Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I gave up a six figure income to become a volunteer. Some people might say that makes me crazy. Does it?
See, now that's where I said you can't always tell To me, you'd be crazy if you left a six-figure income to volunteer and weren't happier in life as a result.
That situation doesn't have a "bright line" to it like a lot of instances.
I'm talking about people like: - the "transvestite" (though I hate to dignify Rhonda's minimal effort with that word) who beat his wife as a man and attacked a man with a sword as a woman - the guy who chased a man through the streets with a pair of butcher knifes in a pair of whitey tighties - the guy who occasionally meows
I could go on... my point is, some people are obviously crazy. There appears to be a correlation, perceived if not true, that these batshit individuals are the ones who claim God speaks to them.
The question that leads to then is what caused man to become more civilized? Chicken and egg - did the study of and reaching towards god make man more civilized, or did man becoming more civilized on his own, then make god more civilized, and if so how did man become more civilized on his own?
Good thing I have to go to work now, because I have no idea on that!
No... It does not address if there was a God who created man. It's just an anthropological observation about how humans' views of God have changed as human society has changed.
I think Reflectionism says something to the earlier statements about how certain religious groups adhere to ancient texts more or less strictly.
As for man becoming civilized... We discovered fire, metal alloys, yada yada, nuclear weapons & the Internet. We did that ourselves. God didn't will them into existence. The advancement of human civilization is not the work of a supreme being - it's the work of man.
Reflectionism, as the name implies, was man's concept of God becoming more civilized as man became more civilized.
I didn't say Reflectionism addressed if there was a god who created man, I said it can lead to the question through it's own argument, for those who are coming from the perspective that the existence of god is neither proven nor disproven. If you already have the assumption that the existence of god is disproven, then nothing leads to any questions on this topic.
I would argue that technological advances alone are not a full definition of advancing civilization. The other elements are the ones I would question - how does having fire lead people to stop stoning one another? They are a big part of C.S. Lewis' Christian apologetics - he's done interesting and accessable layman's style work on that topic, and that's what Idio's post reminded me of.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 14:19:55 GMT -5
I also think your use of the term batshit crazy is pretty insensitive to people with mental illnesses. Some of the most interesting and decent people I have known have had schizophrenia, done way more bizarre things than meow like a cat, and I never think of them as batshit crazy and don't appreciate anyone referring to them that way. Just saying.
Post by steveternal on Mar 13, 2009 14:41:55 GMT -5
This brings up another point, which is that we shouldn't assume that because a person is "crazy" (which really needs to be defined here anyway) means that God is not speaking to them, i.e. that it is just delusion. I don't want to throw a monkeywrench into this discussion, but I do not believe that mental instability and Divine experience are mutually exclusive. If I may bring up the Orthodox Faith again, we have many saints whom we commemorate as "Fools for Christ". These are men and women who in their daily lives acted very strangely and baffled and offended others in their behavior, speech and appearance. Yet some at the time, and eventually the Church as a whole, recognized that their works came from a genuine belief, and that God was glorified through them. St. Basil the Blessed of Moscow, from the 16th Century, is a good example. In short, a mentally ill person can have as real a faith as any stable person, and God may choose to speak to them all the same.
I'm not sure why you would expect Christians and Jews to agree on which books to use - they aren't the same religions. As far as the books that Protestants don't use and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, they really don't make that much of a difference theologically, so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing for content. The same is true for the slight variations in texts used today and used in 300 AD - the differences tend to be minor and have more to do with variances in translation than any substantive theological differences, although certainly even slight variations can lead to big theological disputes - no variation at all leads to that, too.
But a minor variation in translation can make a huge difference in the meaning. Take John 1:1. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I grew up reading that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jehovah's Witnesses read that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." One letter difference changes the meaning altogether.
