"Non-denominational Christian" ?

[grandfather]

And even in the Catholic Church there are questions left unanswered (the status of particular personal revelations, for example, or whether evolution is true.)

This is true. There are things that are beyond finite human understanding, to great for our minds to hold. That does not mean we are confused about the knowledge we do know and are capable of knowing. Jesus said to His apostles as a preface to a promise. "There are things I want to tell you, but you can not bear them YET. I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth and be with you until the end of time. If this promise is true then there is a Church that has ALL of its doctrines in line with truth, always, here on earth, in time until the end of time. Believe it or not.

So it seems obvious to such a person that on Earth, no Church has ALL truth, and no church it totally free of error.

If you are working with a false premise things that are not true can seem obvious, but remain untrue.

So they understand the promise to be saying that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church Militant from falling into error on essentials.

Their understanding is wrong. Jesus did not say He would lead His Church into truth on essential matters, did He? He said He would lead her into ALL truth. Again, what is essential? Are matters regarding salvation essential? Do all Christians supposedly united in faith in Christ in agree on this, proving they are led by the Holy Spirit? Protestants disagree with Protestants. Some Protestants agree with Catholics on this matter. All you have is a doctrinal mess, mass confusion. Anyone who would call that unity in faith is simply delusional, denying reality.

I think most would say, for example, a belief in salvation through Jesus Christ is essential; a theory about just how that works is not essential. A theory is just our attempt at an explanation of how it works, and to think it is essential to our salvation is incorrect. A lot would say the essentials are belief and acceptance of Christ and our salvation in and through him; belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God which contains everything required for salvation; and belief in the Trinity.

Scripture clearly says love of God is essential to salvation. It also clearly says love of God consists in obeying His commands. Jesus tells His apostles to go into all the world and preach the good news of repentance of sins for salvation. Wouldn’t you say repentence is essential? Yet Luther denied it and so do Protestants today who say they are saved no matter what. Then to say there is some etherial unity among all believers, because they believe the essentials is more self delusion.

QUOTE]Well, since non-denominationals are congregationalists, this argument is likely to fall flat with them - they think the Church is meant to be instantiated in many local congregations.

Yes. Right. That is what they think. They are wrong. Where in scripture does it give this model for how the Church is insitituted. Surely there are local branches or congregations. They are all connected through the universal institutional Church founded by Christ on His apostles, who established an episcopacy, prespyteriate and deaconate, ordained ministers. Does Saint Paul write to local churches and encourage them to make it on their own, cook up unique doctrines, or should they listen to him?

Although they would agree with you that denominations are a bad thing, they would also think the claims of the Catholic Church and its political structure is also wrong. They would support a movement from what they would see as false claims of unity to a model where every congregation is self-governing, and they would probably see the move away from the Catholic model to denominations as an attempt to move in that direction.

And they can not see the mess that is made of it, total societal chaos and the collapse of Christian civilization.

No, I think relativism was around long before Protestantism (man is the measure of all things),

All evil in all its forms has always been around to one degree or another. Sometimes it lurks waiting for the right conditions to make its move.

 

[CopticChristian]

But doesn’t medical science say that life begins at conception? Sperm + ova = life.

True. Science and Law do not necessarily coincide. I am looking for the Supreme Court ruling that states this and when I find it I will post it. It blew my mind to read Supreme Court Lawyers stating this.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ll ask my ex-husband what “non-denominational” means to him. He was raised devout, strict Seventh-day Adventist and now goes to a “Fort God” non-denom church. It’s my understand he simply likes to “melt into the crowd” and likes their “celebration-style” worship (read: LOUD!).

I understand the Catholic belief that there is supposed to be one true church. But, I wonder genuinely if that is 100% correct. I know people who cannot stand liturgical worship. They are bored, don’t understand it. But… they are devout, faithful people. Me, if the only option was a loud, celebration church… I doubt I would be reading a Bible or trying to have anything to do with Christianity. I found an Episcopalian church years ago and was like, “Wow! I am in a church and I’m not freaking out!!!”

