This week's book giveaway is in the Mac OS forum.
We're giving away four copies of a choice of "Take Control of Upgrading to Yosemite" or "Take Control of Automating Your Mac" and have Joe Kissell on-line!
See this thread for details.
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Change Of Faith Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Change Of Faith" Watch "Change Of Faith" New topic
Author

Change Of Faith

John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Just captured your post permenantly so that you cannot edit it again and again and again...
Do it again, I am done.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Nothing wrong with having greedy capitalists, but yes, you got a point, we certainly have our share of problems originating from dark ages.
I wish I could say "we" about this country! How does one achieve that? How long you should live here to be able to think about "Americans" as "we"? Or is there a certain age you are supposed to enter the country, after which it's too late forever?


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
I think once you become a citizen then you can use "we".


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
I think once you become a citizen then you can use "we".
Becoming a citizen is just a formality, it doesn't mean anything, -- it's just a peice of paper. You start saying "we the Americans" when you cross your own, internal threshold, when you become 51% American and only 49% Russian in your views and attitudes.
One of the greatest thing about America is that you can actually remain 99% Russian and yet be happy here in US. That's a very unlikely proposition in any other country, regardless of where you came from, -- you would always be a foreigner there.
Eugene.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006

Citizenship should be based upon where the loyalty of the heart lies. Not where the accident of birth took place.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Melvin]: Just captured your post permenantly so that you cannot edit it again and again and again...
[Eugene]: Do it again, I am done.

I'm sorely tempted to abuse my powers now and edit Melvin's post to incorporate Eugene's changes. Bad sheriff, bad sheriff...
[Eugene]: Becoming a citizen is just a formality, it doesn't mean anything, -- it's just a peice of paper. You start saying "we the Americans" when you cross your own, internal threshold, when you become 51% American and only 49% Russian in your views and attitudes.
Well, I dunno about the idea that citizenship "means nothing" - it certainly has some implications as far as the US law is concerned, and others may well attach more significance to your citizenship (or lack thereof) than you do. But perhaps you just mean that the official citizenship status is much less significant to you personally, and that the internal threshold was the significant one for you? That would make sense to me. If one has already made the leap internally, and is/was just waiting for a piece of paper to confirm that, then sure, the paper may not be that bid a deal OTOH if one has not made the internal switch, and enters citizenship anyway, that's more problematic - hope you're not suggesting this would be OK.
[Sriraj]: Citizenship should be based upon where the loyalty of the heart lies. Not where the accident of birth took place.
Ideally, yes - if we had a means of reliably determining "loyalty of the heart". But since we don't, using birthplace as a starting point seems reasonable...
[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Eugene Kononov: You know what I think religion and God are? They are just a tradition, 10,000 (or more) years old, coming from the prehistoric times. It's still with us not because it is a good practice, or because there is any validity to it, but because it's so deeply embedded in our genes, from those times when the lightning struck the tree to produce fire that we used to get worm and cook the food. It's just like the class cast system in India and racial problems in America, -- it will take a long, long time before people come to their senses and realize that if there is such a thing as God all mighty, powerful, infinite, pure, loving, and just, he doesn't need people to worship him, -- in fact, it would be a mortal sin to do so.
Very poverfully atheistic. You don't honestly believe you descent from a monkey, do you?...
Why do people always regard "God" as a physical object? Without starting a theological debate, if you consider that there maybe commonalities between "religious" (or spiritual for that matter) believes, maybe Change of Faith makes no difference whatsoever. Changing a name doesn't nessesarily make a person change his or her beliefs.
Shura


Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Sriraj: Citizenship should be based upon where the loyalty of the heart lies. Not where the accident of birth took place.
Jim Yingst: Ideally, yes - if we had a means of reliably determining "loyalty of the heart". But since we don't, using birthplace as a starting point seems reasonable...

Yeah, and State Governments will be really happy with providing that... :roll: My loyalty of the heart will be to a place with highest paycheck and least amount of taxes then (lots of these "me" popped up lately and moved their businesses to Bermuda and such)
Shura
[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

My dear friend Herb,
I love you, too, bro. However, I am having a really hard time (just like Map) deciding which God I should worship.

