good news to all wiccans

[KarenNC]

Desert,

You miss the point. The point I was trying to make was that I have relatives who are just as messed up as netmil(name removed by moderator)'s niece and her family, but they claim Christianity. Perhaps not Catholicism, but Christianity nonetheless. I speak out of personal experience with multiple people, just as netmils mom does.

I am capable of recognizing that their problems are not Christianity in its entirety, much less monotheism in its entirety. I have said so on many occasions in this forum and thread. I do not use their poor judgement and behavior to justify hurling denigrating insults at everyone who claims to be a Christian under the guise of trying to “help them learn to be better people” or to deny evidence presented to me by people in the Christian community that my experiences may not be the norm.

I recognize that there are people who claim adherence to every religion who are immature, gullible, deceptive, immoral, looking for a power trip, emotionally or psychologically in need of help or just so desperate they will hang onto and believe anything, hearing only what they want to hear. Sometimes they even make it into leadership positions, more’s the pity. There are people who have a distorted view (even in the opinion of their fellow believers) of what their religion teaches.

I also recognize that there are people in every religion who are not any of those things.

The relatives I described (and these are real individuals in my life in real situations, not “categories”) are not what I consider to be normative Christians (Christians who represent the standard or “average” Christian worldwide), much less the ideal of Christianity nor the only possible description of anyone who calls him or herself Christian. I fully realize that they have a distorted view of what I believe Jesus and the Bible taught about being Christian and what most Christians would understand as being Christian.

The point is ** it’s the people, not the religion**.

I wish I could “fix” my relatives, too, just as much as netmil(name removed by moderator) wants someone to “fix” her niece. It is heartbreaking to watch people you care for follow what you believe to be a self-destructive or willingly self-deceptive path, whatever the cause, and know that, in the end, the only ones that can make a decision to change are themselves. (I also know that they consider I am doing so–the families of many Christian converts did/do, too)

Wicca and other Neopagan religions are indeed “popular” right now and have been given lurid stereotypical misrepresentations by the media, usually either demonized or overly romanticized (gosh, that’s never happened to any other group! ). That makes it look “cool” and potentially attractive to those who want an excuse to act immaturely, dishonorably or irresponsibly, as well as those who mistakenly believe the media portrayals are accurate. I imagine there were teens in Rome drawing fish symbols, wearing crosses and claiming to be Christian to shock their parents or get out of going to the “boring old sacrifices” as well.

There is not a governing body out there scrutinizing every publication by or presentation of Wicca or other Neopagan religions, any more than there is in Christianity. Go take a look at some of the more “out there” books in Christian bookstores today. Christianity has had 2000 years for a universally consistent approach to develop and it hasn’t happened yet. Wicca has had about 50. Give it time .

There are many charlatans claiming to be leaders in the Neopagan community just as there are in the Christian one and I have no problem with denouncing them or them being criticized. There is nothing in my religion that prevents me from saying I believe something is wrong simply because someone chooses to attach the label “Neopagan” to it. I don’t think Christianity or Catholicism forbids that either, at least not based on these forums . “Shade tree preachers” are not a phenomenon unique to Neopaganism.

Just because Jimmy Swaggart exists, claims what he claims and does what he does in the name of Christianity, should I equate you, the Pope or Billy Graham with him? I don’t think so. I may not agree with the theology of the Pope, you or Billy Graham, but I don’t automatically write any of you off as losers, charlatans or nutcases.

If you used to follow these sorts of preachers and say you did so with judgement and discernment, I am glad you showed more sense than my relatives. Actually, I am even willing to admit that some of these preachers may have helped a few people along the way without benefitting monetarily, if that has been your experience.

I have read the Bible in its entirety many times, including the Apocrypha (not as many times). That’s why I call these preachers charlatans. I find their message and approach totally inconsistent with the book and deity they claim to follow.

Hmm, if you think my stuff is worth being printed out, maybe I should write a book and make the “big bucks,” joining all those other Neopagan writers on their private planes and yachts?

 

[gallo]

KarenNC,
So in your opinion, as a whole, if neo-paganism (or wicca specifically) were to be the dominant religion in America at this moment or in however number of years, what would the U.S. look like? (not geographically exactly) How would it effect things such as war, stem cell research, immigration, population, welfare, etc? You know, the BIG topics. Also, how would it effect one person’s relationship to another? (For example, there is the growing threat of materialistic consumerism. This causes people to become more isolated and may not have even met, much less know, their next door neighbor)
I know these are questions that can’t be answered definitively, but as I stated: “in your opinion”. Would it be a better place, the same, or worse?
There is no intent to open the door to arguments or the like. I’m just curious, that’s all.