A old friend of mine, who literally owned the “I’ve Had an Abortion” tee shirt that’s popular now, hated, hated church. She was raised conservative Lutheran. When she was in this town she went to a friend’s church where the pastor wears jeans and centres his sermons around pop culture in order to be more accessible to his congregation. She now considers herself a Christian, does service projects, and reads the Bible/prays daily.

I’ll ask my ex-husband what “non-denominational” means to him. He was raised devout, strict Seventh-day Adventist and now goes to a “Fort God” non-denom church.

Trace the history of 7th Day Adventist backwards as to origin. Ask your husband for a statement of Faith from the non-denom Church he goes to or put the name of the Church up to see if they have one posted.

I understand the Catholic belief that there is supposed to be one true church. But, I wonder genuinely if that is 100% correct. I know people who cannot stand liturgical worship. They are bored, don’t understand it. But… they are devout, faithful people.

You understand correctly. This is Catholic Answers and many will support that supposition as 100% correct. There is one Jesus Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ and worship/liturgy is not meant to attract people in the vain that it is changed to please the people. Does God change? We come to God as he calls all of us. We may not at first like what we are called to, boredom comes from lack of participation, that comes from lack of understanding, that comes with catechesis for the devout and faithful.

She now considers herself a Christian, does service projects, and reads the Bible/prays daily.

She has responded to the call of God. This call employs a journey that she has embarked on. The journey continues.

 

[ScareBear]

Coptic Christian,

Thanks for the reply. What you said made sense.

I’m going to ask the ex this weekend about his church’s mission statement. I did do some digging and they are, and very quiet about this, affiliated with the “700 Club” folks. I’ll reserve my opinions about that!

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian,

Thanks for the reply. What you said made sense.

I’m going to ask the ex this weekend about his church’s mission statement. I did do some digging and they are, and very quiet about this, affiliated with the “700 Club” folks. I’ll reserve my opinions about that!

I took the time to read your blog. You are busy. You are involved in learning. You have lots of things to do, people to confront, and reading this blog personalized who you are. These responses in my opinion tend to be somewhat impersonal. Keep going to your bible study and doing the RCIA. You may wonder why your neighbor is anticatholic, I do.

Concerning the mission statement. Ask for a statement of faith. This is different than a mission statement. If you can get the name of the church and ask if they have a website. I can usually find a statement of faith from that.

 

[TimothyH]

There are some pretty odd ideas in this thread about what it means to be non-denominational, and what it means to be Protestant in general.

Non-denominational really means a belief in a particular way the Church is meant to be structured - it is essentially congregational, with the local Christian church community being the highest level of structure in each place. That’s really all. A lot of people think of it simply as saying "I’m a Christian, and putting another name on top of that is simply following something man-made. It sees people aligning themselves with organized bodies as trying to add something that shouldn’t be there.

I don’t mean to contraduct you. That is not my intent. Growing up in the Northeast USA and then moving to the deep south, I understand how differnt non-Catholic Christianity can be from place to place.

Here in the deep south, many Evangelicals subscribe to the notion that “Non-denominational” means no church hierarcy whatsoever, including the congregational level. I have heard it stated as such many times. The truth is that many of these distance themselves from what is commonly thought of as traditional, mainstream Protestant denominationalistm. Many would as soon be called Catholic as Protestant, having equal disdain for both. For these, the congregation exists as such, but it is only relevant insofar as he is “Being fed” by the congregation, Church structure, or the pastor in particular. For the Evangelical, the Church structure exists to serve him and his personal relationship with Christ. Once the individual Christian feels that his needs releative to Christ are not being met, he is free to move on to another congregation/church/pastor/christian community which better suits his needs as he sees them.

You would be amazed how some people react when I tell them that Christ left an authority on earth for us to know the truth. Some Evangelical non-denominationalists I have met have never even heard of such a concept. The theology is really quite absurd down here sometimes.

-Tim-

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t mean to contraduct you. That is not my intent. Growing up in the Northeast USA and then moving to the deep south, I understand how differnt non-Catholic Christianity can be from place to place.

