I’m curious about who still practices their faith.

I was raised Catholic. I attended CCD classes through the 8th grade.

My religious training was awful. It was mostly doom-n-gloom, go to hell if you have a bologna sandwich on a Friday, kind of stuff. Not very good memories, at all. I once got yelled at by a nun because I didn't denounce Satan loudly enough. I've got tons of examples like that.

So, I'm recovering. I figure if there is a god, it knows what's in my heart, and understands that rituals are not valuable to me in any way. Group think is just not my style.

I have religious friends. We get along fine. I love them/they love me. I bear no ill-will to honest religious people. They are some of the best people in the world. I respect their faith completely.

It's their fringe that I find disturbing. But every group's fringe is disturbing to me. Extremism is generally a bad thing.

 

Islam is the last vestige of the medieval world. They see the modern world and know instinctively that it will be their end. But there is still a world of privilege that the clerics still want to enjoy to the bitter end and bloodbaths are a small price to pay if its others who shed their blood.

The thing that continues to bewilder me though is how many feminists who bristle at any antifeminism are so accepting of Islamic beliefs which are systematically misogynistic.

Can’t get my head around that one!

 

I was raised Baptist and was told that girls don’t like sex unless it’s to have a baby.
Imagine my pleasant surprise when I tried to be a gentleman on dates and the girls lost patience and initiated things.
If there is a faith that appeals to me now then it’s one that allows the natural order of things.

 

Yes. The universe is energy and we are also energy. We are one with the universe. If there's a god, the same applies.

 

Buddhism is the closest thing I can find. But even that seems lame. Any of the old pagan European faiths that honor the male and female energies are closer but they were hunted to extinction so who knows what they actually believed?

 

I agree that it gets closest, but I don't think it's lame.

My closest friend started studying / practicing Buddhism about three years ago. She's a much more composed and calm person, now. I have mad respect for her doing something that is so beneficial for her, personally.

I think the perfect way to practice faith is the way that provides most personal value.

 

Agreed.

I practiced Buddhism for about six months.

To me it’s more a philosophy and a calming exercise than a faith but still very worthwhile.

 

Attending services has now become "practicing ones faith"??

Really?

For which religions is THAT actually true.

 

You are conflating cutlure, politics, economics, religion, etc., in order to try to support a personal opinion of yours.

It would be better if you didn't do that.

 

It's a component of it. Sheesh. Judge much? Vitriol is an ugly thing to see.

 

What I can't understand is how you can be a convert and married in an Orthodox Church when you can't accept the Holy Trinity. This would mean you're not a Christian.

As for everything you wrote, I'm tired of answering you and repeating myself. You formed your opinion from what you read and from what you want to believe - and in turn it was based on opinions formed by writers and translators from what they read and what they wanted to believe.

 

?
What I said is not vitriol.

Religion is cheapened by church attendance being made a significant measure of practicing one's faith.

For Christianity, Jesus called on his followers to search the poor houses, the hospitals, the prisons for those who need help and to provide that help. He called on the rich to give their wealth to the poor - not to build exravagant edifices in his name. He called on his followers to go out into the world and preach the gospel to every individual. He called on his followers to ignore racial, ethnic and political boundaries in doing so.

As for church, he pointed out that two or more gathered in worshp is sufficient.

 

Not accepting the "Holy Trinity" is not a criteria on Christs list - and so - not accepting the big T - as written - does not make me a non follower of Christ. To be honest - we have not discussed my ideas w/r to the nature of Christs Divinity in that much detail so you may be putting cart ahead of horse.

The wedding was my second baptism - which gives me VIP status through the pearly gates after together for 10 years - kids graduated we figured it was time.

but back to your definition of "Christian" - and you can call me a heretic if you like - but can you back that claim up via the Teachings of the Master - rather than man made dogma - Dogma which resulted in the persecution and killing of many of Christs followers-

Luke 49

Rather prophetic I would say.

I have sat with the sages - many of them - all of the cloth - educated in a "Real" Seminary - (something I know you appreciate) - learning Greek,Hebrew, Latin - 8 years - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod - graduates and now in their later years - and discussed the Trinity doctrine - after a few drinks.

Let me tell you that the issue is not settled in Religious Acadamia - this issue is not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it.

 

A bit of logic here:

The New Testament was compiled by a bunch of bearded old men who we call Saints and Fathers of the Church. They are the ones who decided which writings were truly the Word of God, and which ones were false. It was also a bunch of bearded old men Saints and Fathers of the Church who established the beliefs and dogmas at the Ecumenical Councils.

If you can't accept the validity of the later Saints/Fathers, then how can you accept the validity of the ones who compiled the New Testament? What would differentiate the one from the other since they must have been under the same criteria? Therefore if you deny the one, then shouldn't you be denying the other ones as well?

There's no middle ground here. It's either one or none. So you either don't know what Christ taught because you accept none of the Fathers/Saints, or you do know what Christ taught and are accepting therefore all the doctrines including the Ecumenical Councils.

 

What part of "The Early Church Fathers did not believe in modern Trinity Doctrine" was not clear in the statement "They were subordinationists" = Subordinate to the Father - not Co-Equal - not the Same dude. That Jesus was an emanation proceeding from the father is something - believed by some - is not a believe in the Modern Trinity Doctrine either.

Then there are the hundreds of "Bearded old Men - Church Fathers" - Who did not accept the Trinity Doctrine - for hundreds of years after the Constantine declared Jesus to be defacto "GOD - The Father".

