1
   

When Christians Lose the Faith

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 10:10 am
Sanctuary Wrote:

Quote:
Well Momma Angel, while I do disagree with your views on why animals are on this Earth, I can still respect your beliefs and opinions because you gave me room to do so. I do not have a problem with people believing what they wish to - it's when they start making me less of a person because of it.

I am always happy to meet people like yourself who are stable in whatever faith they follow, yet don't need to press it on others. I've always known that there are some out there like that, it's just nice to meet them occasionally.


I appreciate the respect, Sanctuary, just as you have mine for what you believe. Now, don't get me wrong about the animals. I don't mean for fur coats! I don't care for that whatsoever. I mean for food and their skins then used for clothes. I am a big advocate for cats here in my community. You just let me catch someone putting a cat or kitten out at one of these dumpsters! My husband will have to get me out of jail I would suppose!

I am happy to meet you too, and I hate the fact anyone has tried to make you feel less of a person for any reason. And it would have to be especially hard since it is your family that has been doing that. I'm sorry that has happened.

Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:
Sanctuary- I think that it takes a lot of courage, to be true to yourself, especially when you are young, and your beliefs are counter to those of your family. I applaud you for taking a stand about what you believe!


Good morning Phoenix! I agree with you! Laughing It takes great courage to be true to oneself and persevere no matter what. Standing up for oneself, or one's beliefs is often a difficult thing to do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 11:32 am
Sanctuary, I'm proud of you for being true to yourself. When it comes to religion, most people follow their parent and family's relgion. I call it "an accident of birth." If religion is an accident of birth, the bigger question is "why does the christian religion become the only true religion?" It has nothing to do with "life after death" issues.

In the bigger scheme of things, our christian president started a preemptive attack on Iraq that have now claimed (by best estimates) 100,000 Iraqi lives. If he's a man of christ, there's something awfully wrong with this picture, but christians seem blind to this simple fact.

That you have love for animals speaks volumes about your primary love and ethics. I have a very simple philosophy of life; treat all livings things with respect and dignity. Nothing more is needed.
Man created gods and church dogma can't improve on it.

Pat Robertson recently said that we should kill the leader of Venezuela. He's a christian? Get the picture? He still has a huge christian following. Religion only muddles people's brains.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 11:52 am
"Losing one's faith" seems to imply an adoption of atheism or agnosticism, which often occurs, but that is not the only alternative for people who are reared in fundamental or literal beliefs and drop these beliefs as they get older and educated. Fundamentalists and literalists are closely related to atheists and agnostics because they all take a literal veiw of religion, that is, they think of religion as representing an objective reality. Atheists and agnostics are ripe targets for evangelists because being polar opposites they think very similarily even though the contents of their thoughts differ.

The true enemy of both literalists and atheists are the radically spiritual people or mystics. Radical in this sense does not mean extreme, as in the political spectrum, it means root, going inside to the inner root meaning and motivation.

Studying disparate worldwide myths, direct experience through meditation, or even using certain hallucinogenic drugs are some of the ways many people in the world educate themselves and evolve spiritually.

Mystics are very threatening to literalists and atheists because these two latter groups base their cosmology on thought, and thought is unable to examine itself. Mystics are not people with arcane practices in deep chambers keeping secrets within a secret organization away from the ordinary public; this is an image propagated by literalists as a defense mechanism. Mystics are everyday ordinary people who have found peace of mind outside and underneath the thought-based religious concepts.

All I'm saying is that there is an alternative to literalism and atheism, and that is questioning what we've been told to accept and experiencing first hand what literalists and atheists consider taboo: the nature of self or what we are. "Losing one's faith" is a chance for true spiritual growth and understanding.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 12:01 pm
coluber2001 wrote:
"Losing one's faith" seems to imply an adoption of atheism or agnosticism, which often occurs, but that is not the only alternative for people who are reared in fundamental or literal beliefs and drop these beliefs as they get older and educated. Fundamentalists and literalists are closely related to atheists and agnostics because they all take a literal veiw of religion, that is, they think of religion as representing an objective reality. Atheists and agnostics are ripe targets for evangelists because being polar opposites they think very similarily even though the contents of their thoughts differ.

The true enemy of both literalists and atheists are the radically spiritual people or mystics. Radical in this sense does not mean extreme, as in the political spectrum, it means root, going inside to the inner root meaning and motivation.