Here in the deep south, many Evangelicals subscribe to the notion that “Non-denominational” means no church hierarcy whatsoever, including the congregational level. I have heard it stated as such many times. The truth is that many of these distance themselves from what is commonly thought of as traditional, mainstream Protestant denominationalistm. Many would as soon be called Catholic as Protestant, having equal disdain for both. For these, the congregation exists as such, but it is only relevant insofar as he is “Being fed” by the congregation, Church structure, or the pastor in particular. For the Evangelical, the Church structure exists to serve him and his personal relationship with Christ. Once the individual Christian feels that his needs releative to Christ are not being met, he is free to move on to another congregation/church/pastor/christian community which better suits his needs as he sees them.

You would be amazed how some people react when I tell them that Christ left an authority on earth for us to know the truth. Some Evangelical non-denominationalists I have met have never even heard of such a concept. The theology is really quite absurd down here sometimes.

-Tim-

I am sure all this is true, but it isn’t true of all non-denominationals. Not all are fundamentalists. This total individualism does, I agree, seem to be on the rise. The house church movement seems to be part of the same idea.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat;8293690:

What unity? Saint Paul commands that we be of one mind and agree on all things. …

You know, I am really not inclined to respond to your whole post, which is rather combative, to explain a view I don’t even hold.

What I would suggest is that if you want to understand another person or group’s POV, you really need to try to look at it as a whole, and imagine that you yourself hold it, and assume they are not actually nincompoops. Demonizing them and trying to make it so they seem totally different than you is only going to give you a twisted view of what they believe.

 

[White_Peony]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

Yes, it is too general and really confusing when tryign to talk religion because you really have to get down to basics. I dont see much value either because there isn’t much of a foundation to it and not much discipline either. But I know 2 amazing Bible Christian guys and I think of one of them as my brother, but hey, they love God so it’s all good.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;8294258:

You know, I am really not inclined to respond to your whole post, which is rather combative, to explain a view I don’t even hold.

What I would suggest is that if you want to understand another person or group’s POV, you really need to try to look at it as a whole, and imagine that you yourself hold it, and assume they are not actually nincompoops. Demonizing them and trying to make it so they seem totally different than you is only going to give you a twisted view of what they believe.

Demonizing! That is quite an accusation.

How one looks at the claims of different religions and the individual people who follow them should be very different. Christ commands us to love one another. It is not a suggestion. He did not command us to love religions, but people. False religions always do harm to people and society. If we love others we hope for their good and for them to avoid harm. To help others avoid the harm false religions will do them, their errors need to be confronted and exposed.

People are not totally different from one another, but religions are. In fact we are all very much the same. We are all sinful and in need of grace and redemption.

But the differences in religions need to be understood and confronted for people to understand the path they follow.

There is no point in imagining one believes illogic and what that would be like. Exposing illogic, holes in a false theology can be helpful to those who believe error. Certainly that is not demonizing anyone. Where did that come from?

 

[grandfather]

I am sure all this is true, but it isn’t true of all non-denominationals. Not all are fundamentalists. This total individualism does, I agree, seem to be on the rise. The house church movement seems to be part of the same idea.

Maybe it is impossible to understand what non-denominational means. It seems to mean different things even to the people who use the term to define themselves. It can be this or that.

 

[Miriam1947]

Blessed John Cardinal Newman:

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

Works for me.
I’m a convert from Protestantism.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

“Non-denominational christian” is a contradiction. Just by using the title they are verifying the disunity that they insist that they are avoiding.

Someone else hit the other issue on the head. What “church” you go to on Sundays & Wednesdays boils down to whether the individual agrees with that pastor’s or that particular church’s positions on doctrines. And doctrines that you’d think would be essential they gloss over. It’s a philosophy based in religious subjectivism and religious relativism.

My major objection is not only is it based in the fallacy that is protestantism, but that it even further waters down the Faith for the illusion of ecumenism.

 

[exnihilo]

Is it immpossible to tell what a given local simply Christian group believes about anything then, other than they are unaffiliated, not part of a greater body?

It is impossible to know what a given local group of Catholics believe. A large number of Catholics are OK with abortion, gay marriage and other things which the Church government officially condemns. I believe one study showed an equal number of Catholics did not believe in Papal Infallibility as did believe in it. The Bible even tells us the Church will have those who are not true to the Faith in the Church. So if the Catholic Church is the true and only Church then this would apply to her as well.

