From my viewpoint, we're already off on the wrong foot.
You ask "Why not?" Isn't that jumping the gun a little bit? Why not the Easter Bunny? Why not Zeus? Why not Islam?
Personally, when I finally broke free from the mental confines of TWI I started in reevaluating all my beliefs. Why should I be a Christian? The more I thought about it, and the more I actually studied, the less and less I found to support the belief.
It eventually dawned on me that Christianity, though, historically, it had the good fortune to find favor with the countries with the biggest armies, had little more to recommend it than did any garden-variety superstition. There simply is no verifiable proof for most any of it's claims.
Why not? Several reasons, all of which are personal and not intended to be confrontational..."believe what you want" as another poster wrote recently.
Category One: The Bible
Christianity is based on the supposedly divinely-inspired bible. I find that the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions. I cannot use such a book as my standard of what to believe about God.
Category Two:Personal Experience
I have had no experiences that I could unequivocally ascribe to the god of the bible.
Category Three: The Doctrine Itself
I've come to believe that I'm not a "child of wrath", and not in need of saving. Not to say I'm perfect, just that I'm not fallen or in possession of a "sin nature".
Other more specific reasons fall within these two categories.
I do not believe that everything in the bible is false, made up, or intended to deceive. I think that the bible, in some places, contains sounds moral codes of conduct and standards for living. However, there is not a lot of difference in what the bible says in the area of relations with our fellow man that is not also said in Buddhism. There is not much in the legal standards of the bible that is not also in the Code of Hammurabi.
It is my opinion that much of what was written down was by people who genuinely thought that what they were writing was God's will. But I don't think we'll ever be able to distinguish those parts from the others.
It is my opinion that sections like the Psalms were a sincere expression of one man's relationship with his god. Not necessarily God literally telling david what to write, but his heart overflowing with what he felt.
It is also my opinion that large parts of the bible, especially the early parts of the Old Testament, were a people's attempt to write history in a way that gave legitimacy to that people.
I don't believe that the New Testament is the jumble that the OT is, but while I hold out the possibility that it might be true in all particulars, it's pretty much just hearsay. True, the NT testament holds together a bit more coherently than does the OT, but the NT supposedly builds on the OT, so...
Even if the bible was the revealed word of God, what version of Christianity do you want to believe? The Catholics and the Protestants are at odds, and don't forget the Eastern Orthodox. Within Protestantism there is a great difference between the Calvinists and others; Trinitarians and Unitarians are at oposite ends; even within an insignificant cult grouping we have differences between CES and TWI. Maybe God could have been a mite less obscure?
I find nothing about the bible that leads me to believe that it is more "The Truth" than the Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, or any other "scripture".
Most, if not all, supposedly supernatural excperiences, miracles, etc, that I have experienced have had an alternative explanation. There has been nothing that I could unambiguously attribute to God.
I have prayed and gotten well, got raises, got parking spaces, all that stuff. I guess it could have been God, but there was nothing about it that convinced me that it was. In addition, I have never heard a "miracle" story from anyone which convinced me either.
I recently read an article written by someone who debunks claims of ESP and other paranormal activity. One point that he brought up was that even if the "experiment" yields the desired results, there is often no reason to believe the cause was what they thought it was. For example, a group is testing ESP, using the symbol cards. The subject gets them 100% right, every time, for weeks on end. They've proved ESP, right? Well, another group might say it's divine revelation, another might credit aliens, still another fairies or angels, while others might have alternate explanations. I apply this (to some extent) to religion. What if I pray for a storm to stop, and it does. Aside from coincidence, how do I know it's Jesus' God? Maybe it's the Celtic god of the storm, or maybe I have a psychic power, or the aliens like my style...
I'm not suggesting it is any of these things, just that I don't see Christianity having any claim to being more correct.
I've seen several posters here and elsewhere defend their Christianity on logical grounds, or that the teachings in the bible made sense to them, appealed to them on some level.
It's the opposite for me. While I find some aspects of Christianity (i.e. forgiveness, love, mercy) appealing, the whole idea of being in need of saving, or redeeming, because of something my long ago ancestor did is ridiculous. And further, that an all-powerful god would require a man who he describes as his only-begotten son to be tortured and killed to save me and make me worthy to be his son is barbaric.
1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father.
Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me.
I intended to post on your Why Christianity? thread, but then it took off so quickly that I had a hard time keeping up with its many directions. Here's my take on some of your thoughts posted here, not that I'm a big defender of Christianity, but I think I am more Christian than any other religion. I've gone from being a fanatic, to rejecting it altogether, to dipping my toes back into the water and becoming a partial or almost Christian, depending on the definition.
1. The Bible: I think of the Bible as a collection of writings within a specific tradition, written from a religious perspective. The themes are relatively consistent, for instance, the OT seems to reflect on different aspects of justice, while the NT maybe focuses more on love and forgiveness. Anyway, I hadn't read the Bible for years and years until GS, then I re-read a few sections, like Job and Ecclesiastes, for one thread or another, and really enjoyed those books, reading them from an entirely different perspective than I had before. I don't think the Bible is perfect or complete, or offers a final answer to our many perplexing questions, but I do like the God who is described in the Bible, as opposed to the gods of so many other religions. I don't think the Bible does much to prove the existence of God, but rather assumes faith in God. There is wisdom and poetry in the pages. While I don't credit it with being literally true, I don't discount it either.