 

[KarenNC]

KarenNC,
So in your opinion, as a whole, if neo-paganism (or wicca specifically) were to be the dominant religion in America at this moment or in however number of years, what would the U.S. look like?

Great question. Now, do I have a great answer… ?

I think this deserves it’s own thread. Do you mind if we start a new one?

 

[gallo]

Your choice.
you might want to post the name in this thread if you do.

 

[reborn_pagan]

First, did you ask if they were baptized Catholic? Most were and now are not practicing. Or had poor CCD. Most didn’t find it in a book.

Second, all “wiccans” that I know are more than willing to share all about being Wiccan. If you ask them the difference between being Wiccan and any other Pagan religion, they will tell you that there are no rules about it. And there aren’t.

There’s rules about being Catholic.

Bet you’ve spent some time on videogames, or roleplaying, reading Gothic novels. Do you have a job?

no i didn’t ask if they were baptized or not, and why would i even care?

second, nothings bad with all wiccans wanting to tell others about there religion, and not all wiccans say theres no rules, just the ones you deal with

There are rules that true wiccans fallow, look them up

yes i play video games, i play tonyhawk all the time but you dont see me going down the street trying to do a 540 kickflip now do you?

role playing i have never done

and i dont read gothic novels…

final question…what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Persephone]

I job shadowed a Baptist today. Awesome guy. I knew from the moment I met him that he was a “true Christian,” which is actually a very rare thing. It has nothing to do with beliefs or dogma, but with actually being touched by Deity and really walking the walk. He had that light within that all good people have. I found out about his charity work in his community, his spiritual (even miraculous) experiences with God, his selfless desire to help his fellow man. I was very impressed.

What is interesting is that he was very impressed with me as well. I could tell by his demenor that he thought we were kindred spirits. We share the same light. He assumed I was a Christian, and I didn’t say otherwise. I didn’t think there was any reason to. As far as I’m concerned, all who seek Deity will find, regardless of which religion they belong to. God is more than the myths and stories created by man.

There are Christians who are not good Christians, and there are pagans who are not good pagans. Don’t judge the entire community just by the vocal bad apples. Most of the good ones don’t seek attention, no matter the religion.

 

[KarenNC]

**KarenNC,
So in your opinion, as a whole, if neo-paganism (or wicca specifically) were to be the dominant religion in America at this moment or in however number of years, what would the U.S. look like? (not geographically exactly) How would it effect things such as war, stem cell research, immigration, population, welfare, etc? You know, the BIG topics. **

Sorry to be so long getting back, gallo. Life intrudes so I will just do what I can to answer here, the next few days are likely to be just as hectic.

First, I want to reiterate that there is not one monolithic Neopagan religion. It is like asking what would a monotheistic America look like–a Jewish one looks different than an Islamic one looks different than a Christian one (and a Catholic one looks different than a Protestant one, for that matter). Some of the religions that are lumped under the umbrella of Neopaganism are even more diverse than those three monotheistic faiths. Second, I am probably not the one to ask about what a Wiccan one might look like, since I am not nor have I ever been Wiccan. I consider myself a Classical Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist.

Speaking in broad generalities, and in my opinion, I think if one of the forms of Neopaganism with which I am familiar were to become the dominant religion I would predict there would be a loosening of restrictions on stem cell research, there would be a movement toward separation of religion and the civil contract of marriage more along the lines I have read about in Europe, and there would be a biiger overall push toward gender equality issues (equal pay for equal work, etc). There would not be the religious argument for support of Israel that exists currently, but I don’t know how that would turn out overall. I would predict a stronger push for environmental concerns and conservation measures, stricter controls on pollution, etc.

As to war, immigration, welfare, etc, I don’t know. There are Neopagans who fall on either side of any of those issues, those who are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc. in political orientation. There are Neopagan religions that take radically different approaches to issues like these (if there is a “position” taken by the religious group).

I would hope that there would continue to be a focus and support for a network of support for those in need, both temporarily and permanently. That is a legacy from Christianity that I would hate to see abandoned (that and some great ritual, art and music are things that I have admired about Christianity over its history). I don’t know that we would have as well developed a social network at this point in America and in most Western countries without the influence of Christianity.

There is also the issue that becoming the party in power changes groups and their ideals. It has been shown over and over in history. I really don’t have any faith or expectation that it would become a Neopagan utopia, some sort of peaceful paradise, etc.