I would however say that a non-denominational church is, regarding faith, nothing more than the faith of the pastor and the congregation both of which are much more likely to change. A non-denominational church does not have any mooring beyond the church.

I think what was said is the origins of relativism come from Protestant thought. The nondenominational phenomenon certainly reflects relativism. They believe whatever their local folks teach, but maybe are not right about it, and decide for themselves what they believe. Protestantism descends into relativism, because it lacks any mechanism to discern truth. The Bible alone doctrine most Protestant’s hold is what makes this descent inevitable as the history of denominationalism reveals.

I would disagree. Many non-denominational churches very much believe in objective truth and morality. Believing in objective truth and morality does not mean you agree on everything with every other person who believes in those. Relativists are people who claim that morality is nothing more than what you believe it is. They cant find the truth because there is no truth. Relativism is far worse, but objectivism can falsely appear to be relativism.

For these, the congregation exists as such, but it is only relevant insofar as he is “Being fed” by the congregation, Church structure, or the pastor in particular. For the Evangelical, the Church structure exists to serve him and his personal relationship with Christ. Once the individual Christian feels that his needs releative to Christ are not being met, he is free to move on to another congregation/church/pastor/christian community which better suits his needs as he sees them.

I believe this is what occurs and for me is a strong reason to believe in a church hierarchy. Part of going to church is learning to love everyone, not just people like you. Many people think a worship service is only good if it feeds them. They have no thought that maybe someone else got something fantastic and much needed out of the service. We are told to be servants not to be served. This thinking can lead to spiritual selfishness.

 

[grandfather]

It is impossible to know what a given local group of Catholics believe. A large number of Catholics are OK with abortion, gay marriage and other things which the Church government officially condemns.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat;8295465:

Demonizing! That is quite an accusation.

How one looks at the claims of different religions and the individual people who follow them should be very different. Christ commands us to love one another. It is not a suggestion. He did not command us to love religions, but people. False religions always do harm to people and society. If we love others we hope for their good and for them to avoid harm. To help others avoid the harm false religions will do them, their errors need to be confronted and exposed.

People are not totally different from one another, but religions are. In fact we are all very much the same. We are all sinful and in need of grace and redemption.

But the differences in religions need to be understood and confronted for people to understand the path they follow.

There is no point in imagining one believes illogic and what that would be like. Exposing illogic, holes in a false theology can be helpful to those who believe error. Certainly that is not demonizing anyone. Where did that come from?

I don’t think you quite understood. If you want to understand any system of thought, you have to approach it, in your mind, with a kind of credulity, and understand it as someone who believes it. THat doesn’t mean that you need to believe it, it means you need to use your imagination.

Worldviews can’t normally be understood from the outside, they are internally consistent (or they hope to be!) and operate, always, on particular assumptions. Approaching them from outside you can’t easily see how they are consistent, how one thing follows from another, and what the assumptions are. That is, without doing it that way, there is a good chance any judgments you make will get the wrong end of the stick.

I am sure in explaining Catholicism to people you have seen how they only really “get” it if they enter it in that kind of spirit.

 

[CopticChristian]

grandfather;8295632:

I don’t think you quite understood. If you want to understand any system of thought, you have to approach it, in your mind, with a kind of credulity, and understand it as someone who believes it. THat doesn’t mean that you need to believe it, it means you need to use your imagination.

Worldviews can’t normally be understood from the outside, they are internally consistent (or they hope to be!) and operate, always, on particular assumptions. Approaching them from outside you can’t easily see how they are consistent, how one thing follows from another, and what the assumptions are. That is, without doing it that way, there is a good chance any judgments you make will get the wrong end of the stick.

I am sure in explaining Catholicism to people you have seen how they only really “get” it if they enter it in that kind of spirit.

If you want to understand any system of thought, you have to approach it, in your mind, with a kind of credulity, and understand it as someone who believes it.

I am a student of thought and I routinely evaluate thought. In NLP and General Semantics thought would be the Map or the Meta state. In order to understand it you have to ask questions. That is what I do. For instance. I do not have to believe in Mormon thought to try to understand it.

What I do and I believe what others do is compare and contrast what that other form of thought is as compared to mine. I accept or reject as I go along. I believe Jesus had a body but not the Father or Holy Spirit. Mormons teach God Father and Son have bodies and of course their theology is different. I do not have to enter into believing what they believe.