2. Personal Experience. I don't put a lot of weight on personal experience, my own or others. I tend to like having both feet planted in the here and now. I'm not interested in angels and crystals and demons and heaven and karma, or even miracles, unless we're talking about the miracle of kindness. Then I'm interested.
3. The Doctrine. I actually like the idea of redemption and atonement and all that. In fact, that's what I like about Christianity -- the idea that we all have second chances, over and over again. We aren't stuck on a predetermined path, or in an endless wheel of suffering, or caught in a futile battle between the gods. There is always hope, the promise of redemption.
I think there is a striking difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals. They each offer a slightly unique worldview. At its best, I think religion acts as a vehicle for human goodness, a way to transport it into the world for the good of others, doing collectively more than what one person can do individually, and I think some religions accomplish this better than others. For instance, there's an inherent futility to Hinduism that I find unattractive. I don't care for Islam because of its unforgiving and demanding nature. Just like some ideas are better than others, some opinions more sound, I think some religious traditions are superior to others (which isn't to say that I think any religion should be mandated, just that some might be more desirable). Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview.
I do have more respect for the Bible than I do for, say, the Koran, or the Vedas, but I admit that that probably has to do with familiarity. From what little I have read of the Koran, and the Vedas, the Bible speaks to me on a more personal level than those other writings. I can relate more to it.
One final question, when you say that "the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions" what specifically do you mean?
When I was young, I lacked for nothing. My Dad saw to that, and he worked hard to make sure I had all I needed. I sometimes did things wrong, and I was chastised for my actions. Sometimes "penance" was required, sometimes not -- but either way, I was forgiven and life went on. We were by no means rich, but because of my father's diligence to see his son grow up as best as possible, I felt like we were rich. There is nothing he would not have done to see me become all that I could be.
That is my earthly father, and I for one see no difference between his actions, and those of a Heavanly Father, who has done, and is doing the same for all of us today.
Now -- What is Christianity?? A "common definition" is needed here. Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so.
Christianity is no different.
While I personally believe in the bible, God, & Jesus Christ, I also believe that there are many out there in other "religions" that espouse beliefs (and act accordingly) that are in keeping with what is truely meant by the bible and it's teachings. Just because they are "out-side" the pail as far as "denominational beliefs' go, doesn't mean they are not a Christian at heart.
So -- as I said -- we need a common definition of "Christian". Is it someone who espouses belief in Christ only, or someone who sees the heart of things, rather than just the "letter" of them??
Since I believe the bible to be true -- I see the ultimate sacrifice as being one of closure, and not a horrendous thing like has been postulated here. How many sacrifices in the OT were ever raised to life eternal?????? None. Issac was symbolically raised from the dead, but that was nothing compared to what Jesus went through. None of the animals ever sacrificed in the OT were ever raised from the dead. And, for that matter, none of them ever made a choice to go to the "altar" either.
Call God "barbaric" all you want for allowing His Son to go through what he did (I could have done the same with my earthly father - for what he let me go through), but you are missing the point if you see what God had Jesus go through --- if you don't see the finality of the blessings and glory that Jesus got as a result of His actions!
Ever been homeless?? Sleeping bag on your back and no place to lay down?
Ever been in a soup kitchen, bowl in hand and they ran out of food?
Welcome to life without Jesus Christ, an example of ruthless actions, ordained by a higher power.
You've got needs, and nowhere to go to get them met. Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl.
God is, and God does. He sees hearts, and not labels. Same as the folks in the soup kitchens -- if they've got food, your bowl is filled.
God never runs out of food, especially after the Bread of Life became our main course. And it was not just a decision by God to see His first-begotten tortured and slain, it was a mutual decision -- because of what was to follow.
One final question, when you say that "the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions" what specifically do you mean?
The contradictions between the bible and the observed world are only applicable in my view to a literal view of the bible. Obviously there is no problem with light existing before the sun & stars if you don't take it literally. Those aren't the contradictions that I have a problem with.
Wierwille promised to explain apparent bible contradictions in the PFAL class. Heck, at least he tried to reconcile contradictory passages, more than most denominations do, but oh the verbal gymnastics that we had to go through to make it "fit". I'm not going to dig out my bible and find any examples right now, maybe some other time, I'm sure you can all think of your own. But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god! I know that this issue has been addressed at GS, and you're all welcome to your opinion, but I just don't see it keeds!
Oh, Laleo, thanks for showing up :D--> - since it was YOU who suggested that I start the thread over here (I had started the same one at LES earlier)
Let me clarify something: I am not calling God barbaric. I do not believe that the bible accurately describes the actions of God.
And another thing, I understand the point of the death of Jesus in the context of the end result: the resurrection, ascension, glory, etc. I understand it as I would understand the plot of any book. I get it all...I just don't buy it. Why? Because I don't buy the PREMISE: that the actions of my alleged ancestors (Adam & Eve)have any bearing on my spirituality today, and that the creator of the heavens and earth needed BLOOD to appease him in the OT. The whole story about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, and God needing him to die is based on the whole OT premise. I understand it dmiller, I just don't believe it.
But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god!
There are 3 things that I have come to think differently about that make him seem the same to me.
