Which religious group?

[K.D. Lightner]

I guess one problem I have had with people proselytizing their religion is that they quote the Judeo/Christian bible, as if by quoting it, we who do not believe as they do are going to automatically accept that it is the word of a diety. In some cases the absolute, literal word of a diety.

Every religion I have read about has a different take on many of the passages in it, including the several hundred Protestant groups.

I have read and studied it -- as a lovely piece of literature (at least the King James verson is) and as a book that has many stories and parables, passages, some beautiful, some quite frightening, all of it written by many people, over a long period of time, then pieced together by other people, who decided to leave some things out of it because it didn't fit their agenda.

And agenda is a key word, too. If some of us are wary or even offended by proselytizing, it is that it doesn't always end there.

karol

 

[LaMedicine]

The Earth is my altar,
The sky is my dome,
My heart is full of glory,
For my trust shall never falter,
My faith shall never roam,
My hopes ever for joy and peace,
My heart full of love never cease.

I posted this earlier.

Most of you would be from a dominantly Christian culture, or have Jewish heritage, both with the Old Testament as the common scripture, so basically, the discussion here is evolving around a common heritage.

I am Catholic. This is from my choice, not my heritage per se, as in family background. I attended a Catholic school for a few years as a child, and while I was preparing for, and going through med school, there were some things and thoughts that led me to choose the Church when I graduated from med school.
However, my father's family is Shinto, my mother Buddhist. My father's job had us living in a secular but Islamic by heritage country for some years as well. My husband and his family are Buddhists, however, one of his sisters is married to an Episcopalian, and so is she. On my father's side, one of my aunts is a Presbitarian, her daughter is married into a devout Catholic family that includes a nun and a priest. I have a good friend who is married to a Buddhist priest, and when I told him of my family's religious back ground, he was like and you manage to keep all that straight

So, unless I am open to, and accept the beliefs of my family members as is, it will be sooo easy for me to alienate, or become alienated from my own family. As a matter of fact, I buried my father by Shinto rites last year, as I believe in honoring and keeping peace for the deceased through their beliefs. It isn't my place to dishonor their last wishes.

So, though I express my beliefs through Catholic rites, I am more of the thought that what we believe, or what rites we see as fit, is what we feel comfortable with, and however religious thoughts and beliefs are expressed, they are in part governed by our individual experiences and heritage, and we will see the Higher Power --if you believe in it-- in ways that we see fit through our very limited knowledge and experince. We are too incomplete to see the whole of God and worldly wisdom. Rather like the Golden Monkey that never left the palm of the Buddha, no matter how far he flew on his magic cloud.

Incidentally, some of the novels by Shusaku Endo, a Japanese Catholic author, might be interesting reading for the curious. "Silence" is his representative writing, but I also recommend "A Life of Jesus".

 

[Undertow]

I guess one problem I have had with people proselytizing their religion is that they quote the Judeo/Christian bible, as if by quoting it, we who do not believe as they do are going to automatically accept that it is the word of a diety. In some cases the absolute, literal word of a diety.

Every religion I have read about has a different take on many of the passages in it, including the several hundred Protestant groups.

I have read and studied it -- as a lovely piece of literature (at least the King James verson is) and as a book that has many stories and parables, passages, some beautiful, some quite frightening, all of it written by many people, over a long period of time, then pieced together by other people, who decided to leave some things out of it because it didn't fit their agenda.

And agenda is a key word, too. If some of us are wary or even offended by proselytizing, it is that it doesn't always end there.

A consensus was reached during the First Council of Nicaea to resolve a situation between early followers. The members agreed on much of the dogma and canonical texts during this council and effectively defined Christianity as a whole. This was a time when Christians decided to eliminate much text such as the Gnostic Gospels, etc. And the members making these decisions were all men, mind you.

Personally, I do not hold much faith in the fallibility of men. I certainly understand the necessity of the Council, and having been raised Catholic, I’ve had the “Holy Spirit inspired them” lectures until I was blue.