Dear Brother Eugene,
Satan has obviously darkened your mind, eyes, and ears to the simple truths I have humbly spoken in the earlier post. There is but one God, and since there is but one God the confusion of choice of which you speak does not exist.

The Christians tell me that the only way to save myself is to believe in Christ. The Muslims tell me that that I would be an infidel and go to hell if I am a Christian. The Jews tell me that eating pork is a mortal sin, while beef is OK (God looks over my diet, really?) and that Jesus is a fallacy. The Hindus tell me that eating beef is a mortal sin (what's so sacred about a cow?). The different religious groups argued and killed many, many millions of each other over the issue. The only thing that they all agree on is that "God Allmighty is great and infinite, but he needs your money."

Do not all of them agree there was One Creator of the Earth? Then does it really matter by what name It is called? Would trivial variations in doctrine or ritual be of any consequence to a Supreme Being?
Regarding the variations of belief and assorted rituals; it is true that they differ, but would not the areas of agreement on fundamental doctrine be far more important? The fact that many have testified to have been in contact with this One Supreme Being in many lands over many centuries is in some respects similiar to the scientific validation through repeated experimentation. Its not the same because the experience of the Truth is entirely subjective, but the fact that so many, in so many different lands, over so long a period a time, have had such experiences, should give one a reason to pause and consider the possibility of them being correct.
The variation in doctrine results from the mixture of the personality of the messenger into the message of the Truth. The Truth cannot be expressed in a vacum, so it finds expression through a particular personality and later through a particular culture. These of course differ on the surface, but to the discerning eye the similarities are also there.


They even came up with the God-recommended figure, -- 10% of your income. Seems like those people on top of the God folowers are elaborate enterpreneurs openly ignoring what they preach: "money is the root of all evil".

When you say "they" , remember you are not talking about all religions. I am sent not defend religions or their errors, but to preserve their truths. Also the full quote is
not "money is the root of all evil", but rather "the love of money is the root of all evil". In some translations, love is changed to lust. The point being that if you love money more than God or your fellow man, then evil will result. Its not that money, which is essential to modern society, is evil in itself.


Most interestingly, it appears that what you believe depends on where you were born and raised. That is, what you think you believe comes not from you, but from other people around you. You are told what to believe in. If it happens to be the Western world, somehow you know that Christ is your only saviour. If you are in the Middle East, somehow you know that the only true God is Allah. And if you were born in Soviet Union, you really know what it is all about, -- there is no God, religion is just "the opium for the masses".


People who were raised atheists have had religious experiences. Paul (in the Bible) was raised Jewish, yet he defied his own culture and switched his faith as a result of his mystical experiences.


.. if there is such a thing as God all mighty, powerful, infinite, pure, loving, and just, he doesn't need people to worship him, -- in fact, it would be a mortal sin to do so.

Forget duty and sin, see worship as the joyfull fellowship of the Creator and Created. An appreciation of the Created for their simple existence.

You know what really disgusts me? It's when the military chaplains come to the American troups and bless them to kill: "Let Christ be with you".

Christians believe in the concept of a "just war" since the times of St Augustine. God does sanction war and killing as means to accomplish his greater ends. You cannot compare your human conceptions of morality with God's. Where did you get your morality? Did you just dream it up one night ? On what basis can you judge your fellow humans, let alone God. Don't be so presumptious.

[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ][/QB]
The point that our Leader was making was that it does not matter which God you worship, there is but one God. Again, our leader demonstrates his tolerance and his deep wisdom in a few short words.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
>>"God Allmighty is great and infinite, but he needs your money."
101 % true. God needs my money.
>>maybe Change of Faith makes no difference whatsoever. Changing a name doesn't nessesarily make a person change his or her beliefs.
Then why to fake it ?
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Dear Brother Eugene,
Satan has obviously darkened your mind, eyes, and ears to the simple truths I have humbly spoken in the earlier post. There is but one God, and since there is but one God the confusion of choice of which you speak does not exist.