Jesus did not believe he was God "The Father" - referring to God as someone other than himself in Mark and Matt - Calling out to God on the Cross "my God my God" why have you forsaken me. Did Jesus - in a state of masochistic delerium - forget who he was on the Cross ?

The Disciples did not believe Jesus was " The Father" - and neither did the early Church Fathers.

 

Well, you also dodged the strong political influences that existed and can't possibly be ruled as having had zero effect. Also, I've never found a source that addressed issues such as what their decision making methodology actually was.

Let me point out that there are NUMEROUS denominations today - all based on interpretations that religious schollars have studied for long perios of time, yet don't come to the same conclusion.

Like the many divisions of old, the various religious schollars pour over all that is available and they do not come to the same conclusion - even on issues so serious as to require large numbers of denominations.

I can accept that Constantine could have required that one answer be promoted as THE answer.

But, I find it very hard to believe that the schollars of that time found it easier to make changes to their religious beliefs than do religious schollars of today.

And, the challenge then is no different than the challenge of reducing the religious beliefs of denominations today.

The idea that they ended up n full agreement on each of the questions addressed, leaving the councils with changed personal religious beliefs, hits me as monumentally unlikely if not simply absurd.

What would it take today for Christianity to resolve the standing of the Pope, the existence and nature of purgatory, the position of Mary in devotion today, etc., etc.?

I'm just going to propose that if there were a supreme political autocrat of the known world, that autocrat could force a decision on these and other issues. But, what change that would actually cause? If the Catholic answers won, would protestants rejoin the RCC?

 

There has to be a consensus of all the bishops to know the decision comes from the Holy Spirit. Of course there was that incident where 'Santa Claus' (Saint Nicholas) punched the heretic Arius. I'm sure Arius left the council.

The Orthodox Church cannot accept the Pope as being infallible in doctrines of the Church because there has to be a consensus of all the bishops - otherwise the Church can fall in error. Frankly, I don't think the Pope had a choice at the time. He had to declare himself as infallible since his Cardinals were being influenced by Protestantism, and he needed to fight them as to the position of Mary. By making himself infallible, he was able to establish on his own, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

They're not serious, and they can be resolved - that is if they really wanted to resolve them the way they did the heresies and problems in the first centuries. From what i know, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception hasn't been defined completely, so that can be worked on, and there's no problem with the Filioque other than it was put in the Creed without an Ecumenical Council.

The only problem is the infallibility of the Pope concerning doctrines, since doctrines can't be established without a consensus of all the bishops.

 

Mormons are very nice people. They took me , my brother and two cousins to play baseball when I was 12.

They would send young elders out to speed their religion. So they baptized us and we became Mormons. Til my dad found out! Lol

But still, the nicest people!

 

I am an agnostic in the name of God.

I figure my honesty about His existence is what saved me!

 

Here in Mississippi we have more churches than you can shake a stick at. They are everywhere! And many people attend them. I did for years starting as a child.

I still will attend a small country church occasionally out of enjoyment and being around people who try to be good people. I don't like large churches. But churches filled with working people .

 

It seems unreasonable that a god that requires worship in a specific way, would make the rules so confusing that it takes man centuries of arguing to come up with a consensus on what was required, and the thought that it could change so frequently, in relation to the age of the universe, makes my head spin.

If the earth was 24 hours old, man has far less than 30 seconds of participation.

I can only imagine my definition of worship, but if it was in my power & desire to be worshiped, I know I would be 100% clear on what that meant for my worshipers. I can't imagine why it would anger me that some could not enjoy shrimp or have a cheeseburger, but for others it was okay, as long as they didn't have steak of Friday.

I'm neither immortal or all knowing, so, I can only view from my perspective. From my very narrow point of view, genuflecting, bowing hundreds of times in a specific direction or lighting candles in a specific order, would bear no resemblance whatsoever to my opinion on the creatures doing those things on my behalf.

On the other hand, if I truly, 100% believed that what the church told me was required of god in order to get to heaven, was the truth? I'd spend 100% of my life ensuring I never broken a single rule.

If I knew, for sure, that the moment I died, I'd be a given a get-out-of-jail-free, card, for just saying, "oops, my bad," than I'd just do what the most wealthy religious leaders did, and cry after spending billions on having fun on my follower's dime.

Faith doesn't confuse me. Religions and their rituals, confuse me to no end. There's no single path to god. There are no rules that require specific diets, working hours or clothing.

 

I agree with you.

After thinking of things like you mentioned I was forced by reason and logic into agnosticism. There is just no way to know if god exists or not. And if he exists he knows the limitations of our minds.

Agnostics display honesty and that should be important if god does exist.

Now I do hope there is more to the big picture than a fleeting spark that goes out forever. Making existence irrelevant with no purpose at all. But I don't have the means of knowing. No one does whether a atheist or theist! So this certainty shared by both sides is just utter dishonesty.

If God exists the agnostics may be on top. For their honesty.

 

Yes they are very nice people and a very well run social service organization. However their total unwillingness to take responsibility for Smith and Young and their mass murders is troubling to me as a religious organization.

 

To me agnosticism is the only honest philosophy. Atheists despise it when I say they are just another faith as they also espouse with certainty what cannot be proven.

 

Sure it is. Atheists are guided by emotion. They argue they can have absolute certainty. Which is impossible, and so they are dishonest. If you point this out they get emotional..

They rely upon faith while denying faith is the cornerstone .

Agnostics admit the obvious. They have no means of knowing. Given the nature of the question.