1) With respect to David and the 10,000's he had slain, he was coming back with there foreskins,
therefore I think he may have been converting them to Judiasm.
2) With respect to the folks in the exodus, I think sometime we forget that there were many years that at sometime lapsed between an action of God, and his mercy that he showed.
3) With respect to the law and stoning certain type of sinners, I wondered at length why the Lord could not stone the adulter brought to him and still fulfill the law. Since Hebrews says the law is a shadow of the true, I think now that stoning of certain acts is a certainy by men who would disapprove of there deeds, thus the law fulfills itself quite naturally.
I am not sure in any instance that God didn't show mercy and longsuffering to any man. As I suffer myself for others, it has certainly given me an appreciation for his patience that I didn't have before.
Anyways, this concept that you mentioned is one that I have thought a lot about also which used to make me somewhat afraid of a judgemental God. Today, I see his wrath as when he walks away and leaves us to our own devices.
1. The Bible: I think of the Bible as a collection of writings within a specific tradition, written from a religious perspective.
This isn't that different than what I believe
quote:The themes are relatively consistent, for instance, the OT seems to reflect on different aspects of justice, while the NT maybe focuses more on love and forgiveness.
For the most part I agree with you, although there are sub-themes within both that diverge. For instance the theme of the epistles is more complicated in it's theology than the gospels, which are pretty straightforward. The theme of the penteteuch through Kings is different than the latter prophets, mainly because of Israel's differing situation.
quote:I don't think the Bible is perfect or complete, or offers a final answer to our many perplexing questions,
Again, not that far off from what I believe about it
quote:but I do like the God who is described in the Bible, as opposed to the gods of so many other religions.
Here is where we differ, at least on our conclusions. I see the god of the bible portrayed differently by the different writers, so that the view of one writer presents a very appealing god, while others do not. The god of Islam is not as inflexible as it appears from the outside (I'm reading "Islam for Dummies" right now :D-->), and is seen as quite merciful and flexible to Muslims - not much flexibility to us kafirs! For me, I find the goddess portrayed in most Wiccan and pagan traditions to be quite appealing.
quote:I don't think the Bible does much to prove the existence of God, but rather assumes faith in God.
Agreed, it really is written for the believer.
quote:There is wisdom and poetry in the pages. While I don't credit it with being literally true, I don't discount it either.
Yup, much wisdom and poetry. And for me the problem is digging the wisdom out from the pile of pro-Israel propaganda ;)-->
A guy could live a pretty good life adhering to the basics of Christianity...as one could vby becoming a Buddhist.
"I think there is a striking difference between the religions, "
Funny, I see the opposite. While there are most certainly differences, I am amazed by how many similarities there are as well.
"difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals."
Differences betweein rituals yes, and world view as well. However there are a tremendous number of similarities in the ethical systems.
"Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview"
In your perspective it is, mostly likely because it is the religion you are the most familiar with. However, if you study Judaism you will find it too is extremely diverse, not just in the number of different "movements" but within in each synagogue as well. Likewise with Islam, you will find everything from the extremely fundamentalist groups to the quite esoteric ones. I've never studied it, but I'll bet the same would be true for most religions.
"1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father.
Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me."
Why would God's heart be broken over something which He already knew would occur? Something, which according to the bible seems to have been "foreordained" to happen?
I think God has more faith in humankind than we often have in Him or in ourselves and He is just patiently waiting for us to figure this out.
I see the Bible as a history a mankind. Of how we have evolved and grown ethically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. Certainly think there are things in there we can learn about God, but even moreso, I think there are things we can learn about ourselves.
"Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so.
Christianity is no different."
I wholeheartedly disagree with you here.
1. All of the Pharasee's would have agreed as to "what is Torah" though there would have been much arguing about what it all meant. As there have been since the days of Moses and still are today.
2. Not all Pharasee's were like those depicted in the gospels. If you ever have an opportunity to puruse a section of Midrash of even a Torah with commentaries in it, you would be very suprised at the different perspectives/interpretations of just the first five books of the Bible. These thoughts and arguments were passed down orally for centuries and eventually placed in writting. They still to occur even today.
3. I don't believe for one minute Jesus had some sort of inside track on the "heart" behind the letter of the law. Much of what Jesus taught comes from Kabalah (Jewish mysticism), but not as it is somewhat commercially known today.
"Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl."
Deliverance from what? I'm very interested in finding out what it is I need deliverance from because I have no idea.
Geo, I started this post for those of who have tasted the Gospel _ albeit TWI's take on it — and made a decision on what to do with it now that we are out.
For us with a similar background its a fair question. But I do understand your answer.
Abigail, I didn't mean to imply that other religions aren't diverse. Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them.
I think there are a lot of superficial similarities in religion. Most religious people try to be good, and most religions provide a path, which is maybe what you mean when you talk about ethical similarities. But the path to goodness seems to me to be drastically different, rituals aside. There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others.
Speaking of Judaism, I think there is a lot to like about it. (I enjoyed your tree analogy, by the way.) My mother converted about ten years ago or so, and I've enjoyed my visits (few though they've been) to the synagogue with her. Speaking of fundamental differences, as I understand it, it was Judaism which introduced the idea of a universal morality, and kept the idea afloat through practice and tradition. Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished. Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something that can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. So that's one fundamental difference that comes to mind which translates into very different ethical systems for different religions.