And, you're right, even without the variation, one could interpret each individual phrase several different ways. That's what leads to the problem as I see it. People choose what they are and aren't going to believe. If there is a God, none of us knows what he's like or what he wants us to do. Nobody knows if he really disapproves of homosexuality, or he really thinks we should all go to church on Sunday, or he really thinks we should all get naked and run around in the rain. So, people base what they believe on (1) the Bible, (2) what other people say the Bible says, (3) what the church tells them to believe, or (4) whatever they, personally, decide is right. And really, it all comes down to the last one because each person decides how much of the first three they are going to adopt as his/her own. But that's not faith in God, then. That's just developing your own moral code/belief system and attributing it to a higher power.
Which leads me to the idea that you can believe in God and the church, but not believe that you should "push" that belief on other people. The Bible says that we only can be saved through faith in God, repenting for our sins, and accepting Jesus as the son of God (it's been awhile, but that's the way I was taught anyway). By that reasoning, anyone who does not believe in God cannot be saved, and thus, cannot go to Heaven. That leaves Hell or just ceasing to exist, and all the churches I grew up in just taught that Hell was the other option. If I truly believed that everyone I knew who didn't believe in God was going to Hell, shouldn't I feel that it was a moral imperative for me to spend my life trying to help those people avoid eternal suffering? I'm not saying stand on a corner outside of a Marilyn Manson concert telling all the fans that they are going to Hell. I'm talking about making sharing God's word the first priority in everything I do. Wouldn't that be the only possible option? Like in the movie, The Big Kahuna. Shouldn't all believers be like Peter Facinelli's character? Or, not to be irreverant, but the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine finds out that Puddy is Christian, and she's upset because he believes that she's going to Hell, but he doesn't care enough to try to save her? If a person believes that non-believers are going to Hell and doesn't spend his/her life trying to convert those non-believers, does he/she really care about people?
And, if you don't believe that all non-believers are going to Hell, how do you support that conclusion, other than a personal belief that it would be wrong for God to punish good people who just happen to not believe?
(As a side note, I know some people have expressed that particular belief, that they do believe, but don't think they should push their views on anyone. I just want to be clear that I am not trying to get personal with anyone, call anyone a bad person, or uncaring, or anything like that. Basically, this was one of the major things I struggled with when I went to church, and, although I no longer consider myself religious, it still perplexes me. Also, sorry for the big, giant post!)
I think this issue perplexes most christians and I'm glad to see a non-christian realize this. I had a co-worker ask me to fill out some paper work for her with the number 666 in it because she was afraid to do it herself, of course I filled it out for her but I thought that wasnt a very christian attitutde and was a little insulted that out of all the people that worked there she'd pick me as the persone who was most likely to be so far gone that it wouldnt matter if i took the number of the beast.
I think the simple answer of why christians dont try and "push their beliefs" onto others is that they dont know how to do it succesfully. I think most new christians are overzealous and try repeatedly and unsucessfully to share their beliefs and convert others because they feel obligated and compelled to and eventually just give up. Its a hard thing to do even for mature chrisitans with alot of knowledge of the bible and its not comfortable, AT ALL.
I think people in general should use the words maybe and I think alot more and apply a scale to thier beliefs, for instance on a scale of 0-10 there are some things that I would say I beliefe with a 10 degree of certainty like the devinity of Christ. There are other things that wouldnt go above a 5 on like who specifically will go to heaven and and is eternity truly eternal.
So an example of a devout Buddhist in India who has never heard about a Jesus Christ, it very well may be that somehow, somewhere in his heart and soul he is worshiping and following the Christian God, and therefore will be saved by Him.
I love this. I love that it's open minded and inclusive yet speaks to Orthodox people all at the same time and wanted to highlight it in case some people missed it.
If pressed for an answer, I suppose I'd call myself a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist... which is pretty much the most non-committal option out there.
Post by wonderllama on Mar 13, 2009 21:10:54 GMT -5
Bah, I go to bed then get up and go to work and this thread jumps up 3 pages on me.