My dear Brother Herb,
The devil has obviously darkened your mind. The entire Old Testament is his creation that serves to test your morality. Take the Book Of Job. God comes to Job, who is a good and humble person. God takes Job's possessions and kills his family. If that's not enough, one night God sneaks into Job's home, fucks him in the ass with his infinite dick, and infects Job with syphilis (God apparently caught it from Mary). Subsequently, Job's nose falls off, his skin peels off, he is just a walking corpse in agonizing pain. God then comes to Job again and says "Well, what do you think of them apples? Do you still love me?". And Job reluctantly responds, "Yeah, I guess". And how does God rewards Job? With money, possessions, slaves, and prosperity!
By writing this story in the Boble, the Devil is seducing you, bribing you, he is trying to trick you into believing that because God is so pure, loving, and great, his despicable acts can be justified with one clause, -- God has a plan, and humans are just not able to comprehend it. And if you as a human reading the scripture fall into this trap, this fallacy, the Devil has fulfilled his mission, -- you sold your dignity, your sense of justice, and your soul to Devil. You closed your eyes or pretended not to see that whoever was acting as God in the Old Testament was a sadistic mass murdurer.
The fact that many have testified to have been in contact with this One Supreme Being in many lands over many centuries is in some respects similiar to the scientific validation through repeated experimentation.
Yeah, I know a few of them: Adolph Hitler, Usama bin Laden, Louis Farrakhan, -- all messengers of God. And there were many that claimed to be God. Is that a scientific validation through repeated experimentation?
Christians believe in the concept of a "just war" since the times of St Augustine. God does sanction war and killing as means to accomplish his greater ends.
Indeed, -- the nazis had it written on their belts: "God is with us". And I've heard the concept of a "just war" before, -- it is called jihad. God certainly approves it, by his own acts as a religious fundamentalist.
Where did you get your morality?
I listen to my own consiousness, -- that's the best one can do in this madness. But I also am trying to undestand others, -- that's why we have this conversation.
[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
And I've heard the concept of a "just war" before, -- it is called jihad.
The Catholic concept of a just war as originally writted by St. Agustine and then further refined by Thomas Aquinas is based on the concept that war is inevitable therefore a society should be able to judge whether it is just for them to fight. A jihad would not be just under just war theory.
This is a pretty good article on just war theory:
http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/justwar.htm
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
based on the concept that war is inevitable therefore a society should be able to judge whether it is just for them to fight. A jihad would not be just under just war theory.

War is inevitable when people think war is inevitable. Imagine if Gandhi had succumbed to that idea. Instead he thought differently, he thought war is "Preventable".
There is no such thing as a just war, I've heard people claim "A war with a loss of 1000 live will prevent a loss of 10000 lives later on" Thats bollocks in my opinion! How can anyone predict the cost of war as well as the future? People refuse to think of alternatives to war or simply do not take the alternative approach because it is painfully slow.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
I am thinking of situations such as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union as being a just war from the point of view of the Soviets. Once the USSR was invaded their defense of themselves was just by just war theory.
Gandhi chose the path of peace because he knew that armed resistance against the British would have led to thousands of deaths and wouldn't have achieved the goal of freedom. But Gandhi knew the British. If the Nazis had occupied India, do you think peaceful protest would have achieved freedom?
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
the British would have led to thousands of deaths and wouldn't have achieved the goal of freedom.

Just re-read the Indian History.
India would have become independent in 1945, if Gandhi ji wouid have not gone to England.
Subash Chandra Bose, and his INA were ready to support to british in WW-2 only in the exchange of freedom, but in the mean time Gandhi ji went to England.
As I have said eralier also, it was not only Gandhi ji, but also there were lot of othere freedom fighters also.
So in early 30s british were not enjoying India but they were saving their life.
And when british found that there is no escape so they found a gentleman ways of giving India to Indians.
But still I love the way Gandhi ji gave us freedom, its much more permanent. Though it cost us a lot.
[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Gandhi chose the path of peace because he knew that armed resistance against the British would have led to thousands of deaths and wouldn't have achieved the goal of freedom. But Gandhi knew the British. If the Nazis had occupied India, do you think peaceful protest would have achieved freedom?