"But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. "
Oakspear: I wonder how much of the "bloody tribal god" of the OT is simply an attempt to explain the distribution of power. For instance, our first self-help guru, Aristotle, tried to explain why some people prosper or flourish, and others don't. If memory serves, he came up with the theory that people flourish because of a combination of a good birth, good luck, and virtue, then he provided a formula for following virtue, so more people could flourish.
I wonder if the OT was trying to explain why some have power and others do not. For instance, if I'm remembering correctly, the reason why Job had so many riches, and a good reputation, and a large family, was because God had somehow favored him. The Way's explanation, as I recall it, is that God favors those who have a "good heart." In other words, anyone with good intentions will be in God's good graces, no matter what they actually accomplish. That's why David, and others, were chosen to be kings, right? (I'm really rusty on this stuff.) Anyway, I wonder how much of the tribal stuff had to do with the belief that those who were strongest, or had the most power, should be revered because they (obviously) had found some sort of favor with God, else they wouldn't be so strong and powerful. Care to speculate?
quote:Anyway, I wonder how much of the tribal stuff had to do with the belief that those who were strongest, or had the most power, should be revered because they (obviously) had found some sort of favor with God, else they wouldn't be so strong and powerful. Care to speculate?
I think that there is something to what you say.
The following is just speculation, I don't know, it just makes sense, fits together:
Whoever the people of Israel really were, the bible portrays them as arriving in the vicinity of Canaan ready to invade. When all was said and done the events were interpreted after the fact to show how God was with them; situations, such as Ai, when they lost, are covered by explaining how somebody was outside God's will. Nothing like putting the divine seal of approval on things to justify your genocide The books of the OT are chock full of explanations of why the rich & powerful are rich & powerful, why defeats took place, etc. Not all that different from what other cultures of that time did.
In the traditions with which I am familiar each one stands for one; there is no racial guilt or original sin that stains all of humankind. Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit are one; differing aspects of the same person. Man is not in need of a savior because we are as we were created. Divinity is portrayed primarily as a mother goddess or earth goddess from which life springs. There are no requirements for blood sacrifices, neither animal nor human.
I'm not recommending goddess worship, just that the divinity portrayed in these traditions appeals to me more than the divinity portrayed in the bible. You asked :D-->
"Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them. "
True, Jews do not prosyletize. Perhaps this is one of the things which appeals to me about Judaism - no door to door witnessing! :D-->
But seriously, the Jewish people have been scattered all over the world and taken on the culture of others. Certain traditions remain fairly steadfast. This is because the Jewish people see those traditions as what connects all of us, despite our many differences. However, there is also tremendous diversity.
I cannot speak much for Hinduism, because I've never studied it.
"There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others. "
Even within Christianity, you have those who believe things are fated and cannot be changed and those who believe the individual has choice and can change their path.
"Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished"
Yes, this is correct. However, there are also Jewish people who believe much of it is up to God and there is little they can do to change it. Again, it comes down to what individuals within a group believe and what movement of Judaism you are speaking of. The Orthodox Jews often believe they individually must choose to do good, but there is little they can do to improve the world at large. Whereas on the other end, the reconstructionists believe individually and as a group, there is much which can be done to improve the world.
"Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. "
This tpp varies. Jewish people are as capable of racism and oppression as any other people.
"In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something which can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. "
Again, it is an individual thing. There are those who would say their suffering is the will of God and there is nothing they can do to change it, just as there are those who believe they are in charge of their lives and can change things.
My decision to leave the Christain faith was not a particularly scholarly one, and it took place over several years, with different events,experiences, and books etc. all mismashed together.
Towards the end of our time in TWI, an article came out in the Way magazine about Her story--the dangers of feminist spirituality. I was also very unhappy at that time and desired to rebel from the legalism and unloving manipulation we constantly faced. I had a library card (oo, dangerous!) and checked out one of the reference books refered to in the article--Women who Run with Wolves. It actually made more sense than the stuff we were into. But I renewed my mind.
After leaving TWI I tried an off shoot, which was controling, at least the twig we went to--ran from that. Bounced around several churches.
I began to read other books on feminist spirituality, because I found it intriguing. While I wasn't ready to chuck my belief system, deep inside I wished life was more like the goddess worship, feminist spirituality I had started to read about.
Hubby and I could not relax in a church atmosphere--there was still the belief that we NEEDED to obey leadership. There always seemed to be some type of fear motivation--fear of sin, fear of reproof(in TWI) fear of Hell(in churches)fear of devil spirits.
Also, the US vs Them attitude was every where--heard liberals moaning about evengelicals, Methodists dissing Catholics. Sheesh. It was like an epidemic, and I didn't want it.
We moved, and we were in the country. One night I sat on the deck, and watched the full moon over the mountains. It was a spiritual experience, and I knew it was feminine. One of those Unverifiable personal gnossis things that sound stupid to other people.
At this point I was still in the mainstream church--the most liberal one in my area--but I began to read on the internet about Wicca, which I had run across in the goddess spirituality stuff, (also on Buffy, heehee)
Around that same time at the church we went to I was asked to take over a youth group. That is when I really faced it--there was very little Christian doctrine I believed, or wanted to teach my kids. Original sin, salvation, redemption, the sin nature of man...I could not teach it.