As far as Christians having a moral imperative to prevent nonbelievers from going to hell I would say that yes, we do have that imperative. It was commanded by Jesus himself before he ascended to heaven. Witnessing to the unfaithful should be a priority for every Christian. But witnessing doesn't mean just telling everyone who isn't a Christan what it is and why they are wrong and that they should convert to the faith. In fact, that rarely works. How many of you athiests/agnostics have fallen on your knees before The Almighty and repented your evil ways after reading one of those signs by the "Christian" protestors while waiting in line to get onto the farm? These people have this silly belief that if they save just one soul it's all worth it, and completely ignore the fact that for every one they convert, they have a very negative effect on hundreds if not thousands of others.
Unbelievers usually have a reason why they don't believe, and I know if I were going to make some potentially drastic changes in my life, I'd want to see some results on why I should accept the way someone lives as my own. I wouldn't want to be like someone that I didn't think was happy with their life and beliefs. My church always taught that the best way you can be a witness for Christ is to just live your life as a Christian and let others see you and ideally want to be like you at least in some way. If someone is living a godly life you would expect them to be generallly a happy and confident person through the blessings of God and knowing (having faith in really) their ultimate fate in this life and the next. To effectively witness to someone you should develop some kind of peronal relationship with them since Christianity is all about having a pesronal relationship with God. Through this relationship you can share your beliefs with that person. But you should alwyas treat that person as Christ would treat them, with love and respect even though they have different views than you do. Ultimately it is their chioce to accept Christ through their own free will. And if that person chooses not to accept Christ, a good Christian should still treat them with love and respect.
Post by steveternal on Mar 14, 2009 7:24:02 GMT -5
^^^Right, because we don't know how that "conversion" might actually happen. What a lot of fundamentalists look for is what you described, the fall on your knees and repent right there and accept Jesus. That's great if it genuinely happens, but most conversions won't be like that. Perhaps by people like you and I just explaining why we believe what we believe, someone else on Inforoo will take a small part of that with them, and over time it may blossom into a conviction, and eventually they might decide to become a Christian. People need to be witnessed to differently; some will respond to a direct challenge ("turn back from your sinful ways!"), others may come to an intellectual conclusion from reading apologetics, and still others may just need the subtle, long-time influence of a good friend that exhibits the love of Christ to them. Some people may come to the Faith without the influence of any person, just Divine Intervention.
A guy at work is pretty religious - and according to him, his conversion happened later in life.
I'm half tempted on asking him to write it up for me - because I'm sure he would... but in short, his life wasn't going well, he asked jesus for help, and things turned around for him.
now, i would ague with a little more self reliance, he probably would have achieved the same thing. he would disagree
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
A guy at work is pretty religious - and according to him, his conversion happened later in life.
I'm half tempted on asking him to write it up for me - because I'm sure he would... but in short, his life wasn't going well, he asked jesus for help, and things turned around for him.
now, i would ague with a little more self reliance, he probably would have achieved the same thing. he would disagree
Yeah, but then doesn't Alcoholics Anonymous and other like programs require/strongly encourage belief in some sort of higher power? By having someone else, even someone vague, ultimately responsible for you, it takes some of the burden off yourself and you have that much more to put into turning your life around.
southern Baptist familes (uncle retired seminary prof at Wake Forest) raised Presbyterian (it's all our fault) saved in college (cool to be forgiven for my adolescent transgression), but figured out all they wanted me for was the fact I was a college sports radio color analyst....heh? changed faiths to marry a Catholic virgin (special dispensation from the Pope)
I need to process this discussion more in order to add any value, but these things jump out at me:
1-according to really smart people, everything that is in the universe fit into a space less than the size of a penny 13+ billion years ago. 2-30,000 years ago we were fighting for food chain suppremacy with sabertooth tigers and the like. What's a book/reading? 3-5,000 years ago we're building pyramids. 4-2,000 years ago a really good man/con man travelled around judea 5-600-800 years ago some of the greatest artists/inventors/leaders collected us 6-300 years ago some of the smartest people in the world gave us democracy/industrialization 7-100 years ago some intelligent folk rebelled against the "industrial" man and gave us socialism and communism
for now all I have is alot of cookies, but will try to pull together a cogent conclusion soon.