** Also, how would it effect one person’s relationship to another? (For example, there is the growing threat of materialistic consumerism. This causes people to become more isolated and may not have even met, much less know, their next door neighbor)**

Honestly, I don’t see this happening as a function of anyone’s religion as much as a function of the type of culture we have developed (Christianity has not shown itself proof against this in America, nor has Buddhism or Shinto in Japan, from what little I have read). One that is based on mobility, 24/7 access to pretty much whatever we want, etc. --things that tend to break down the availability and network of dependence that other types of cultures foster out of need.

The forces most likely to break the cycle of isolation and consumerism, in my opinion, are the facts of dwindling resources and a need to work cooperatively to survive. With a Neopaganism dominant in our society, I don’t think we would have the idea of the Earth and Nature being something separate from humanity and given to humanity to use and do with as we pleased nor the idea that this is just a way station to a better place. There is much more a sense of the interconnection of everything and humans as simply another part of nature, inextricably bound and affected by what affects any other part.

** Would it be a better place, the same, or worse?**

It would depend on one’s perspective, as with all changes, I suppose. I think it would be a bit better overall.

It is also an interesting exercise to think about how our history would be different if Neopaganism had become dominant at different points in the history of our country (and in the history of the Neopagan movement).

 

[gallo]

KarenNC,

** I consider myself a Classical Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist**.

Could you define this a little?

Speaking in broad generalities, and in my opinion, I think if one of the forms of Neopaganism with which I am familiar were to become the dominant religion I would predict there would be a loosening of restrictions on stem cell research, there would be a movement toward separation of religion and the civil contract of marriage more along the lines I have read about in Europe, and there would be a biiger overall push toward gender equality issues (equal pay for equal work, etc). There would not be the religious argument for support of Israel that exists currently, but I don’t know how that would turn out overall. I would predict a stronger push for environmental concerns and conservation measures, stricter controls on pollution, etc.

Would this be, in your opinion, a positive thing or not?

**That is a legacy from Christianity that I would hate to see abandoned (that and some great ritual, art and music are things that I have admired about Christianity over its history). I don’t know that we would have as well developed a social network at this point in America and in most Western countries without the influence of Christianity. **

For this I say “thank you”!

The forces most likely to break the cycle of isolation and consumerism, in my opinion, are the facts of dwindling resources and a need to work cooperatively to survive. With a Neopaganism dominant in our society, I don’t think we would have the idea of the Earth and Nature being something separate from humanity and given to humanity to use and do with as we pleased nor the idea that this is just a way station to a better place. There is much more a sense of the interconnection of everything and humans as simply another part of nature, inextricably bound and affected by what affects any other part.

There is one thing that I highly respect about the pagan religions (some of them at least) is the respect for the Created world. Too often in Christianity it is overlooked and, yes, seen as something to use…or even abuse. However, I am grateful for what God has given through Catholocism in that part of its teachings are the sacrednes of Creation. But still, in the average believers life, it is overlooked and often times feared.

There is much more a sense of the interconnection of everything and humans as simply another part of nature, inextricably bound and affected by what affects any other part.

So how would this coincide with what is mentioned in the first paragraph about the changes that would take place especially in an area such as embyo stem cells? How would it be justified especially considering that we all started as an embryo and that it is a stage in life? (Not an attack, just trying to understand. Many times human nature is brought in, action and words don’t walk together)

Thanks

 

[KarenNC]

** I consider myself a Classical Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist.

Could you define this a little?**

Sure. I follow the Hellenic Pantheon but not in a manner that tries to reconstruct exactly the worship of the Gods by ancient Greeks. I recognize that I am not one , nor do I live in that society nor do I share that culture or worldview. My relationship with and understanding of Them is tempered and shaped by tge intervening years of Western Civilization. This is much the same as modern Christians, who realize that they are not first century Palestinian Jews and don’t seek to recreate that form of worship. The Unitarian Universalist Church is where I find community, as we do not live close to anyone else who shares our more exact beliefs. It is non-creedal and I am very much in agreement with its emphasis on social justice and community.

** Would this be, in your opinion, a positive thing or not?**

Overall, yes, I think it would.

** For this I say “thank you”! **

You’re welcome. I keep telling people I am non-Christian, not anti-Christian There is a lot of value in the Christian Church, I simply don’t believe in the core doctrines. I also see things of value in Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

There is one thing that I highly respect about the pagan religions (some of them at least) is the respect for the Created world. Too often in Christianity it is overlooked and, yes, seen as something to use…or even abuse. However, I am grateful for what God has given through Catholocism in that part of its teachings are the sacrednes of Creation. But still, in the average believers life, it is overlooked and often times feared.