I could leave--I could be free, have a connection to the Goddess. . . so in a short space of time, that is what I did.
I don't believe in one true way for everybody. If your Christian or druid faith works for you, that is fine with me. I will not try to change you, and I don't respect others who try to change me, even though I know where they are coming from.
Acceptance of other's beliefs as being valid for them is one of the things I like most about my new faith,along with no fear motivation,and no need to obey some authority in order to please God. I am part of my god/goddess, not some sinful being who had to be redeemed by a blood sacrifice. It is more like family.
Why not Christianity? Because I found something that works better for me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
27
27
26
Popular Days
Aug 24
22
Aug 31
19
Aug 25
16
Sep 1
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 18 posts
Abigail 27 posts
Oakspear 27 posts
Zixar 26 posts
Popular Days
Aug 24 2004
22 posts
Aug 31 2004
19 posts
Aug 25 2004
16 posts
Sep 1 2004
16 posts
George Aar
Def,
From my viewpoint, we're already off on the wrong foot.
You ask "Why not?" Isn't that jumping the gun a little bit? Why not the Easter Bunny? Why not Zeus? Why not Islam?
Personally, when I finally broke free from the mental confines of TWI I started in reevaluating all my beliefs. Why should I be a Christian? The more I thought about it, and the more I actually studied, the less and less I found to support the belief.
It eventually dawned on me that Christianity, though, historically, it had the good fortune to find favor with the countries with the biggest armies, had little more to recommend it than did any garden-variety superstition. There simply is no verifiable proof for most any of it's claims.
So "WHY Christianity?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Why not? Several reasons, all of which are personal and not intended to be confrontational..."believe what you want" as another poster wrote recently.
Category One: The Bible
Christianity is based on the supposedly divinely-inspired bible. I find that the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions. I cannot use such a book as my standard of what to believe about God.
Category Two:Personal Experience
I have had no experiences that I could unequivocally ascribe to the god of the bible.
Category Three: The Doctrine Itself
I've come to believe that I'm not a "child of wrath", and not in need of saving. Not to say I'm perfect, just that I'm not fallen or in possession of a "sin nature".
Other more specific reasons fall within these two categories.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
More on my opinion of the bible:
I do not believe that everything in the bible is false, made up, or intended to deceive. I think that the bible, in some places, contains sounds moral codes of conduct and standards for living. However, there is not a lot of difference in what the bible says in the area of relations with our fellow man that is not also said in Buddhism. There is not much in the legal standards of the bible that is not also in the Code of Hammurabi.
It is my opinion that much of what was written down was by people who genuinely thought that what they were writing was God's will. But I don't think we'll ever be able to distinguish those parts from the others.
It is my opinion that sections like the Psalms were a sincere expression of one man's relationship with his god. Not necessarily God literally telling david what to write, but his heart overflowing with what he felt.
It is also my opinion that large parts of the bible, especially the early parts of the Old Testament, were a people's attempt to write history in a way that gave legitimacy to that people.
I don't believe that the New Testament is the jumble that the OT is, but while I hold out the possibility that it might be true in all particulars, it's pretty much just hearsay. True, the NT testament holds together a bit more coherently than does the OT, but the NT supposedly builds on the OT, so...
Even if the bible was the revealed word of God, what version of Christianity do you want to believe? The Catholics and the Protestants are at odds, and don't forget the Eastern Orthodox. Within Protestantism there is a great difference between the Calvinists and others; Trinitarians and Unitarians are at oposite ends; even within an insignificant cult grouping we have differences between CES and TWI. Maybe God could have been a mite less obscure?
I find nothing about the bible that leads me to believe that it is more "The Truth" than the Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, or any other "scripture".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
More on personal experience:
Most, if not all, supposedly supernatural excperiences, miracles, etc, that I have experienced have had an alternative explanation. There has been nothing that I could unambiguously attribute to God.
I have prayed and gotten well, got raises, got parking spaces, all that stuff. I guess it could have been God, but there was nothing about it that convinced me that it was. In addition, I have never heard a "miracle" story from anyone which convinced me either.
I recently read an article written by someone who debunks claims of ESP and other paranormal activity. One point that he brought up was that even if the "experiment" yields the desired results, there is often no reason to believe the cause was what they thought it was. For example, a group is testing ESP, using the symbol cards. The subject gets them 100% right, every time, for weeks on end. They've proved ESP, right? Well, another group might say it's divine revelation, another might credit aliens, still another fairies or angels, while others might have alternate explanations. I apply this (to some extent) to religion. What if I pray for a storm to stop, and it does. Aside from coincidence, how do I know it's Jesus' God? Maybe it's the Celtic god of the storm, or maybe I have a psychic power, or the aliens like my style...
I'm not suggesting it is any of these things, just that I don't see Christianity having any claim to being more correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
More on the doctrine:
I've seen several posters here and elsewhere defend their Christianity on logical grounds, or that the teachings in the bible made sense to them, appealed to them on some level.
It's the opposite for me. While I find some aspects of Christianity (i.e. forgiveness, love, mercy) appealing, the whole idea of being in need of saving, or redeeming, because of something my long ago ancestor did is ridiculous. And further, that an all-powerful god would require a man who he describes as his only-begotten son to be tortured and killed to save me and make me worthy to be his son is barbaric.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Gee Oak, why don't you tell us what you really think.