A guy at work is pretty religious - and according to him, his conversion happened later in life.
I'm half tempted on asking him to write it up for me - because I'm sure he would... but in short, his life wasn't going well, he asked jesus for help, and things turned around for him.
now, i would ague with a little more self reliance, he probably would have achieved the same thing. he would disagree
Yeah, but then doesn't Alcoholics Anonymous and other like programs require/strongly encourage belief in some sort of higher power? By having someone else, even someone vague, ultimately responsible for you, it takes some of the burden off yourself and you have that much more to put into turning your life around.
southern Baptist familes (uncle retired seminary prof at Wake Forest) raised Presbyterian (it's all our fault) saved in college (cool to be forgiven for my adolescent transgression), but figured out all they wanted me for was the fact I was a college sports radio color analyst....heh? changed faiths to marry a Catholic virgin (special dispensation from the Pope)
I need to process this discussion more in order to add any value, but these things jump out at me:
1-according to really smart people, everything that is in the universe fit into a space less than the size of a penny 13+ billion years ago. 2-30,000 years ago we were fighting for food chain suppremacy with sabertooth tigers and the like. What's a book/reading? 3-5,000 years ago we're building pyramids. 4-2,000 years ago a really good man/con man travelled around judea 5-600-800 years ago some of the greatest artists/inventors/leaders collected us 6-300 years ago some of the smartest people in the world gave us democracy/industrialization 7-100 years ago some intelligent folk rebelled against the "industrial" man and gave us socialism and communism
for now all I have is alot of cookies, but will try to pull together a cogent conclusion soon.
How long ago was Hogwarts founded? It wasn't on there...
4-2,000 years ago a really good man/con man travelled around judea
I'd say he was a very good man, teacher, and philosipher. The con men have come in those 2,000 years after him corrputing his teachings for their own personnal gain.
4-2,000 years ago a really good man/con man travelled around judea
I'd say he was a very good man, teacher, and philosipher. The con men have come in those 2,000 years after him corrputing his teachings for their own personnal gain.
Post by jumpinjamesbrown on Mar 21, 2009 15:44:07 GMT -5
i don't claim any religion but my best friend who is the closest thing i have to a brother asked me to be confirmed as a catholic. he isn't confirmed either but his baby's momma wants their daughter baptized and i was asked to be the godfather. should i do it to help my brother out in a jam or should i hold steady as i denounced any organized religion a long time ago
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 21, 2009 17:00:55 GMT -5
The adult confirmation process is pretty long and involved, or at least it used to be. You might want to look into how much of a commitment you need to make, and if you're lucky, it will be extensive enough that you can use that to get out of it.
And just for the sake of argument, confirmation is a sacrament, which means it's supposed to be a BIG deal for both the person taking it and the religious community at large. If you don't really believe in it, then you'd be participating in perpetuating a meaninglessness and insincerity to organized religion, when those are both reasons people give for being against organized religion. Which isn't to say you shouldn't do it anyway to make things easier on your friend, and it's not like some practicing Catholics don't do that themselves- I taught confirmation classes to teens during my brief stint as a practicing Catholic, and the first thing I told the kids was that if they didn't really want to be there, they didn't have to be and it was fine to quit, and better than being disingenuous about it, and to send their parents my way if that was a problem. Parents loved me! OK, some of them didn't at that point, but they got over it - confirmation is about growing up and making a choice independently about how one is going to live one's faith, yet many parents ignored the theology behind it and just wanted a pic of their kids in pretty clothes for the mantel and the party afterward. All of which is just to say, if you want to just do it for your friend's sake, go for it, but check out how much time you have to devote to classes and whatnot first. And if you want to get out of it, PM me and I can give you about twenty unassailable arguments right out of the Catholic Catechism for why to NOT do it is actually honoring the baby's mom's religion more than doing it would.
So I'm not Catholic, but was sure that all my favorite TV shows hadn't led me wrong so I googled it.
And apparently if there's already a Catholic godparent then the second, non-Catholic, would be a witness.