But to this day, and for the rest of my life, I cannot accept the fallibility of men. Imagine where we would be if we still accepted racism, Aryan nations, apartheid or blood letting, witch hunting and inquisition. And my disbelief is not centered on Christianity; it goes for all religion.

And I believe KD has another good point in that one cannot simply site their holy book as proof or reference for ones convictions, no matter how strong those convictions might be. Similarly, one cannot use a word in its own definition, i.e. Definition of Define – to define something using words.

 

[surely]

Just returned walking with the dog; get some of my clearest thoughts then:

When I first joined the Lounge I thought it would be with a lot of superficial people who, like me, were indulging their avarice for style.

Golly, was I ever wrong on being superficial.

 

[surely]

We are all story tellers, we use our imaginations to concoct the plot and characters, and reason to order the elements. Once we see the beauty in our story we often want to share and yea, even convince others. Unless I'm constrained I have the choice to not listen and even to try to convince then of the errors of their way and the superiority of mine.

 

[carter]

I also find it interesting that most of this discussion centers on the Judeo-Christian belief system in which many of us were raised. Yet the poll also included Islam, Buddhist, Eastern (Shinto for example) , and Hindu. Actually, the available choices leave out many belief systems. Which is not to find fault with the poll, especially since this discourse seems to have far exceeded original expectations. Kind of like the created getting away from the creator.

Most belief systems, but not all, posit a creator. The names for this creator are many but the essential supposition of a supreme being/entity/intelligence is inherent in these systems. That being the case, why would anyone find it necessary to attack another's belief? Isn't it at least possible that this being is, if he/she/they/it exist(s), the same no matter what name is assigned by a human being?

And...do we seriously believe that such a being enjoys what humanity has/is done/doing in his/her/their/it's name?

Or, has the created been set free by the creator, been given free will, just to see what will occur?

Now that's a scary thought...unless we somehow believe that what we've accomplished on the planet so far is in some sense laudable.

After all, great books of religious thought are...books. No matter how much time and energy are spent discussing, debating, arguing, and fighting over books, they are simply guidelines at best. Books are not actions and, in the end, actions do speak louder than words.

 

[Viola]

I'm not Judeo-Christian. I've never met a Judeo-Christian.

 

[surely]

I'm not Judeo-Christian. I've never met a Judeo-Christian.

fftopic: that can be arranged, come on up and see me sometime.....

 

[Viola]

fftopic: that can be arranged, come on up and see me sometime.....

Don't think I won't do it. Vancouver is an awful lot less winter-y then we get. lol

 

[dr greg]

infinite variations

I think the endless permutations of it all are evidence of the fact that no particular faith has all the answers, for example I just stumbled on these guys...a Muslim sect who believe Jesus lived to a grand old age and is buried in Kashmir, funnily enough I know people who've been to see the tomb. If it was true it would put the Vatican on the spot, yet it's mainstream Muslims who believe Jesus rose from the dead (THAT'S RIGHT!) who persecute and kill them (not purely over that issue though).
The main point being as I said at the start, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS.. believe what you like, and afford me the same courtesy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadi
http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html

 

[surely]

Hey Doc, I don't quite get your drift. I hope you were not casting negative pov.
Otherwise I'm in agreement with your conclusion.

 

[dr greg]

Basic point

My point is simply that as I said WE DON"T KNOW, and the fact that there are innumerable versions of what is supposedly the truth, is ample evidence of that. But most people are not happy to agree to disagree on an unknowable issue, therefore we have lots of ignorance arrogance and unnecessary conflict about something that can't be proven in any degree to anyone's satisfaction without some major event... In the absence of such a thing happening I'm tolerant of other people's views as long as they don't demand that I share them.