If you look for them, there are strains of ecological concern and the interconnectedness of life in Christianity, Saint Francis, for instance. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with modern Catholic writers and theologians who might be doing this to name any with any confidence. I think Matthew Fox is, but I doubt anyone would consider him as a mainstream Catholic writer (or mainstream Catholic anything else) . Not all forms of Neopaganism have the same levels of reverence for or, frankly, concern with, environmental issues, just fyi.

Unfortunately, the verses of the world being created for man’s use and domination tend to overshadow the care and responsibility aspects of stewardship. As our lives have become more and more distanced from the cycles of nature, that has been an increasing issue.

So how would this coincide with what is mentioned in the first paragraph about the changes that would take place especially in an area such as embyo stem cells? How would it be justified especially considering that we all started as an embryo and that it is a stage in life? (Not an attack, just trying to understand. Many times human nature is brought in, action and words don’t walk together)

I think it boils down to not seeing human life as inherently any more or any less sacred than other life. All life is sacred and not to be dealt with lightly. Does the Catholic church have a position on animal testing for medical (as opposed to cosmetic, etc) research as well?

It is not an easy answer. I would prefer that there were other ways to treat the conditions, and research continues in those areas, but for now I have a hard time arguing that an embryo (which even under ideal situations may or may not be able to develop into a full term baby) has more inherent worth than the children or adults already living whose lives could be saved by advances in treatment.

In situations where there are, for instance, embryos from fertility treatments that would simply be discarded, I see it as morally preferable and more respectful of their existence to seek to do some good for humanity with them rather than simply throw them out. Certainly the “snowflake adoption” movement is admirable and I respect that these people are living out their beliefs in doing so, but honestly there are still thousands of embryos out there who will never be adopted in this manner (and I believe there is a greater moral good in adopting, feeding, clothing and caring for children who have already been born). I suppose it is possible that the movement will grow to such levels and in vitro fertilization processes will be able to be refined further so that we won’t be faced with an excess, but that is not the current situation.

I am also hopeful that the recently publicized research on pluripotent stem cells found in amniotic fluid heralds a shift to a direction in research that will be less of an issue. sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=F4BB3ACB-E7F2-99DF-349FD71C1164C66D I am not wild about amniocentesis either (I refused it when I was pregnant), but it is a common procedure done for other purposes and if there can be further benefits, by all means we should pursue them.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

People say Catholisism (or Cristianity) is the TRUTH, the only path. People quote Jesus when they say this (‘I am the way, the thruth and the light and no one gets to the Father exepect through me’.)

Personally I doubt the relability of the Bible. I think it gives across a good message (generally) but I don’t see any way in which it makes Christianity a more truthful religion then others. Of course Christians will say they are following the right path. Most of the people of the forum absolutly know that there religion is the right one, and I’m sure plenty think that others are going to burn in the eternal fires of hell. Is this really the message of Christianity? I don’t think it is. I think Jesus’s words have been misinterpreted. Just because no one gets to the Father except through him, does that mean everyone has to believe in him? What about those who crusified him? Jesus said ‘Forgive them Father they no not what they do.’ Plenty of them would have died without believe Jesus to be the Son of God and yet if you say they are in hell then you are denying Gods forgivness.

Misinterpretations aside, the fact that Jesus existed does not prove Christianity right. He did exist, but the Jesus of the myths and the Jesus of relaity were two different people. For example, Jesus was not likly to have been born in Bethlehem. In the Gospel acording to Luke, a census is mentioned. This census takes place in the time of Emperor Augustus when Quirinius was the govenor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In no other contemporary acounts of the time is there a mention of a census. Not only this but Matthew says Herod is king, (Matthew 2:1). Quirinius was not govenor in Herod’s reign. A census does take place in 6AD, Herod dies in 4AD.

I’m sure not many people here will agree with what I have said. However, I’m trying to make the point that people with a strong Chritian faith depend on the bible and defend it when it appears to be under attack. There is no reason why it is more accurate then the Q’uran (sp?). Muslim people think their faith is the right path, and millions of people throughout history have thought their religion was right and other peoples were wrong. Why is Chritianity better? The majority of Christians just have Christian parents, and likwise with Islam. Religion is almost heriditory.

Another point that has come up in this thread is the danger that religions such as Islam and Wicca pose. What about the danger of Christianity? What about the Crusades when people were burnt to save their imortal souls? Islam has its extremists just like any other religion. The majority of Muslims are peace loving people. One of my muslim friends recently told me he was disgusted by the acts of terror comitted in the name of Islam. He sees Bin Laden as a coward and he says that Sadam Hussien was a disgrace to Islam and did not deserve to call himself a Muslim.

