|
|
|
|
... and missed it all! But now I'm back.
A few months ago Timmy posted here information about the decision of the Conservative stream in Judaism to accept gays as candiates for the rabbinate etc. Now, after a few months this is seeping down. Hillel is the interdenominational organization for Jews on campuses all over North America, and it has now produced a guide on how to make gays feel at home and welcome. You can read about it here: http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2007/dec/lgbtq_121807.htm
Very slowly we are getting there.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've downloaded the document from Hillel and read parts of it. It's very interesting.
I'm intruiged because I don't know why anyone should want to punctuate their life with rites and ceremonies. I just don't understand what they add that could be of value.
But then my response to a friend who told me that her business was saving souls was "Then you have nothing to give me because I don't have one."
Similarly I am baffled by spirit and spirituality (except in the sense of alcohol). I just cannot understand what a spirit is or how to tell the difference between spirituality and mawkishness (or worse).
Is it really impossible for those that believe and those that don't to communicate?
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony, if you think about it, you operate on a belief system as much as the Jew or Christian. It is by faith that you either believe or disbelieve, since the existence of a God can neither be proven nor disproven. And if you are willing to agree to amicably disagree, there is no reason why it should be impossible for communication. The problem usually arises when one side or the other insists on the rightness of their beliefs and of the other person's inability to see things correctly. Then again, I suppose the safest course is to stay clear of religious debate altogether.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I can't quite cope with logic that seems to say "If you don't believe in something that means that you have a belief system. Belief is a matter of faith and therefore you have one"
I doubt that is what you have said, but it is what I heard.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
I'm intruiged because I don't know why anyone should want to punctuate their life with rites and ceremonies. I just don't understand what they add that could be of value.
My comments here are prompted by what Anthony wrote, but are in no way a reposte.
I hate all missionary activity - on behalf of any religion or belief-system. There is no more silly question than "are you saved?" and the only appropriate response to it that I can think of is "I have no idea and it's none of your business, anyway."
But, in a similar fashion, I am always surprised when non-religious people - secularists, agnostics, atheists - find it necessary to trumpet what they see as the follies of religion.
What causes the likes of Richard Dawkins to enter upon a crusade against religion? If the cause is the enormous damage, mayhem and murder that has been perpetrated in the name of religions throughout the ages - and still continues - then I will join their crusade. But I will excoriate the violence while respecting their right to believe what they will - however silly I might think their belief is.
I can understand (while sternly disapproving) the burning desire of one who claims to have "seen the light" to get everyone else to see what he has seen: if he is a Christian he believes that he is saving their mortal soul. (I hope that is the correct terminology.) But what possible difference can his belief make to an avowed atheist - such as Anthony is? Why do so many atheists seem to need to ridicule the beliefs of the believer? Surely, it should make no difference to them.
Just to clarify: I really do find Christian theology quite bewildering; but that does not prompt me to say so every time someone mentions Chrsitianity.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
~~snip~~
> I'm intruiged because I don't know why anyone should want to punctuate their life with rites and ceremonies. I just don't understand what they add that could be of value.
~~snip~~
There are two main kinds of "rites and ceremonies". One of them is about re-affirming membership of a group: it doesn't matter whether it's attending a religious event, going down the pub with one's mates, or whatever. Any group of people rapidly develops "things that they do" ...
The other kind of "rites and ceremonies" are public recognition of a change in a person's personal or private circumstances. In a society where religion is a major force, they can be religious in appearance ... in other societies, they are entirely secular. Here is the UK, we often get to choose: a baby can be "christened" into the CofE, or merely registered: marriages can be "registry office" or a CofE wedding, etc.
We're unusual in that we don't have a formal "change of status" marking the transition from childhood to adulthood ... I think we as a society would probably benefit from having one. And that, really, is the point of such ceremonies - they are not (only) for the benefit of the person at the centre of it, but but for the benefit of others. This is partly why so many people who are not regular churchgoers, nor even particularly believers, choose to have a church wedding to keep the in-laws happy! The ultimate ceremony for the benefit of society / others is of course the funeral or memorial service ...
'scuse me whittering on about this - it's something that's interested me since I studied it as part of my Uni course many years ago. For several years I was involved in running such events in a very multi-cultural part of London, and the differences and similarities between different Faith and Secular traditions were fascinating!