You have no idea about the freedom struggle of India. Although I admire Gandhiji a lot but because of other reasons and not because his acts brought India freedom. His path of non-violence probably took the world by surprise and amuse but that was not the reason why the british left India.
I firmly believe that if there were enough unity among the Indians, India would have been free by 1857 itself.
Justification is a relative. Something might be justified to someone but totally unjustified for someone else. Justification of war is an absurd thing. Who do you want to justify? and why? You cannot justify your actions to everybody that comes along the way. You do stuff that you feel is right. That's it. That's the way it goes. If people who are more powerfull that you don't agree with you then you are in trouble...your justification holds no value (eg. OBL). Otherwise, if people who do not agree with you are less powerfull than you, it does not matter. (Eg. US). Here, by power I am not talking about just military power.


I'm just saying...it's right there!
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

My dear Brother Herb,
The devil has obviously darkened your mind. The entire Old Testament is his creation that serves to test your morality. Take the Book Of Job. God comes to Job, who is a good and humble person. God takes Job's possessions and kills his family....(HS : further complete misinterpretations of the Bible are ommitted)

Brother Eugene,
You have completley misunderstood everything in the Bible. The Old Testament stories are not to be taken literally. They are allegories of deeper truths. The symbolism may not be clear to the uninitiated, but people, places and events are symbolic of the soul's struggles within itself. You are probably completely unaware of the keys to properly interpret the Bible. That's understandable since the keys are a completely oral tradition known as the Qabala (Kaballah, or various other spellings). Since you cannot know of the things of which you speak, your blasphemies are forgiven.


Yeah, I know a few of them: Adolph Hitler, Usama bin Laden, Louis Farrakhan, -- all messengers of God. And there were many that claimed to be God. Is that a scientific validation through repeated experimentation?

I missed where any of the above persons claimed to have direct knowledge of God. Such quotes would be notable so it should be easy for you to provide us with a URL.


Indeed, -- the nazis had it written on their belts: "God is with us". And I've heard the concept of a "just war" before, -- it is called jihad. God certainly approves it, by his own acts as a religious fundamentalist.
I listen to my own consiousness, -- that's the best one can do in this madness. But I also am trying to undestand others, -- that's why we have this conversation.
[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

Does your consciousness sanction self-defense?
Would not self-defense be a legitimate reason for war. Speaking of Nazis, is it wrong in your view to oppose such evil???
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Brothers!
Please keep up this good discussion, I cannot explain how enjoyable it is to read all this!
Your humble sister Map
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
OK! Before we proceed any further could someone please explain the following to me:
1. The difference between Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Born-again Christians
2. Who is a Pentacostal Christian?
3. Why do Born-Agains hate everyone including other christians?
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
The difference between Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Born-again Christians
Shouldn't we also include Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Buddists (anyone else left out?)? Yeah, I'd love to know the differences, too.
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
3. Why do Born-Agains hate everyone including other christians?

What a bizarre thing to say .
They don't hate anyone. They just tend to be folks who have made a RADICAL turn around in their lives, and think that they have all the answers, and that the rest of us must be clueless.
Of course most of these folks were NOT raised in a religious atmosphere - explaining why they are in a position to make a radical change in their lives. It also explains why they are a bit single minded in their views. Most of them have never been exposed to many other views.


"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Sheriff

Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Posts: 8521
Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:

2. Who is a Pentacostal Christian?

Pentacostal Christians believe that "speaking in tongues" is a part of their everyday religious experience. They believe that the "spirit" can come to you and talk through you - usually sounds like gibberish and someone else translates.
This is all based on the Epiphany event that happened after Jesus was crucified. A whole bunch of early christians from around Europe and the middle east got together to celebrate, and of course they all spoke different languages. Apparently the Spirit came to them and flames danced on their heads and somehow they could suddenly all understand each other.
Extreme versions of Pentacostal Services include mild "fits" and rolling on the ground etc.
Milder expressions are MUCH more common and just include more exuberant expressions and activities during worship to express joy.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
The difference between Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Born-again Christians
Shouldn't we also include Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Buddists (anyone else left out?)? Yeah, I'd love to know the differences, too.