 

[Diamondback]

Don't think I won't do it. Vancouver is an awful lot less winter-y then we get. lol

True, and Seattle's slightly warmer... And while I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, I tend to lean very strongly toward some elements of Old Testament philosophy. (It'll be a strain on my limited linguistic capability, but someday I'd like to learn to read Hebrew and read the Torah in its original language for myself to get a bead on the source material...) Could that be considered "Judeo-Christian"?

 

[Viola]

True, and Seattle's slightly warmer... And while I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, I tend to lean very strongly toward some elements of Old Testament philosophy. (It'll be a strain on my limited linguistic capability, but someday I'd like to learn to read Hebrew and read the Torah in its original language for myself to get a bead on the source material...) Could that be considered "Judeo-Christian"?

Its possible you misinterpreted my thought. I hold Christians in respect, generally. (well, the same rate as any entire population) I dislike the term Judeo-Christian because its usually used erroneously to attribute Christian beliefs to a larger spectrum, and often doesn't come with a great understanding of Judaism.

 

[Samsa]

I thought Judeo-Christian simply referred to the fact that the two religions (for the most part) share scripture in common - i.e., the Old Testament or Tanakh. And that the ethical systems of both religions are patterned around the Ten Commandments.

 

[deanglen]

I thought Judeo-Christian simply referred to the fact that the two religions (for the most part) share scripture in common - i.e., the Old Testament or Tanakh. And that the ethical systems of both religions are patterned around the Ten Commandments.

Bingo.

dean

 

[surely]

Samsa, I think that strictly speaking you have it right. On the other hand Viola is saying, if I interpret her right, that the majority which is Christian has coopted the Judeo part for their own purposes.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I think the term Judeo-Christian means that not only do we Christians worship the same God....but also believe that both testaments are divinely inspired. Alot of ancient Jewish tradition is covered and revered in the books of our old testament as well as the new testament.

 

[carter]

I do agree with Viola and Surely that Christians have in some sense co-opted parts of Judaism without fully understanding the wider frame of reference.
Of course this doesn't apply to the earliest followers of Christ who were, for the most part, Jews. There is ample scriptural discussion regarding the problems in the early Christian church that arose between those who wished to adhere more closely to Judaism and those who did not. A wider separation came about as more non-Judaic peoples were brought into the Christian fold. Still, the basis of Christianity arose from Judaic theology.

Some 2000 years later, many, but not all, adherents to Christiany do not have this basic understanding of the roots of their theology. Many may in fact begin and end at the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ, who said that he came to minister to the Jews. In the Gibsonian view, all the Jews killed the Christ and that's that. It just isn't so. Nowhere in the Bible is this blanket assessment made. Nor can it be supported any more than it can be supported that all Southren sympathizers killed Abraham Lincoln or all Ku Klux Klan members killed Martin Luther King,

Christianity is deeply rooted in Judaism. The root, the Christ, was a JEW.

Many religious people come to their faith through nurture. They are raised in a certain belief system and adhere to it throughout their lives. Some have questions and make changes to other systems as adults. Some have questions and elect not to practice any belief system. Some come to a belief system as adults. Some start with no belief system and never adopt one. There are many reasons why we each believe what we believe to be true.

It is blind acceptance rather than informed acceptance that is called into question here.

And...I'm still looking for a Zen Baptist.

 

[Bebop]

My point is simply that as I said WE DON"T KNOW, and the fact that there are innumerable versions of what is supposedly the truth, is ample evidence of that. But most people are not happy to agree to disagree on an unknowable issue, therefore we have lots of ignorance arrogance and unnecessary conflict about something that can't be proven in any degree to anyone's satisfaction without some major event... In the absence of such a thing happening I'm tolerant of other people's views as long as they don't demand that I share them.

Every time I see this thread, I say to myself that I am done commenting but I find it difficult to sit on my hands. [huh]


I see your point but although we may not know 100% what is true, we certainly do know what is not true. That makes it difficult to agree to disagree with someone that claims what is not true is true, only because they believe it is. If history or science can not prove something, why are we going to say "we don't know"? We do know. That is where the unnecessary conflict comes into play.