Studying disparate worldwide myths, direct experience through meditation, or even using certain hallucinogenic drugs are some of the ways many people in the world educate themselves and evolve spiritually.

Mystics are very threatening to literalists and atheists because these two latter groups base their cosmology on thought, and thought is unable to examine itself. Mystics are not people with arcane practices in deep chambers keeping secrets within a secret organization away from the ordinary public; this is an image propagated by literalists as a defense mechanism. Mystics are everyday ordinary people who have found peace of mind outside and underneath the thought-based religious concepts.

All I'm saying is that there is an alternative to literalism and atheism, and that is questioning what we've been told to accept and experiencing first hand what literalists and atheists consider taboo: the nature of self or what we are. "Losing one's faith" is a chance for true spiritual growth and understanding.


Sounded good...and made a reasonable amount of sense...

...but only after I mentally deleted "agnostic" from the introductory paragraphs.

It makes no more sense to pair agnosticism with atheism...than it makes to pair it with theism. And in many respects....atheism...when it expresses a "belief" that there are no gods...is more reasonably paired with theism. Both are expressing "beliefs." (I want to acknowledge that many atheists no longer assert that there are no gods...but structure their atheism along the lines of "I do not believe in any of the gods currently offered.")
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 12:24 pm
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:
Sanctuary, I'm proud of you for being true to yourself. When it comes to religion, most people follow their parent and family's relgion. I call it "an accident of birth." If religion is an accident of birth, the bigger question is "why does the christian religion become the only true religion?" It has nothing to do with "life after death" issues.

In the bigger scheme of things, our christian president started a preemptive attack on Iraq that have now claimed (by best estimates) 100,000 Iraqi lives. If he's a man of christ, there's something awfully wrong with this picture, but christians seem blind to this simple fact.

That you have love for animals speaks volumes about your primary love and ethics. I have a very simple philosophy of life; treat all livings things with respect and dignity. Nothing more is needed.
Man created gods and church dogma can't improve on it.

Pat Robertson recently said that we should kill the leader of Venezuela. He's a christian? Get the picture? He still has a huge christian following. Religion only muddles people's brains.


C.I., well, I don't know why you think Christianity has nothing to do with life or death because it does, at least for me. How I live is based on my faith. What happens when I die is based on my faith.

And I am not blind to what is going on in this country. I have my own views and opinions also. But, this is our president, we voted him into office. We must rally as a nation and not be divided. Just how many soldiers do you think are over there that don't want to be? I'd say probably all of them. How many don't agree they should be there? I'd say a good amount. That's not the point. The point is they are doing for God and their country, as they say in their oath. The point is they are willing to stand for our nation and not speak against it. They are promoting a united front and not a divided one. I hate the war. I hate any war, but war is part of life, always has been and always will be because of man's ability to choose what he believes in and what he doesn't and his defense of that.

And just because Pat Robertson said what he said does not make it right! Anyone with any sense should know that what he said was not right. And, if you are going to repeatedly bring that up, then you also need to bring up the fact that he did apologize for it and said he "stated it incorrectly" or something to that effect? There is more than one side to everything.

The only muddling that goes on in religion is the muddling done by those that are not practicing the true teachings. The ones that use Christianity for their own power, profit, etc., are the ones doing the muddling. I think this should be made very clear, as you continually seem to lump all Christians into one category and I, for one, do not follow the Christianity you describe.
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 01:03 pm
Pheonix, MA, and Cicerone,

I appreciate the kudos and support. It sometimes feels as if I am pulling the weight of a couple tons behind my back, when dealing with my family. It's never-ending. And what a shame, too, because I think everyone should be able to turn to their family without expectations or standards to meet beforehand. Unfortunately this isn't the case with my family. Our clash in views has led to a very untrustworthy, distant relationship and I've come to never rely on them for support in the majority of things in my life.

It's good to have people stand beside you, thanks.
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 01:04 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:

Sounded good...and made a reasonable amount of sense...

...but only after I mentally deleted "agnostic" from the introductory paragraphs.