;)-->
Why not Christianity?
1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father.
2. I have a very difficult time with the "us v them"ness not only in Christianity, but within many religions.
3. Pretty much what Oak said.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
Your comment:
1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father.
Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Oakspear:
I intended to post on your Why Christianity? thread, but then it took off so quickly that I had a hard time keeping up with its many directions. Here's my take on some of your thoughts posted here, not that I'm a big defender of Christianity, but I think I am more Christian than any other religion. I've gone from being a fanatic, to rejecting it altogether, to dipping my toes back into the water and becoming a partial or almost Christian, depending on the definition.
1. The Bible: I think of the Bible as a collection of writings within a specific tradition, written from a religious perspective. The themes are relatively consistent, for instance, the OT seems to reflect on different aspects of justice, while the NT maybe focuses more on love and forgiveness. Anyway, I hadn't read the Bible for years and years until GS, then I re-read a few sections, like Job and Ecclesiastes, for one thread or another, and really enjoyed those books, reading them from an entirely different perspective than I had before. I don't think the Bible is perfect or complete, or offers a final answer to our many perplexing questions, but I do like the God who is described in the Bible, as opposed to the gods of so many other religions. I don't think the Bible does much to prove the existence of God, but rather assumes faith in God. There is wisdom and poetry in the pages. While I don't credit it with being literally true, I don't discount it either.
2. Personal Experience. I don't put a lot of weight on personal experience, my own or others. I tend to like having both feet planted in the here and now. I'm not interested in angels and crystals and demons and heaven and karma, or even miracles, unless we're talking about the miracle of kindness. Then I'm interested.
3. The Doctrine. I actually like the idea of redemption and atonement and all that. In fact, that's what I like about Christianity -- the idea that we all have second chances, over and over again. We aren't stuck on a predetermined path, or in an endless wheel of suffering, or caught in a futile battle between the gods. There is always hope, the promise of redemption.
I think there is a striking difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals. They each offer a slightly unique worldview. At its best, I think religion acts as a vehicle for human goodness, a way to transport it into the world for the good of others, doing collectively more than what one person can do individually, and I think some religions accomplish this better than others. For instance, there's an inherent futility to Hinduism that I find unattractive. I don't care for Islam because of its unforgiving and demanding nature. Just like some ideas are better than others, some opinions more sound, I think some religious traditions are superior to others (which isn't to say that I think any religion should be mandated, just that some might be more desirable). Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview.
I do have more respect for the Bible than I do for, say, the Koran, or the Vedas, but I admit that that probably has to do with familiarity. From what little I have read of the Koran, and the Vedas, the Bible speaks to me on a more personal level than those other writings. I can relate more to it.
One final question, when you say that "the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions" what specifically do you mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
When I was young, I lacked for nothing. My Dad saw to that, and he worked hard to make sure I had all I needed. I sometimes did things wrong, and I was chastised for my actions. Sometimes "penance" was required, sometimes not -- but either way, I was forgiven and life went on. We were by no means rich, but because of my father's diligence to see his son grow up as best as possible, I felt like we were rich. There is nothing he would not have done to see me become all that I could be.
That is my earthly father, and I for one see no difference between his actions, and those of a Heavanly Father, who has done, and is doing the same for all of us today.
Now -- What is Christianity?? A "common definition" is needed here. Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so.
Christianity is no different.
While I personally believe in the bible, God, & Jesus Christ, I also believe that there are many out there in other "religions" that espouse beliefs (and act accordingly) that are in keeping with what is truely meant by the bible and it's teachings. Just because they are "out-side" the pail as far as "denominational beliefs' go, doesn't mean they are not a Christian at heart.
So -- as I said -- we need a common definition of "Christian". Is it someone who espouses belief in Christ only, or someone who sees the heart of things, rather than just the "letter" of them??
Since I believe the bible to be true -- I see the ultimate sacrifice as being one of closure, and not a horrendous thing like has been postulated here. How many sacrifices in the OT were ever raised to life eternal?????? None. Issac was symbolically raised from the dead, but that was nothing compared to what Jesus went through. None of the animals ever sacrificed in the OT were ever raised from the dead. And, for that matter, none of them ever made a choice to go to the "altar" either.
Call God "barbaric" all you want for allowing His Son to go through what he did (I could have done the same with my earthly father - for what he let me go through), but you are missing the point if you see what God had Jesus go through --- if you don't see the finality of the blessings and glory that Jesus got as a result of His actions!
Ever been homeless?? Sleeping bag on your back and no place to lay down?
Ever been in a soup kitchen, bowl in hand and they ran out of food?
Welcome to life without Jesus Christ, an example of ruthless actions, ordained by a higher power.
You've got needs, and nowhere to go to get them met. Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl.
God is, and God does. He sees hearts, and not labels. Same as the folks in the soup kitchens -- if they've got food, your bowl is filled.
God never runs out of food, especially after the Bread of Life became our main course. And it was not just a decision by God to see His first-begotten tortured and slain, it was a mutual decision -- because of what was to follow.