From what I know of Wicca it seems a great religion teaching no harm. The most accepting religion/way of life I’ve seen is Buddism. If religion was more about how you live your life and how you treat others the world would be so much better. The fact its its about what you believe rather then what you do is the source of some of todays conflicts. Humans have a great capacity to believe anything, and if you’ve been indoctrinated since birth so much more so. Unfortunaly humans also have a habit of being so assured they are right that they kill those who dont agree or put down there faiths. For example, why teach that non Christians go to hell? Why is it about condeming rather then helping?

 

[Image_of_God]

People say Catholisism (or Cristianity) is the TRUTH, the only path. People quote Jesus when they say this (‘I am the way, the thruth and the light and no one gets to the Father exepect through me’.)

Personally I doubt the relability of the Bible. I think it gives across a good message (generally) but I don’t see any way in which it makes Christianity a more truthful religion then others. Of course Christians will say they are following the right path. Most of the people of the forum absolutly know that there religion is the right one, and I’m sure plenty think that others are going to burn in the eternal fires of hell. Is this really the message of Christianity? I don’t think it is. I think Jesus’s words have been misinterpreted. Just because no one gets to the Father except through him, does that mean everyone has to believe in him? What about those who crusified him? Jesus said ‘Forgive them Father they no not what they do.’ Plenty of them would have died without believe Jesus to be the Son of God and yet if you say they are in hell then you are denying Gods forgivness.

Misinterpretations aside, the fact that Jesus existed does not prove Christianity right. He did exist, but the Jesus of the myths and the Jesus of relaity were two different people. For example, Jesus was not likly to have been born in Bethlehem. In the Gospel acording to Luke, a census is mentioned. This census takes place in the time of Emperor Augustus when Quirinius was the govenor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In no other contemporary acounts of the time is there a mention of a census. Not only this but Matthew says Herod is king, (Matthew 2:1). Quirinius was not govenor in Herod’s reign. A census does take place in 6AD, Herod dies in 4AD.

I’m sure not many people here will agree with what I have said. However, I’m trying to make the point that people with a strong Chritian faith depend on the bible and defend it when it appears to be under attack. There is no reason why it is more accurate then the Q’uran (sp?). Muslim people think their faith is the right path, and millions of people throughout history have thought their religion was right and other peoples were wrong. Why is Chritianity better? The majority of Christians just have Christian parents, and likwise with Islam. Religion is almost heriditory.

Another point that has come up in this thread is the danger that religions such as Islam and Wicca pose. What about the danger of Christianity? What about the Crusades when people were burnt to save their imortal souls? Islam has its extremists just like any other religion. The majority of Muslims are peace loving people. One of my muslim friends recently told me he was disgusted by the acts of terror comitted in the name of Islam. He sees Bin Laden as a coward and he says that Sadam Hussien was a disgrace to Islam and did not deserve to call himself a Muslim.

From what I know of Wicca it seems a great religion teaching no harm. The most accepting religion/way of life I’ve seen is Buddism. If religion was more about how you live your life and how you treat others the world would be so much better. The fact its its about what you believe rather then what you do is the source of some of todays conflicts. Humans have a great capacity to believe anything, and if you’ve been indoctrinated since birth so much more so. Unfortunaly humans also have a habit of being so assured they are right that they kill those who dont agree or put down there faiths. For example, why teach that non Christians go to hell? Why is it about condeming rather then helping?

Firstly, we do not teach that all non-Christians are going to hell. Just those who do evil and do no follow the will of Jesus. Secondly, it should be understood that faith is a basic thing in human life. Without it, you would not be able to believe anything without seeing it. Just because we don’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there. Christians are required to believe with faith. I suggest you go to the Bible scholars, much of the historical information in the Bible does not contradict other things.
Thirdly, have you read St. Thomas Aquinas? He was very good at taking the rational teachings of Aristotle and reconciling them to Christian teaching. Maybe he might show you that God exists.
Christianity is different from other religions because we believe that God was so filled with love that he came into time to save the whole world from damnation. His all-loving characteristics are needed in a world today filled with hate and pretense…maybe he is what you are looking for.

 

[gallo]

KarenNC,
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
There are some points you made that make sense, and I appreciate that. I’l have to process and pray on them a while to gain a greater understanding of what you believe.

Peace

 

[KarenNC]

Firstly, we do not teach that all non-Christians are going to hell. Just those who do evil and do no follow the will of Jesus.

This is a new one for me, but I was raised Protestant, so that may not be a great surprise .

Could you tell me what the Catholic church teaches happens to them? What constitutes evil for them? Exactly how much/what parts of the will of Jesus do they have to follow? Is it akin to the Jewish Noahide Laws?