John Lee
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 05, 2001
Posts: 2545
:roll:
Christian Schnepf
Greenhorn

Joined: Sep 25, 2001
Posts: 28
Catholics Believe:
  • You must confess your sins to a priest for salvation.
  • You must attend church in order to pray (speak to God)
  • You must attend church regularly (typically weekly) to be religious.
  • Priests/Nuns cannot marry because it would interfere with their love of God (really because of land disputes when priests died in the past)
  • You must baptize infants to enable them to enter heaven. They die before baptizm, they go to purgitory (not heaven, not hell).
  • As an adult/teenager you must go through confirmation (adult baptizm).
  • Lots of ornate symbols, gold, etc.
  • Priests (mass leaders, whatever you wish to term them as) are only men.

  • John Smith
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 08, 2001
    Posts: 2937
    Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
    Catholics Believe:
  • You must confess your sins to a priest for salvation.
  • You must attend church in order to pray (speak to God)
  • You must attend church regularly (typically weekly) to be religious.
  • Priests/Nuns cannot marry because it would interfere with their love of God (really because of land disputes when priests died in the past)
  • You must baptize infants to enable them to enter heaven. They die before baptizm, they go to purgitory (not heaven, not hell).
  • As an adult/teenager you must go through confirmation (adult baptizm).
  • Lots of ornate symbols, gold, etc.
  • Priests (mass leaders, whatever you wish to term them as) are only men.


  • Atheists Believe:
  • You must not commit any sins in the first place.
  • You must attend church to appreciate its architecture and the greatness of common people who bult and decorated it
  • You must attend church rarely to be open-minded.
  • Priests/Nuns should get a real job and a life instead of engaging in sexual activities that are not approved in the state of Texas
  • You must be an infant if you belive in Heaven
  • As an adult/teenager you must go through puberty.
  • Lots of anti-Christ rethorics, etc.
  • Mass leaders (or whatever you wish to term them as) wisdom and ability is determined by their skills, not gender, race, or sexual orientation.

  • Jason Menard
    Sheriff

    Joined: Nov 09, 2000
    Posts: 6450
    Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
    Catholics Believe:
    ...

    More accurately, Catholic beliefs are laid out pretty well in the Nicean Creed:
    We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all that is seen and unseen.
    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made,
    one in Being with the Father.
    Through him all things were made.
    For us and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven:
    by the power of the Holy Spirit
    he was born of the Virgin Mary,
    and became man.

    For our sake he was crucified
    under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered, died, and was buried.
    On the third day he rose again
    in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.
    We believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the
    Father and the Son.
    With the Father and the Son
    he is worshipped and glorified.
    He has spoken through the Prophets.
    We believe in one holy
    catholic and apostolic Church.
    We acknowledge one baptism
    for the forgiveness of sins.
    We look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come.
    Amen.

    *Note: The word catholic above means universal. Apostolic refers to a succession of spiritual authority from the 12 Apostles.
    [ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
    Paul McKenna
    Ugly Redneck
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jul 08, 2000
    Posts: 1006
    Originally posted by Cindy Glass:

    What a bizarre thing to say .

    OK, I apologize for my earlier remark. I guess I got that impression after reading some Pat Robertson remarks. :roll:
    John Lee
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Aug 05, 2001
    Posts: 2545
    Hi:
    I am sorry for unable to read all of previous posts in this thread. I think if it is diffcult to change faith, then it is diffcult to have faith and to lose faith.
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5371
    Hindu Believe: [Its my view about Hinduism]
  • You must get punishment for your sins, either on earth or heaven or hell. but you cant escape punishment.
  • God is everywhere and in everything. You should find peace in God. If you find peace on Himalaya, no need to come to temple. But live in peace.
  • Use your own mind and chose what ever God you like out of thousands of Gods/Goddess or be your own God [Aham Brahmasmi].
  • Priests make fool of people who dont understand real meaning of Hinduism.
  • Heaven & Hell both are here and if you wont get enough punishment for your sins then you have to born again.
  • Child/Teen/Adult all are born Hindu. You cant be Hindu, but if you follow hinduism then your child will be "born Hindu".[Its my belief] It takes one generation to convert in to Hindu, no instant method available till now. VHP is working on, to find some instant method in some old book or in Puran [I am sure they will never find it.]
  • Lot of festival to enjoy life and forget materialistic tension for a moment.
  • You are your own leader. Do what you want without hurting anyone.

  • Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    [Eugene]: anyone else left out?
    Lots. Off the top of my head: Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Zoroastrians, Bahai, various modern pagan groups such as wiccans, vodoo... I'm sure a web search could turn up quite a bit more. How much do you really want to widen the scope of the question? Sriraj was simply asking about the groups he found himself wondering about.
    [Sriraj]: 1. The difference between Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Born-again Christians
    Protestants is a superclass that includes Lutherans, Methodists, Born-again christians, and many others. Historically they generally derive from Martin Luther's split from the Catholic church (PROTESTING certain doctrines, hence the name PROTESTANT), though there are other Protestant groups from largely unrelated sources (e.g. Henry VIII's annexation of the Church of England from Rome). I believe all Protestant groups share at least these traits:
    (1) They believe in the divinity of Jesus
    (2) They reject the authority of the Pope (who's Catholic, for anyone who might not have heard).
    Beyond that, it may depend on where you choose to draw the borders of who's "Protestant" and who isn't - I'd hesitate to make any absolute statements about beliefs of all Protestants. By its very nature, the group includes many different variations. There are some small groups who have gone pretty far from what most people mean by "Protestant". I'll leave it to others to differentiate between various Protestant groups if they wish.
    [Eugene]: Atheists Believe:
    As a fellow atheist, I disagree with some of these. I realize this was mostly a semi-humorous response to the listed Catholic beliefs, but still... In particular:
    * Priests/Nuns should get a real job and a life instead of engaging in sexual activities that are not approved in the state of Texas
    To the extent that your statement may refer only to those priests/nuns who engage in such activities, fine. To the extent that it seems to refer to all priests and nuns, no of course not.
    * You must be an infant if you belive in Heaven
    Bologna. That is, atheists don't believe in Heaven of course - but there's no need to denigrate the beliefs of others.
    [ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
    Ashok Mash
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 13, 2000
    Posts: 1936
    I am with Siraj, its not really easy to change once faith, as if you have faith, you can not think against it.
    But lately, I am more inclined towards Budhism. But I think in todays world we all are free to believe and follow as many faiths as we want, or may be even a mixture of many faiths.


    [ flickr ]
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5371
    Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:
    we all are free to believe and follow as many faiths as we want, or may be even a mixture of many faiths.

    You bloody Indian
    Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    To the original question about how can some people change religions so easily (apparently): in addition to the other comments offered so far, I think that there's a somewhat common phenomonon (in the US at least) where people may still have faith in some sort of divine being, but they're not so committed to a lot of the specifics of the religion they were raised in. They have the idea that their church may be wrong about some (many?) of the details, but they still see some value in worshipping there. In this case, they're quite possibly open to trying other religions to see if they provide a better fit. They may switch because (a) they truly believe the new religion is a better fit for them, or (b) it's no worse than the previous one was, and switching is important to their (prospective?) spouse. This sort of thing seems very common among Protestant religions and fairly common for Protestant/Catholic conversions. Other conversions like Jewish/Christian are more extreme of course and correspondingly less common (I think), but I believe the thought processes involved are often similar.
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    You must confess your sins to a priest for salvation.
    Not quite. Only mortal sins need to be confessed but you can still be saved even without confession.
    You must attend church in order to pray (speak to God)
    Actually you can pray anytime and anywhere. In fact, some Catholic groups even teach that everything you do is a form of prayer. The mass is a communal service that reminds Catholics that they are community of believers.
    You must attend church regularly (typically weekly) to be religious.
    You can be religious at anytime but failing to attend mass without a good reason is a sin.
    Priests/Nuns cannot marry because it would interfere with their love of God (really because of land disputes when priests died in the past)
    Not marrying is a discipline of the Church and can be changed anytime that the Pope chooses. The basis for it was that some nobles would appoint themselves bishop and pass the title on to their son.
    You must baptize infants to enable them to enter heaven. They die before baptizm, they go to purgitory (not heaven, not hell).
    The Church has no official teaching on what happens to unbaptized babies. They are given in to God's mercy. Some people have suggested that there might be a place called limbo while others have suggested that God in His infinite mercy would apply batism of desire to them. By the way, the Church teaches that even if you aren't baptized you can still get into heaven through baptism of desire.
    As an adult/teenager you must go through confirmation (adult baptizm).
    Confirmation is not required.
    Priests are only men.
    This is true. Some have suggested that a future Church council (the Church has them about every 100 years or so - the next one would be due around 2060) may change this.
    John Smith
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 08, 2001
    Posts: 2937
    Jim: They may switch because (a) they truly believe the new religion is a better fit for them, or (b) it's no worse than the previous one was, and switching is important to their (prospective?) spouse.
    Right, and that's the kinds of motivation that I am questioning. If I were God, I would tell this to Moses:
    Commandment #11: You shall be honest to yourself.
    Eugene.
    Anonymous
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Nov 22, 2008
    Posts: 18944
    Originally posted by Jason Menard:

    More accurately, Catholic beliefs are laid out pretty well in the Nicean Creed: (omitted)
    [ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

    People look at the various Christian sects today and assume their fundamental doctrines, such as the Trinity, were there since the beginning. Not true. The Nicean creed (which clearly spelled out the Trinity) was the result of a Roman emperor forcing disagreeing bishops to come to some agreement through majority vote. It was a political decision. It is said the emperor expressed displeasure at those bishops who did not vote in the way he wanted. Maybe a little too much secular pressure on the decision making process...
    Then there were other large groups of early Christians, the Gnostics and the Cathars, who disagreed with with fundamental doctrines as well, and who were suppressed or murdered in large numbers by the "mainline" church.
    It was once possible to be considered Christian and not believe in the Trinity, and perhaps that still is a valid viewpoint.
    Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    Eugene - you mean option (b) above? I don't see anything wrong with (a) after all. (b) is more problematic, but may still be workable. In terms of honesty with oneself, a person may believe that, although they haven't succeeeded in finding an organized religion that really matches fully with their inner beliefs, they still get some benefit from gathering with other worshippers with at least sorta similar beliefs, and they've reached a point in life where it doesn't seem worth the effort to keep trying to find a better fit, religion-wise. Finding and stayinhg with a good spouse can be much more important at this point. One can still be honest with oneself (at least) about this. The next issue is being honest with the spose, and others in the new religion, and do the spouse and the new religion accept this sort of attitude? It's going to be tough to reconcile all this, true, and I'm not really advocating this path - but I do have some sympathy for those who find themselves in this situation.
    [ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
    Cindy Glass
    "The Hood"
    Sheriff

    Joined: Sep 29, 2000
    Posts: 8521
    Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
    Jim: They may switch because (a) they truly believe the new religion is a better fit for them, or (b) it's no worse than the previous one was, and switching is important to their (prospective?) spouse.
    Right, and that's the kinds of motivation that I am questioning. If I were God, I would tell this to Moses:
    Commandment #11: You shall be honest to yourself.
    Eugene.

    Perhaps your confusion is that you are considering Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic etc different religions. They are not. They are ALL the Christian religion, with extememly minor nuances that motivate folks to separate into different sects when they worship. But make no mistake, they are all the same religion.
    I am first and foremost a Christian. I currently choose to worship with a group of people in a Lutheran church. I have worshiped in Catholic churches, Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches etc over the years, but I find myself more comfortable with the interpretations of this group of people.
    When my husband and I got married we were members of a Disiples of Christ church for many years. When we moved to Michigan there was no church of that denomination around, so we joined a Lutheran church (missouri synod). When we moved again we joined a different synod of Lutheran church (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). Minor differences - the same religion.
    The Catholic church is probably the most different from Protestant churches, and there are many things that I RADICALLY oppose in their teachings, but that does not prevent me from worshipping there upon occasion.
    John Lee
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Aug 05, 2001
    Posts: 2545
    Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
    [qb]"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."-- George Bush
    Though I am reading this non-sense first time but still I believe that Bush-The-Great can say such trumpery [/QB]

     
    GeeCON Prague 2014
     
    subject: Change Of Faith