End of sermon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille promised to explain apparent bible contradictions in the PFAL class. Heck, at least he tried to reconcile contradictory passages, more than most denominations do, but oh the verbal gymnastics that we had to go through to make it "fit". I'm not going to dig out my bible and find any examples right now, maybe some other time, I'm sure you can all think of your own. But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god! I know that this issue has been addressed at GS, and you're all welcome to your opinion, but I just don't see it keeds!
Oh, Laleo, thanks for showing up
:D--> - since it was YOU who suggested that I start the thread over here (I had started the same one at LES earlier) 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
Let me clarify something: I am not calling God barbaric. I do not believe that the bible accurately describes the actions of God.
And another thing, I understand the point of the death of Jesus in the context of the end result: the resurrection, ascension, glory, etc. I understand it as I would understand the plot of any book. I get it all...I just don't buy it. Why? Because I don't buy the PREMISE: that the actions of my alleged ancestors (Adam & Eve)have any bearing on my spirituality today, and that the creator of the heavens and earth needed BLOOD to appease him in the OT. The whole story about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, and God needing him to die is based on the whole OT premise. I understand it dmiller, I just don't believe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
your comment:
But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god!
There are 3 things that I have come to think differently about that make him seem the same to me.
1) With respect to David and the 10,000's he had slain, he was coming back with there foreskins,
therefore I think he may have been converting them to Judiasm.
2) With respect to the folks in the exodus, I think sometime we forget that there were many years that at sometime lapsed between an action of God, and his mercy that he showed.
3) With respect to the law and stoning certain type of sinners, I wondered at length why the Lord could not stone the adulter brought to him and still fulfill the law. Since Hebrews says the law is a shadow of the true, I think now that stoning of certain acts is a certainy by men who would disapprove of there deeds, thus the law fulfills itself quite naturally.
I am not sure in any instance that God didn't show mercy and longsuffering to any man. As I suffer myself for others, it has certainly given me an appreciation for his patience that I didn't have before.
Anyways, this concept that you mentioned is one that I have thought a lot about also which used to make me somewhat afraid of a judgemental God. Today, I see his wrath as when he walks away and leaves us to our own devices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
A guy could live a pretty good life adhering to the basics of Christianity...as one could vby becoming a Buddhist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Laleo,
"I think there is a striking difference between the religions, "
Funny, I see the opposite. While there are most certainly differences, I am amazed by how many similarities there are as well.
"difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals."
Differences betweein rituals yes, and world view as well. However there are a tremendous number of similarities in the ethical systems.
"Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview"
In your perspective it is, mostly likely because it is the religion you are the most familiar with. However, if you study Judaism you will find it too is extremely diverse, not just in the number of different "movements" but within in each synagogue as well. Likewise with Islam, you will find everything from the extremely fundamentalist groups to the quite esoteric ones. I've never studied it, but I'll bet the same would be true for most religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sky,
"1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father.
Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me."
Why would God's heart be broken over something which He already knew would occur? Something, which according to the bible seems to have been "foreordained" to happen?
I think God has more faith in humankind than we often have in Him or in ourselves and He is just patiently waiting for us to figure this out.
I see the Bible as a history a mankind. Of how we have evolved and grown ethically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. Certainly think there are things in there we can learn about God, but even moreso, I think there are things we can learn about ourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Dmiller,
"Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so.
Christianity is no different."
I wholeheartedly disagree with you here.
1. All of the Pharasee's would have agreed as to "what is Torah" though there would have been much arguing about what it all meant. As there have been since the days of Moses and still are today.
2. Not all Pharasee's were like those depicted in the gospels. If you ever have an opportunity to puruse a section of Midrash of even a Torah with commentaries in it, you would be very suprised at the different perspectives/interpretations of just the first five books of the Bible. These thoughts and arguments were passed down orally for centuries and eventually placed in writting. They still to occur even today.
3. I don't believe for one minute Jesus had some sort of inside track on the "heart" behind the letter of the law. Much of what Jesus taught comes from Kabalah (Jewish mysticism), but not as it is somewhat commercially known today.
"Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl."
Deliverance from what? I'm very interested in finding out what it is I need deliverance from because I have no idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Interesting comments.
Geo, I started this post for those of who have tasted the Gospel _ albeit TWI's take on it — and made a decision on what to do with it now that we are out.
For us with a similar background its a fair question. But I do understand your answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Abigail, I didn't mean to imply that other religions aren't diverse. Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them.
I think there are a lot of superficial similarities in religion. Most religious people try to be good, and most religions provide a path, which is maybe what you mean when you talk about ethical similarities. But the path to goodness seems to me to be drastically different, rituals aside. There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others.
Speaking of Judaism, I think there is a lot to like about it. (I enjoyed your tree analogy, by the way.) My mother converted about ten years ago or so, and I've enjoyed my visits (few though they've been) to the synagogue with her. Speaking of fundamental differences, as I understand it, it was Judaism which introduced the idea of a universal morality, and kept the idea afloat through practice and tradition. Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished. Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something that can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. So that's one fundamental difference that comes to mind which translates into very different ethical systems for different religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
"But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. "
Oakspear: I wonder how much of the "bloody tribal god" of the OT is simply an attempt to explain the distribution of power. For instance, our first self-help guru, Aristotle, tried to explain why some people prosper or flourish, and others don't. If memory serves, he came up with the theory that people flourish because of a combination of a good birth, good luck, and virtue, then he provided a formula for following virtue, so more people could flourish.