 

[Image_of_God]

This is a new one for me, but I was raised Protestant, so that may not be a great surprise .

Could you tell me what the Catholic church teaches happens to them? What constitutes evil for them? Exactly how much/what parts of the will of Jesus do they have to follow? Is it akin to the Jewish Noahide Laws?

Well, you have to understand that not everyone in their lifetime will hear of Christianity or even Jesus, epescially in the poor Muslim Countries. The Church teaches that there is a such a thing called Natural Law. It is taught clearly in the Bible as the law not written on tablets of stone, but on the flesh of the heart.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if someone sincerely follows this Law, God, since he is infinitely merciful, will make his will know to them. They are baptized by desire, but not necessarily by water. Remember the man on the cross next to Jesus? He was not baptized by water, but he was saved by his desire to except Jesus. Tertullian also taught this.
If Jesus condemned everyone who didn’t get a chance to know him, he would not be just. But since he is just and merciful, we know that he gives everyone an oppurtunity be saved. They salvation is somehow linked to the Church, but I haven’t read about that.

 

[Dale_M]

Could you tell me what the Catholic church teaches happens to them? What constitutes evil for them? Exactly how much/what parts of the will of Jesus do they have to follow? Is it akin to the Jewish Noahide Laws?

I’m not familar with the Noahide Laws, but here is a snippet of Lumen Gentium:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation

 

[Disciple87]

There is only one truth, and one way to it. The news given by the wicca is not good news, it is false news. Christ is the truth. God came down from heaven, He became the Word made flesh in Jesus Christ. He revealed all truth to us and all righteousness. We have been told the things He had done and the things He has said. There are those of us who recognized His voice and know of the truth. There is the Holy Spirit also, given to us by God. The presence of God is a blessing.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Firstly, we do not teach that all non-Christians are going to hell. Just those who do evil and do no follow the will of Jesus. Secondly, it should be understood that faith is a basic thing in human life. Without it, you would not be able to believe anything without seeing it. Just because we don’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there. Christians are required to believe with faith. I suggest you go to the Bible scholars, much of the historical information in the Bible does not contradict other things.
Thirdly, have you read St. Thomas Aquinas? He was very good at taking the rational teachings of Aristotle and reconciling them to Christian teaching. Maybe he might show you that God exists.
Christianity is different from other religions because we believe that God was so filled with love that he came into time to save the whole world from damnation. His all-loving characteristics are needed in a world today filled with hate and pretense…maybe he is what you are looking for.

Not all Christians believe non Christians are going to hell, I was generallising there. Some do however. They believe that you can only go to heaven if you ask for Jesus’s forgiveness. A non christian does not believe in Jesus so can not ask for His forgiveness. Therefore he is not forgiven and goes to hell. ‘Just those who do evil and do no follow the will of Jesus [go to hell].’ Everyone sins in their life. What do you mean by evil. Plenty of non christians do not believe premarital sex is wrong. They don’t think they are comitting a sin. Are they going to hell?

I think the point I was trying to make is that religion is a matter of faith. I just dont see there is much to distinguish between faiths. None can be proved, and many have or have had huge followings. Plenty of religions teach about a loving forgiving God, including Islam. I have difficulty believeing in God but I would love to be able to. I just can’t help seeing religion as a by product of human nature. Plenty of it is good, but so much is not about how you interact with others. I think the words of Jesus are a great place to draw moral inspiration and I don’t think it even matters whether he said them or not. The historical accuracy of the bible is realy unimportant what matters is how you live your life.

I completely agree with you that the world needs love in this time of so much hate. Does it have to come from religion? Can’t it come from with in us?

You say ‘faith is a basic thing in human life. Without it, you would not be able to believe anything without seeing it.’ I completly agree. But why not believe in fairys? You certainly can’t see them. Faith is such a basic thing in human life, but I think it comes from the fact that our evolution has taken us to such a level of intelligence and understanding that we can imagine. We can conceive of things existing that do not exist and it is no great leap that over time we come to believe in these things. Relgion develops to explain the unexplainable. It devlops because we cant accept the thought of oblivion after death. It comes from fear of what we don’t know, and provides us with the comfort of blissful ignorance.

 

[Image_of_God]

Not all Christians believe non Christians are going to hell, I was generallising there. Some do however. They believe that you can only go to heaven if you ask for Jesus’s forgiveness. A non christian does not believe in Jesus so can not ask for His forgiveness. Therefore he is not forgiven and goes to hell. ‘Just those who do evil and do no follow the will of Jesus [go to hell].’ Everyone sins in their life. What do you mean by evil. Plenty of non christians do not believe premarital sex is wrong. They don’t think they are comitting a sin. Are they going to hell?