Protestant thought is no different. I compare and contrast and accept or reject without entering into believing.

 

[exnihilo]

This is also true, but if you asked the pastor and his flock what they believe they would tell you they “believe what the Bible teaches”. When I ask them why the different local churches believe different things they say the other churches “don’t follow the Bible”. You are right that it is the faith of the pastor. It is what the local pastor takes from his reading of the Bible.

I was at a pro-life gathering once having a conversation with two Protestant women. They were very nice Christian wives and mothers. One made the comment that there is no such thing as angels. The other asked why she thought that. The first answered that her pastor said this. Why does you pastor think there is no such thing as angels? Because the Bible does not say there are angels. The conversation ended there.

No doubt the wide array of belief in non-denominational churches or even within denominations shows that either the Bible is not so easy to interpret, there are lots of people incapable of interpreting it properly and God does not provide infallibility to everyone (funny many assume they and they alone are infallible), or that the churches are full of people who do not sincerely seek the truth.

I agree the idea that there is nothing real outside the Bible is rather silly. The Bible does not say there are automobiles and yet there are. Many people have a very poorly reasoned foundation of belief.

Yes. You are right, but that is not the point. All of my Protestant friends insist relativism is crazy. They all universally affirm there is an objective truth. Reality is what it is. The issue is not whether there is an objective truth about reality, physical and spiritual, but what this truth is.
Is it knowable? If it is how do we know it, or come to learn it

Logic says if you believe the objective truth about heaven and hell, God and man, sin and redemption, etc., is X and I believe it is Y, and those other people believe A,B and C, we can not all have the truth even though we agree it exists. We can all insist we are right, or not be so sure, but make our best guess using the information we have available. Nevertrheless, logic says either one of us or none of us are right if we disagree.

I am sympathetic to your argument and largely agree. I believe in the ultimate Truth. I believe most especially that ‘if you continue in my word you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’. But we are not omniscient so our truth is always lacking. It is always a shadow of the full reality. Arguing too hard that we all must agree for something to be objective truth helps strengthen doubters who point to disagreement as proof that there is in fact not objective truth. I think those doubters are wrong of course.

I can say I specifically struggle with this. I want to know the truth and be certain of it. But my mind is always working looking for weaknesses. My mind is never satisfied unless I understand the why of something which can end up being a never ending line of thinking. This is in part sinful since I am not God and do not have complete knowledge. But I am not alone. The most important issue might be how to persuade folks with such a problem.

We are a house divided and suffer serious consequences, because we are divided. It is important to agree and if we love one another we will come to agreement.

We can definitely agree on this. I agree that greater love will bring us together. America is a pretty selfish place so a great mass reunion seems to me unlikely now. But I’m eternally optimistic.

 

[CopticChristian]

No doubt the wide array of belief in non-denominational churches or even within denominations shows that either the Bible is not so easy to interpret, there are lots of people incapable of interpreting it properly and God does not provide infallibility to everyone (funny many assume they and they alone are infallible), or that the churches are full of people who do not sincerely seek the truth.

I agree the idea that there is nothing real outside the Bible is rather silly. The Bible does not say there are automobiles and yet there are. Many people have a very poorly reasoned foundation of belief.

I am sympathetic to your argument and largely agree. I believe in the ultimate Truth. I believe most especially that ‘if you continue in my word you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’. But we are not omniscient so our truth is always lacking. It is always a shadow of the full reality. Arguing too hard that we all must agree for something to be objective truth helps strengthen doubters who point to disagreement as proof that there is in fact not objective truth. I think those doubters are wrong of course.

I can say I specifically struggle with this. I want to know the truth and be certain of it. But my mind is always working looking for weaknesses. My mind is never satisfied unless I understand the why of something which can end up being a never ending line of thinking. This is in part sinful since I am not God and do not have complete knowledge. But I am not alone. The most important issue might be how to persuade folks with such a problem.

We can definitely agree on this. I agree that greater love will bring us together. America is a pretty selfish place so a great mass reunion seems to me unlikely now. But I’m eternally optimistic.