BUT, since the whole reason of godparents is for helping the baby grow up Catholic, it DOES make more sense for the godparents to at least not have renounced organized religion, you know?
Tell your friend that you're terribly honored. That you will love the child as though you are a blood uncle and will be a constant presence in her life. But you have to do what you believe.
Post by jumpinjamesbrown on Mar 21, 2009 17:10:57 GMT -5
i know how long it would take i was raised catholic and was in catholic school for 10 years so the time wouldn't bother me. neither parents are actually catholic for some reason there is a popular belief around where i live that baptizing your child allows them a choice of religion when they grow up which i think is exact opposite because you're making a choice right there not that they can't change. neither parent goes to church or even for the most part would follow any of the 10 commandment any day of the week. most catholics i know don't hold there religion to be sacred which is partly why i have a problem with the concept. i totally argee to that doing it would not be honoring the mother but the person she picked to be the godmother isn't catholic either and is in the same situation. thank you for your voice on the opinion and totally open to anything else you would like to say.
I'd say he was a very good man, teacher, and philosipher. The con men have come in those 2,000 years after him corrputing his teachings for their own personnal gain.
what's the diff?
The difference would be that those in charge of the Christain religious institution can take the teachings of the Bible and Christ himself and interpret them however they like (for bad or good). Ideas such asn being a servant to others can be easily turned in to submission. The guidlines that are given to live a good life and ultimately attain rewareds in the next, can be turned into rejection and damnation of other ideas and thoughts even to the point of those ideas or modern situations that were never discussed or even thought about in Biblical times. This is especially true in the more fundamentalist churches. The masses can easily be trained, especially over a span of many years, to not think for themselves or question their leaders. In fact, Christ constantly challenged the existing religious institutions of his day. Many Christians have never actually read the Bible, and when they do, it's mostly read in the context of what they know from their upbringing in the church. and not truely with an open mind and open heart. When you add money and politics into the equation, the potential for corruption is all that much greater.
There are many valuable moral guidelines one can get from the teachings of Christ as well asother religiouns whether one is a person of faith or not. Just because those in power of various churches and religious institutions have taken their teachings and corrupted them, shouldn't take away from the original message.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 21, 2009 17:23:44 GMT -5
Wait - if neither of the parents are Catholic why do they want to baptise their child in the Catholic church? Why not just do it at an easier church?
As far as the belief that baptizing your child allows them a choice of religion - that probably stems from the fact that for most Christian denominations, any trinitarian baptism is considered a valid baptism, so you could have been baptized a Presbyterian, say, and convert to Catholicism without having to be re-baptized. However, if one were baptized Mormon, it wouldn't be the same and one would have to be re-baptized, because they don't do a trinitarian baptism.
Post by jumpinjamesbrown on Mar 21, 2009 17:32:34 GMT -5
well the father doesn't really care either way. the mother is the one pushing it and he is just going along to not cause drama over the 4 month old. i can't understand why she want's to do it at all it is really just going along with the point as to baptizing her gives her a choice. i understand your point on the choice to change religion but that isn't actually the mind set in this case. i don't understand why she wants to do it at all. i know her pretty well as we used to hang out a lot before these two dated for a couple years and this is still beyond me as to the reasoning behind it all.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 21, 2009 17:42:00 GMT -5
Well, it sucks for you, but it's great that you are giving it so much thought and willing to consider it for the sake of your friend. I don't know, personally, I don't care what people believe - whatever works for someone is fine by me. But I don't understand the mindset of proclaiming a belief that one doesn't even intend to try to live by. Why bother?
Unless it's for the photo op - the babies look so pretty and Catholic churches do tend to be gorgeous!
Or maybe it's just because she is a new mom- I've been one, and we're not always rational, especially when it comes to our kids. Heck, my daughter is 20 years old, and I can still be very irrational when it comes to her.
Post by jumpinjamesbrown on Mar 21, 2009 18:18:42 GMT -5
well the father was raised catholic as i said, i know the mother wasn't but i believe her family is catholic which i think is the bigger driving force in it all