paradigm shift.) Well, then, should we give up on science? Why do science? Why believe in scientific theories? (*Note: warning--related to my thesis, supervisor is currently beating me up over this issue :P Defending science is a painful and thankless task.)

It reminds me of an important question I'm struggling to answer too, which is a variation of Euthyphro's Dilemma. Fundamentally, I'm asking myself: what is a good reason to worship God? Why should I do so? God may be the fundamental and ultimate source of goodness, omnipotent, all-powerful. But why should I worship Him? (Atheists, grant me this assumption for now, in order to investigate the issue.) It seems to me to be slightly related to what you're asking: is there any intrinsic value/reason why, despite the fallibility--we subscribe to a religion?

Note: Eh, please let me know if anyone is offended :) I'll tweak this to make it less problematic.

Edited by Kasimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of an important question I'm struggling to answer too, which is a variation of Euthyphro's Dilemma. Fundamentally, I'm asking myself: what is a good reason to worship God? Why should I do so? God may be the fundamental and ultimate source of goodness, omnipotent, all-powerful. But why should I worship Him? (Atheists, grant me this assumption for now, in order to investigate the issue.) It seems to me to be slightly related to what you're asking: is there any intrinsic value/reason why, despite the fallibility--we subscribe to a religion?

Writes out a whole bunch of stuff, then rereads your post, and decides to restart my reply. (And then does it again. Take 3. And then I reread it again and see that there's actually two questions. Take 4. Scratch that, Take 5... Take 6)

Hadn't seen that Dilemma before. Guess my view on it would be that the Bible/God defines 'morally good' as 'what pleases Him'. In which case, the two statements are equivalent, and then no more dilemma.

'Why worship God?' (opperating under the assumption that He exists, and that he is the source of goodness, is omnipotent, etc)

My answer would be 'What reward has He offered? What is the personal cost? Are you willing to pay it? (This assumes that the cost is serving Him)'

'Is there any reason to subscribe to religion when there is obvious fallibility'. (Hopefully that's about right. That's how I see the question anyway).

I could talk about fallibility for ages if I wanted to (most of my different attempts of writing this related to that). Think it boils down to personal belief. A persons should understand what their faith, and believe it by their own choice, rather than just believe what they are told. Should you then join a religion? If it helps you to serve your God how you understand He wishes to be served, then sure, for as long as that religion is aligned with the way you want to walk.

(Edit: Hmm, me this that this might be drifting off the topic of the spread of religions across Sharders. And again, if I've stepped over a line, do PM me, and I'll fix things)

Edited by Haelbarde
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I am soo glad that you were a good enough friend to sit through them all at my wedding, haha.  Or maybe that was just because I was super sneaky and ambushed you with crazy music ;)

 

While I love hymns, I also have this problem with singing some of the words sometimes.  Some of the Hymns we sing in church are pretty out-dated, so it can be disconcerting to be loving the sound of a great song only to realize that what it is about is kind of messed up.  For me, I think this discomfort is a good way of checking and testing myself, but I totally get that from another perspective it comes across as just weird.  I've also always been a bit more of a cognitive christian, meaning I understand my faith more at an intellectual level than on an emotional one.  Because of this, in church, the music portions are usually just enjoyable for me, and I get more of a spiritual interaction during sermons or group discussions.  I'm more likely to get excited when a favorite or familiar hymn gets picked than to feel some sort of spiritual high while singing.  I might not be the person to talk to about the religious significance of hymns, since for me, they are more of a cultural enjoyment.  

 

When Craig and I got married, we invited a lot of non-religious folk, and making the service accessible to everyone, while including the important  parts of our Menno heritage, was important to us.  It's a delicate balance though, which is why we're lucky to have such accepting and patient friends.

 

One thing that I didn't realize was weird about my Mennonite Heritage (which might be similar to some other denominations) is learning to speak in unison and just knowing the right intonations to use.  As an adult, I attended other churches who perhaps don't speak in unison as often, and got seriously weird-ed out by people speaking out of time with each other.  I realize that, to people unfamiliar with the practice, we probably sound really culty or mind control-ish, but growing up with it made it seem pretty normal to me.  

 

Yes, what you've just read may have confirmed for you that I am part of a large hive mind. Our name is Canada ;).

Yeah, you could've warned me about the singing ;) I was not expecting that.

That said, guys, Matt's wedding was amazing. A passage from Well of Ascension was read--Sazed's lock and key talk--and his pastors made the most heartfelt speech, which talked a lot about tradition, and tradition's role in love. It was awesome. For such awesomeness I am more than happy to fake sing some hymns, though I think an old guy next to me was giving me the stink-eye for not singing.

Next, I had a sort of different interpretation of the definition of agnostic and/or atheist to Argent. I'm not trying to contradict you, but I'd always been led to believe that Agnostics did for certain believe in a god, they just didn't identify with any religion (e.g. Catholicism, Hinduism, etc.) while atheists didn't currently believe in a god.

That is not accurate, to my knowledge. I do think agnostic as a word is losing meaning, as it can mean a lot of different things to different people. However, by definition:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

In basically all definitions of agnostic, it never says "this person believes in some higher power." Rather, agnosticism is remarkable by its lack of belief regarding God or gods. I like this definition, though. Agnostics do have belief, that you just don't get to know anything about this higher power. Good definition, though I'm sure some who identify as agnostic will differ in opinion.

However, agnostic, etymologically, is the opposite of "gnostic," which judging from my quick search generally involved higher powers and spirituality. So agnostics don't do that. There are certainly agnostics who are waiting for more evidence, though.