No doubt the wide array of belief in non-denominational churches or even within denominations shows that either the Bible is not so easy to interpret, there are lots of people incapable of interpreting it properly and God does not provide infallibility to everyone (funny many assume they and they alone are infallible), or that the churches are full of people who do not sincerely seek the truth.

You should know that as a Protestant the best you can hope for is a fallible interpretation of what is stated to be an infallble source without error, if you have original scripture. There is no guarantee that the translations are infallible or without error. Protestant thought in declaring no authority but the bible declared no infallible authority as we are all fallible men looking for answers.

I do not think you will find anyone in Protestant thought declaring themselves or anyone to be infallible.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;8295632:

I don’t think you quite understood. If you want to understand any system of thought, you have to approach it, in your mind, with a kind of credulity, and understand it as someone who believes it. THat doesn’t mean that you need to believe it, it means you need to use your imagination.

I disagree with you. Truth exists and is knowable. Systems of thought, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, need to be examined through the lens of known truth.

For example, Marxist ideology said that man should serve the civil atheist state. This is false. I do not need to imagine what it is like to be a Marxist to see that this ideology is false and will lead to misery. I can read what Luther said and understand his arguments or positions without being a Lutheran, real or imaginary.

Worldviews can’t normally be understood from the outside, they are internally consistent (or they hope to be!) and operate, always, on particular assumptions. Approaching them from outside you can’t easily see how they are consistent, how one thing follows from another, and what the assumptions are. That is, without doing it that way, there is a good chance any judgments you make will get the wrong end of the stick.

Why would you assume any worldview is internally consistent? In fact you can examine them and if you happen to find one that is follow it. A way to tell if any system is true, internally consistent, is to see if its adherents change their story. When a theology has holes in it, gaps that create contradictions or incosistencies they need to be fixed. Mormonism for example supposedly has different iterations of the Book of Mormon. Their prophet changes the tenets of their faith. The reason there are so many denominations of Protestantism is the theology reuires constant tweaking. There is never setltled matter, even the Trinity. The Christological heresies were settled by the early Church. The dogmatic definitions we have came about after wrestling with difficult things to understand and some mystery, things that are beyond human understanding. Jesus is one person with two natures. He is God-man, divinity united with humanity forever, ascended in the flesh. I think all mainline Protestant churches accept this, but if anyone wants t,o reject it, and various, Mormon, Muslim, Communist, Lutheran, Hindu, to be able to understand what they claim, or to be able to reject it. I have enough trouble just being Catholic.

But using your method of putting yourself in someone else’s mind, try following this thought and see where it goes. It is “non-denominational”. (hahahahaha, I make myself laugh)

We can and must approach people and ideologies in a fundamentally different way. Rejecting a religion or ideology as flawed is not the same thing as rejecting a person who adheres to it. If you did not reject Islam, Mormonism, or Hinduism you would be a Muslim or whatever. You can hold antipathy towards any religion you believe is false, because all false religions hurt people. That is not the same as having emnity for your next door neighbor who happens to be Mormon. In fact you can reject his religion and truly love him.

I reject Anglicanism. If I didn’t I would belong to King Henry’s church. It is a branch that cut itself off from the vine and is withering in confusion trying to hold itself together. I do not reject Anglicans. God bless every one of them.

Our problem is we are programmed to try to come to agreement about reality. When we debate religion we are trying to come to agreement and when we do not we reject one another’s religion and easily take offense, because religion is important to us. My religion is part of my identity. I am not offended that you reject it and do not believe the pope has authority to govern the Church. When someone says Catholicism is false I believe they are sincere and will the good of Catholics who happen to believe a false religion, but should leave it.

I believe Christianity will be united again, and Catholic. Denominationalism is an evil and it will be replaced by Christian unity, a house undivided. The means by which this will occur is the grace of God and Christians loving one another.

I am sure in explaining Catholicism to people you have seen how they only really “get” it if they enter it in that kind of spirit.

And that would make them Catholic. If they get it, they become it. Maybe you are right. I could only understand Islam by putting on Islam. But I do not want to be that. I have no interest. I think I can understand what they believe. A devout muslim friend explained it all to me. Maybe I don’t, but I have no desire to know what it feels like to be a Muslim.