I think the point I was trying to make is that religion is a matter of faith. I just dont see there is much to distinguish between faiths. None can be proved, and many have or have had huge followings. Plenty of religions teach about a loving forgiving God, including Islam. I have difficulty believeing in God but I would love to be able to. I just can’t help seeing religion as a by product of human nature. Plenty of it is good, but so much is not about how you interact with others. I think the words of Jesus are a great place to draw moral inspiration and I don’t think it even matters whether he said them or not. The historical accuracy of the bible is realy unimportant what matters is how you live your life.

I completely agree with you that the world needs love in this time of so much hate. Does it have to come from religion? Can’t it come from with in us?

You say ‘faith is a basic thing in human life. Without it, you would not be able to believe anything without seeing it.’ I completly agree. But why not believe in fairys? You certainly can’t see them. Faith is such a basic thing in human life, but I think it comes from the fact that our evolution has taken us to such a level of intelligence and understanding that we can imagine. We can conceive of things existing that do not exist and it is no great leap that over time we come to believe in these things. Relgion develops to explain the unexplainable. It devlops because we cant accept the thought of oblivion after death. It comes from fear of what we don’t know, and provides us with the comfort of blissful ignorance.

How do you know none can be proved. Have you read St. Thomas Aquinas? St. Anselm of Canterbury? We believe on things also based on its origin. Fairies, was from the vary beginning of there being thought about, was known to be fake. Most scholars believe that most of the things in the Bible are historical fact. The ancient cities of Jericho and Ur were discovered, and these places are mentioned in the Bible and would have never been found unless it was in the Bible, pretty much.
Christianity did not come from fear. I doubt that people would say that Jesus was not a historical person. The reason you can’t see religion as a reality is because you see it through the eyes of our humanistic and secular culture. Religion realizes that there isn’t just secular things. After all, the big bang theory proves religion more that atheism.
Why are we here?
Where did the world come from?
Since we can’t answer these questions, it seems that people can never see some fullness of life. You can’t have fullness of life without a constant discovery about oneself.
You are right, that love is needed in our world. But, I don’t think it is going to come from secularist thought. It hardly has. In fact, if you look at it, most of the love in the world has come from religious persons inspired by love.

 

[Mirdath]

How do you know none can be proved.

The word ‘faith’ means ‘belief without reason or logic’. That’d be why.

Have you read St. Thomas Aquinas? St. Anselm of Canterbury?

I have read both (and others), and found their arguments – not proofs – for the existence of a deity interesting but flawed and unconvincing at best. Additionally, while most such arguments arrive at the conclusion that God exists, that God has no attributes defined other than existence, omnipotence, and omniscience. The God of various theological arguments could be good, bad, loving, malicious, orderly, capricious, or even just plain not interested in humanity – most of those are not attributes held to belong to the God of Abraham.

Fairies, was from the vary beginning of there being thought about, was known to be fake.

That statement’s wrong, plain and simple. Here’s an incomplete list of fairies which have been seriously believed in (and in some cases, still are), along with the people who did:

• Nymphs (dryads, naiads, nereids, etc.) - Greece
• Tuatha De Danann, Fomori - Ireland
• Genius loci (not sure of plural… my Latin’s rusty) - Rome
• Oni, kappa, tengu, kitsune - Japan
• Nix - Germany
• Undine, Sylph, Gnome, Salamander - medieval Europe, particularly by alchemists (they represent the four elements)
• Huldra - Norway
• Vila, Rusalka, Vodyanoy - Slavic states

The fairy tales of Grimm, Lang, and Rackham are no more than retold myths that have become so separated from actual history that they seem entirely fabulous. Fiction they might be now, but there was a time when people actually believed the stories they were drawn down from.

Most scholars believe that most of the things in the Bible are historical fact. The ancient cities of Jericho and Ur were discovered, and these places are mentioned in the Bible and would have never been found unless it was in the Bible, pretty much.

‘Most’ in either place is stretching it. The bible’s a valuable historical document, there’s no arguing that – it just isn’t unbiased, and it does contain mistakes. The city of Ai (among the first cities of Caanan to fall) was found to be located in quite a different place than is related in the bible. And I believe there’s yet to be an actual discovery of a large boat on the peak of Mount Ararat.

The reason you can’t see religion as a reality is because you see it through the eyes of our humanistic and secular culture.