I wonder if the OT was trying to explain why some have power and others do not. For instance, if I'm remembering correctly, the reason why Job had so many riches, and a good reputation, and a large family, was because God had somehow favored him. The Way's explanation, as I recall it, is that God favors those who have a "good heart." In other words, anyone with good intentions will be in God's good graces, no matter what they actually accomplish. That's why David, and others, were chosen to be kings, right? (I'm really rusty on this stuff.) Anyway, I wonder how much of the tribal stuff had to do with the belief that those who were strongest, or had the most power, should be revered because they (obviously) had found some sort of favor with God, else they wouldn't be so strong and powerful. Care to speculate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Posted by Oakspear:
Can you expound on this more? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The following is just speculation, I don't know, it just makes sense, fits together:
Whoever the people of Israel really were, the bible portrays them as arriving in the vicinity of Canaan ready to invade. When all was said and done the events were interpreted after the fact to show how God was with them; situations, such as Ai, when they lost, are covered by explaining how somebody was outside God's will. Nothing like putting the divine seal of approval on things to justify your genocide
The books of the OT are chock full of explanations of why the rich & powerful are rich & powerful, why defeats took place, etc. Not all that different from what other cultures of that time did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wayfer Not!:
In the traditions with which I am familiar each one stands for one; there is no racial guilt or original sin that stains all of humankind. Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit are one; differing aspects of the same person. Man is not in need of a savior because we are as we were created. Divinity is portrayed primarily as a mother goddess or earth goddess from which life springs. There are no requirements for blood sacrifices, neither animal nor human.
I'm not recommending goddess worship, just that the divinity portrayed in these traditions appeals to me more than the divinity portrayed in the bible. You asked
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them. "
True, Jews do not prosyletize. Perhaps this is one of the things which appeals to me about Judaism - no door to door witnessing!
:D-->
But seriously, the Jewish people have been scattered all over the world and taken on the culture of others. Certain traditions remain fairly steadfast. This is because the Jewish people see those traditions as what connects all of us, despite our many differences. However, there is also tremendous diversity.
I cannot speak much for Hinduism, because I've never studied it.
"There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others. "
Even within Christianity, you have those who believe things are fated and cannot be changed and those who believe the individual has choice and can change their path.
"Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished"
Yes, this is correct. However, there are also Jewish people who believe much of it is up to God and there is little they can do to change it. Again, it comes down to what individuals within a group believe and what movement of Judaism you are speaking of. The Orthodox Jews often believe they individually must choose to do good, but there is little they can do to improve the world at large. Whereas on the other end, the reconstructionists believe individually and as a group, there is much which can be done to improve the world.
"Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. "
This tpp varies. Jewish people are as capable of racism and oppression as any other people.
"In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something which can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. "
Again, it is an individual thing. There are those who would say their suffering is the will of God and there is nothing they can do to change it, just as there are those who believe they are in charge of their lives and can change things.
Edited by abigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
My decision to leave the Christain faith was not a particularly scholarly one, and it took place over several years, with different events,experiences, and books etc. all mismashed together.
Towards the end of our time in TWI, an article came out in the Way magazine about Her story--the dangers of feminist spirituality. I was also very unhappy at that time and desired to rebel from the legalism and unloving manipulation we constantly faced. I had a library card (oo, dangerous!) and checked out one of the reference books refered to in the article--Women who Run with Wolves. It actually made more sense than the stuff we were into. But I renewed my mind.
After leaving TWI I tried an off shoot, which was controling, at least the twig we went to--ran from that. Bounced around several churches.
I began to read other books on feminist spirituality, because I found it intriguing. While I wasn't ready to chuck my belief system, deep inside I wished life was more like the goddess worship, feminist spirituality I had started to read about.
Hubby and I could not relax in a church atmosphere--there was still the belief that we NEEDED to obey leadership. There always seemed to be some type of fear motivation--fear of sin, fear of reproof(in TWI) fear of Hell(in churches)fear of devil spirits.
Also, the US vs Them attitude was every where--heard liberals moaning about evengelicals, Methodists dissing Catholics. Sheesh. It was like an epidemic, and I didn't want it.
We moved, and we were in the country. One night I sat on the deck, and watched the full moon over the mountains. It was a spiritual experience, and I knew it was feminine. One of those Unverifiable personal gnossis things that sound stupid to other people.
At this point I was still in the mainstream church--the most liberal one in my area--but I began to read on the internet about Wicca, which I had run across in the goddess spirituality stuff, (also on Buffy, heehee)
Around that same time at the church we went to I was asked to take over a youth group. That is when I really faced it--there was very little Christian doctrine I believed, or wanted to teach my kids. Original sin, salvation, redemption, the sin nature of man...I could not teach it.
I could leave--I could be free, have a connection to the Goddess. . . so in a short space of time, that is what I did.
I don't believe in one true way for everybody. If your Christian or druid faith works for you, that is fine with me. I will not try to change you, and I don't respect others who try to change me, even though I know where they are coming from.
Acceptance of other's beliefs as being valid for them is one of the things I like most about my new faith,along with no fear motivation,and no need to obey some authority in order to please God. I am part of my god/goddess, not some sinful being who had to be redeemed by a blood sacrifice. It is more like family.
Why not Christianity? Because I found something that works better for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.