For myself personally, I switched from agnostic to atheist because I began to think that really, there probably isn't a god. I do generally like the agnostic mentality that you can't know. From a scientific perspective, is most accurate, as anyone who says they know what caused the Big Bang is wrong. If it can't be tested, it isn't science, and is essentially philosophy. So, I like that about agnosticism, but I was practically atheist anyway, so I decided to identify that way. It's a "yeah, we can't know what is beyond this universe, but no, I do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if the Bible were absolutely correct, why are they changing their stance on these issues (including women's rights, astronomy, and everything else they changed their stance on). And if they're wrong, then why should we believe in it?

 

 

As Kasimir pointed out, interpretations of Scripture aren't immune to cultural changes. And sometimes, culture gets it wrong. Just look at how the American South interpreted Paul's exhortation in Ephesians for slaves to obey their masters: Plantation owners took it not only as a ringing endorsement for slavery, but as a command straight from God to their slaves to obey their masters without question. What these plantation owners didn't realize (or willfully ignored) is the fact that in ancient Rome, slaves were basically the working class, encompassing people of all races and former social classes. A better transliteration to modern day parlance would be an exhortation for employees to obey their bosses with respect and sincerity. It was not an endorsement of slavery in general, and most certainly not an endorsement of slavery as it was in the American South. That institution flew in the face of multiple passages exhorting people to treat one another as equals, most notably "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." The translation of that one is pretty clear: No one is better than anyone else. We're all equal in God's eyes, so we ought to act that way. An institution claiming one group of people was inherently less human because of their skin tone stands in direct violation of that verse.

 

And that's another thing about interpreting Scripture: The Bible doesn't come with an interpretation manual. We can look at history and deduce, from the context in which a particular book was written, what the original author meant by a strange verse or two, but there are no discussion guides. Interpretation is left up to the reader, and if the reader hasn't done their homework, they're bound to walk away with an interpretation far from what the original author intended. Throughout history, you'll see incorrect interpretations causing all sorts of problems, and one of the most common problems is that a verse will be taken on its own, without considering the larger context. Such has been the case with "Wives, submit to your husbands." This has been misinterpreted to mean that women must stay in the home and cook and clean while men get to have the final say in everything; when a better interpretation takes into account not only the surrounding verses about love and mutual respect, but the stories of Old Testament women like Deborah and Jael who took on "male" roles (Deborah was a prophetess and Jael killed an enemy general) with God's approval. 

 

Now, as for astronomy and the Bible, I think the best thing I can say here is "I don't know." I do personally believe in Intelligent Design, which is more of an umbrella term encompassing all theories that the universe was designed by a mind. I don't know if the six days of Creation in Genesis are meant to be literal or figurative. I don't know, and I have no way to know for sure. I choose to focus more on the present. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as an antitheist, I find the music and other art that comes directly out of religions (hymns, paintings, statues, the artistic way the Qu'ran is read out loud, and much more,) wonderful because it's all just so heavily fueled with passion and isn't just influenced by their religion, but rather is the influence the people doing them feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nait Sabes, I technically agree with Kipper. If theoretically there were a god (which I don't believe there is, but more on that later), then wouldn't they define what is right and wrong? Just a query.

 

 

No, because that's not how morals and opinions work. Just because someone exists, doesn't make them right. I'm not saying they're evil, or I outright hate them either, it's just that, for me, their good deeds don't add up to the things i think were wrong of them to do. No one is inherently evil, but few people are completely good, either. And so far, none of the gods I have ever heard of, read about, or been told about make that list of the few. I would say Jesus is in that few, but after 2,000 years, it's hard not to be critical of the story (and I don't mean just his, I'm critical of history in general (the farther back, the more critical.)) But even if I was convinced he was real, I'm not sure if worshiping is the proper way to uphold someone you idolize, someone you thought was great. The best way to remember that person is to try and do the good things that person did.

 

And you can see where this becomes a problem, because that may work well with someone who idolizes Jesus, but when it comes to certain other worshiped figures, if you actually tried to do the things they did, this would be a horrifying and chaotic world. People doing everything they can to corrupt language (God (see Tower of Babel lines in Genesis,)) warlords rampaging across multiple worlds, usually crazed in most descriptions (many Greek and Nordic gods,) or doing everything in your power to destroy other peoples' faiths (St. Patrick in Ireland.)

 

And now we come to my point. For the most part, the things these people did were not wholly good. In the case of St. Patrick, they were outright awful. These are things we as a globalized society condemn other people for doing today, because they are, widely agreed upon, pretty awful things to do to another human being. they're so awful, they hardly ever happen. But when they do, that person is called out almost instantly, because we all know that the acts of most of the people we idolize were not completely good. Instead, most people tend to pick out the good things (which is a healthy mindset to have) and try to emulate those acts, or at least uphold them as examples of what is good.

 

To answer your question: no. And everyone, including people who worship these figures, the people who are certain they existed, has that instinct, whether they realize it or not. Never in a million years would pillaging a town go over well in today's world, I doubt it went over well when it happened. It is, for most people, not even an act that would cross their minds. However, not only did it cross His, but He acted on it. Most people cut this out, and instead uphold the artistic stories of Him. People go on to create things. and again, this is a healthy mindset to have, because it's correct: no one is always in the right, but when they are those good traits are healthy ones to adopt, and you can do it without doing the bad stuff as well.

 

That's how morality and opinions work. When you believe a deity exists, you can choose the things you think were right. No one is evil, and when a good deed is done it is up to the individual to decide whether they think it amounts to what they believe were bad deeds. That is how morality and opinions work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...