I’m not Jake, but the reason I can’t see religion as a reality is that the things it teaches are supernatural and have no grounding in what I recognize as ‘reality’ – what I can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and what I can logically deduce from those sensory (name removed by moderator)uts – at all. Humanism has nothing to do with it, although I am, I suppose, a humanist; ‘secularism’ similarly is irrelevant here, although I practice no religion.

Religion realizes that there isn’t just secular things. After all, the big bang theory proves religion more that atheism.

Hey, just because you can agree with it doesn’t mean you get to take credit for it! I don’t see it proving anything either way.

You are right, that love is needed in our world. But, I don’t think it is going to come from secularist thought. It hardly has. In fact, if you look at it, most of the love in the world has come from religious persons inspired by love.

Love will not come from ‘religionist’ (whatever the opposite of ‘secularist’ is) thought either. It will come from people’s hearts, and the practice or denial of religion is not going to change their natural capacity for love.

If you’re going to try to trump yourself up on ‘amount loved’ (a ridiculous quantification if I ever saw one – how do you measure that? grams? liters? meters? acres?), keep in mind that non-theists are a tiny minority next to religious, and have always been so. There is no comparing the two groups – I doubt there would be any kind of valid comparison even had they been the same size all throughout history.

 

[Image_of_God]

The word ‘faith’ means ‘belief without reason or logic’. That’d be why.

I have read both (and others), and found their arguments – not proofs – for the existence of a deity interesting but flawed and unconvincing at best. Additionally, while most such arguments arrive at the conclusion that God exists, that God has no attributes defined other than existence, omnipotence, and omniscience. The God of various theological arguments could be good, bad, loving, malicious, orderly, capricious, or even just plain not interested in humanity – most of those are not attributes held to belong to the God of Abraham.

That statement’s wrong, plain and simple. Here’s an incomplete list of fairies which have been seriously believed in (and in some cases, still are), along with the people who did:

• Nymphs (dryads, naiads, nereids, etc.) - Greece
• Tuatha De Danann, Fomori - Ireland
• Genius loci (not sure of plural… my Latin’s rusty) - Rome
• Oni, kappa, tengu, kitsune - Japan
• Nix - Germany
• Undine, Sylph, Gnome, Salamander - medieval Europe, particularly by alchemists (they represent the four elements)
• Huldra - Norway
• Vila, Rusalka, Vodyanoy - Slavic states

The fairy tales of Grimm, Lang, and Rackham are no more than retold myths that have become so separated from actual history that they seem entirely fabulous. Fiction they might be now, but there was a time when people actually believed the stories they were drawn down from.

‘Most’ in either place is stretching it. The bible’s a valuable historical document, there’s no arguing that – it just isn’t unbiased, and it does contain mistakes. The city of Ai (among the first cities of Caanan to fall) was found to be located in quite a different place than is related in the bible. And I believe there’s yet to be an actual discovery of a large boat on the peak of Mount Ararat.

I’m not Jake, but the reason I can’t see religion as a reality is that the things it teaches are supernatural and have no grounding in what I recognize as ‘reality’ – what I can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and what I can logically deduce from those sensory (name removed by moderator)uts – at all. Humanism has nothing to do with it, although I am, I suppose, a humanist; ‘secularism’ similarly is irrelevant here, although I practice no religion.

Hey, just because you can agree with it doesn’t mean you get to take credit for it! I don’t see it proving anything either way.

Love will not come from ‘religionist’ (whatever the opposite of ‘secularist’ is) thought either. It will come from people’s hearts, and the practice or denial of religion is not going to change their natural capacity for love.

If you’re going to try to trump yourself up on ‘amount loved’ (a ridiculous quantification if I ever saw one – how do you measure that? grams? liters? meters? acres?), keep in mind that non-theists are a tiny minority next to religious, and have always been so. There is no comparing the two groups – I doubt there would be any kind of valid comparison even had they been the same size all throughout history.

Wow! I stand corrected, in most places. What I ask is to see Christianity through the eyes of a devout Christian instead of through a materialistic view.
And yes, secularism and materialism and humanism has a lot to do with the refrain from religion. Most people in ancient times were not atheistical, even though they believed in pagan gods. I have yet to see a secularism with as much sincere love as Mohatmas Ghandi or Mother Teresa. If there are, where are they? You could argue that they are not given much attention, but I would argue that everything is on the news these day.
What you call a “Ridiculous quantification” (which is an insult to the very center of Christianity) is very important to us. When the sinful woman weeps at the feet of Jesus for forgiveness, he said that she “loved much.” The measuring in love is not a “ridiculous quantification.” How much love you have in the heart is what God judges you by. It is even silly to compare the measurement of love to the measurement of liquids. Humanism and secularism have alot to do with how we see religion.