As for "Similarly I am baffled by spirit and spirituality (except in the sense of alcohol). I just cannot understand what a spirit is or how to tell the difference between spirituality and mawkishness (or worse).", that's a really tricky one! My own answer would be that spirituality is essentially personal and internal: it comes in all kinds of flavours both good and bad, and like any other quality it needs to be judged solely on how it makes a person behave. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. ", as the Bible I grew up with puts it.
For what it's worth, my own current standpoint is that having moved away from any recognisable Christian institution some thirty years ago, I am now starting to feel that some kind of community framework might help me work out some stuff. I'm beginning to feel drawn to the Quakers: they seem to recognise that the inner light appears uniquely to each individual, but the actions that we are prompted to take must respect our fellow humans in the context of a human society.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear JFR,
I think it is one's "immortal soul" that has to be saved.
Of course I'm not trying to win converts to my particular religion. I know that it is impossible to do that, especially since I don't know what my religion is except that I haven't got one. Maybe it's entirely negative?
If the rites and ceremonies really were to mark the important stages of life then I could understand that about them. What am I to think when I look back on my life to see that the really big divide was between being childless and having children. Maybe there are rites for that but I don't know of any.
But maybe birthdays and anniversaries count as ceremonies? In which case I have to admit I recognise those and if that kills my point of view stone dead so be it. I put up and decorated a Christmas tree but I went to bed at ten o'clock on 31 December and woke up on New Year's Day having slept through the transition.
So I'm admitting I haven't got all this straight in my head and that's why I was asking questions.
Love
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faith is a belief system and is not limited to the belief in a diety. Webster also defines faith as: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. To say that one disbelieves in God's existance and therefor has no faith is ignoring the corollary. He obviously places his faith in his own belief that God "doesn't" exist. This may include the belief in a more humanistic or scientific approach to life or not.
"I believe God doesn't exist" is a statement of faith because it is based on a belief that cannot be proven. I hope this explains it better.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not believing in God is not the same as believing God does not exist. The first is (or can be) scientific; the second is always dogmatic.
The scientific interpretation of the first is, "I don't think God exists, because there is no evidence for his existence. I work on the basis that he doesn't exist until evidence emerges to show otherwise."
The second is, "I believe God does not exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence to prove I am right."
I don't believe in God. I do not believe God does not exist. I have no faith.
David
[Updated on: Tue, 01 January 2008 22:50] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Quite right Paul. Faith extends far beyond religion.
"I have faith that my friend will do the right thing."
Many of us have probably said or heard the same thing or something similiar many times. It is our faith in others that leads us to follow them; it is our faith in ourselves that leads us to become the leaders of others. There are countless examples of faith in our daily lives that have nothing to do with religion.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to point out something. The word in the old testiment for soul is the word Nephrish, and it literally means "Living Creature". The word was both used to apply to an animal and to man. However the scholors who translated the Hebrew into english decided that when the word was used with man it would be translated as "Living Soul" instead of Creature.
Martin Luther the great reformer said "If man hath an immortal soul, then what need had there been for Christ to die on the cross". An Immortal life is something we hope to recieve, not something we have. If our soul is already immortal why do we have to do anything.
Again the churches have twisted things so they can control us thru fear.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Starting with Paul's point, I agree entirely. I don't believe in God, but neither do I have evidence that He does not exist - so I always regard myself as agnostic, rather than atheist.
My position is pretty firm; I don't believe that there is a God, but I won't make my disbelief an issue unless I'm attacked by 'believers'.
I'm pretty much a disciple of Richard Dawkins, except when it comes to his obsession with 'memes', which - to be frank - I neither accept nor fully understand. But, just as he enjoys religious music, I can find a kind of comfort in some religious ceremonial. A UK atheist (female - well, it would be, wouldn't it?) recently interrupted a carol service with a harangue about the evils of religion. She was incredibly stupid. The essence of agnosticism is the right to disbelieve; that doesn't imply any sort of criticism of others who feel differently - and the vast majority of atheists take a similar view.
But, as the Bishop Emeritus of Oxford recently acknowledged in 'The Observer', Richard Dawkins is right in suggesting that morality is not dependent upon religious belief. I guess that means that if I'm determined to make an impression upon my fellow-men, I need to make damn' sure I do it before I pop my clogs!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