I thought the exact thing, Frank.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 02:30 pm
What Bush supporters fail to understand is the difference between 1) being against this war, and 2) support for our troops. Two separate issues, but they can't separate the two in their brains. Christians seem to equate 1) god, and 2) a good person. Another misconception.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 02:53 pm
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:
What Bush supporters fail to understand is the difference between 1) being against this war, and 2) support for our troops. Two separate issues, but they can't separate the two in their brains. Christians seem to equate 1) god, and 2) a good person. Another misconception.


I for one, as a Bush supporter DO KNOW EXACTLY the difference. I am against the war but I support our troops. I run the Care Angels Network. That's what WE DO ~ SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

And SOME CHRISTIANS, JUST SOME, NOT ALL!

(Capitals used for emphasis)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 03:10 pm
Momma, What you say is true, but the impression left by most Bush supporters doesn't exactly make that clear. When the right complain about Ms Sheehan, they most often say "her demonstration is not good for our troops" or something to that effect. Show us where we are wrong. Bush have said she has a right to demonstrate, but that's about the only support voiced from the right.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 03:18 pm
Cicerone Imposter:

Quote:
Momma, What you say is true, but the impression left by most Bush supporters doesn't exactly make that clear. When the right complain about Ms Sheehan, they most often say "her demonstration is not good for our troops" or something to that effect. Show us where we are wrong. Bush have said she has a right to demonstrate, but that's about the only support voiced from the right.


Actually, this is not the thread for this topic. If you want to start another one, I will be happy to address this there.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 03:20 pm
Even some soldiers on active duty are against Ms Sheehan's demonstration, in effect saying her demonstration is hurting their efforts in Iraq.

These soldiers may voice their displeasure, but they are wrong on two fronts. 1. To demonstrate peaceably in our country is every citizen's right. 2. She or anybody else demonstrating to bring our soldiers back home is not hurting the effort in Iraq. What is hurting the effort is this administration's incompetence for the following reasons: a) not understanding the security requirements after major combat operations was over by not having enough troops on the ground, b) not understanding the history of Iraq and its people, c) not securing the munitions left over by Saddam, d) not securing the borders to Iraq, and e) the lack of proper equipment by our soldeirs to fight this war. If the soldiers aren't fighting to maintain our freedoms at home, they don't understand what our country is all about. They should be complaining to this government for fxxkxxg up this war from the very beginning. There are no WMDs.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:32 pm
c.i. Well said.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:36 pm
To add salt to the wound of our soldiers, this administration has cut benefits for our veterans. They should be complaining about that too!
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2005 09:37 pm
Am I in the wrong thread???
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 01:15 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

In the bigger scheme of things, our christian president started a preemptive attack on Iraq that have now claimed (by best estimates) 100,000 Iraqi lives. If he's a man of christ, there's something awfully wrong with this picture, but christians seem blind to this simple fact.



Even groups like http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ are giving estimates 1/10 of yours. Maybe it's your tendency to exaggerate that has folks not listening to you.

What you consider 'simple facts' may not be so simple, or may not even be facts.

You must be watching too much CNN.
0 Replies
 
torro
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 12:31 am
With respect to observing the foundation for what is held to be the Christian faith and atheism, it has to be concluded that with accordance to there being a God people have a choice which they themselves make, thus a Thinker behind the thought, while in the atheist case we are living objects thus there not really being a "me" in the whole deal. Since everyone clearly feels a "me" atheists propose that feelings are objectionable due to the very nature of people and animals. However certain events cause a person to make a choice that they otherwise wouldn't have and the Christian faith defends that by stating that it is nevertheless a choice made by the person under the circumstances. Thus a person wouldn't choose to fly over a cliff instead of walking back since she/he has no wings. There are many things in Christianity which are objected by evolutionists such as the fact that babies which are acclaimed by Christianity to enter heaven unconditionally never really choose God. This is defended by that God made the earth for all wicked to condemn themselves by deciding not to choose God, not the other way around, thus the death of a baby would mean the less glorification of God. On the other hand, Christians have some 10-16 points in argument against atheism's "bible" evolution, most of them concerning the lack of fossil evidence for the transmutation between species, the argument against embryology, and some minor details concerning the surroundings such as living mollusks being classified as have died 3000 years ago by Carbon-14 dating, the sun's shrinkange of a foot per hour, the improbability of chemical evolution and such. In the end it comes down to a choice believing in God or not for reasons as whatever you should have them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2022 at 03:08:32