• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Who Believes In Me?

WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT BELIEF SYSTEM?

  • CHRISTIAN

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • CHRISTIAN (NON PRACTICING)

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • MUSLIM

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • JEWISH

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • BUDDHIST

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • AGNOSTIC

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • ATHEIST

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • PAGAN

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • SATANIST

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • "SPIRITUAL" OR OTHER

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • HINDU

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    13
Quite right. "Non-practicing" means believing but not in the organised religion sense, not going to church, not doing certain things on certain days, that kind of thing.
By the way, folks, keep voting. I think it's a fascinating insight into what Forteans truly believe.
 
Perhaps this is unique to the Christian religion, but we are saved through faith as a gift of God. Hence, if we believe we are "practicing."
 
practicing

It seems people practice in times of great stress, war-illness-pondering mortality-etc...
 
What happens in other religions?

We have 1 Muslim and 2 Buddhists who cast their votes on the poll. It would be good to hear from them - to have their particular take on these debates.

For example, can you be a non-practising Muslim or a non- practising Buddhist?

Heather :)
 
other religions

If they are stressed out enough they'll get out and practice-especially if there being bombed or shot at.
 
Without wanting to appear too pedantic, Buddhism is not a religion ~ it is an oriental philosophy advocating withdrawal from worldly matters in favour of contemplation for the attainment of personal inner peace.
 
buddist

Yes! like looking in a mirror and saying that is reality "that kinda stuff"
 
I think it is a bit more than that, Exo. And I am not going to dispute that it is a philosophy also. Just as with Christianity, there seem to be a variety of strands, differing from one Asian country to another.

At one time I was particularly drawn to Zen Buddhism - but that's another story.......

Heather.
 
I would be interested in one or both of the two allegedly "non-practicing" Christians, who voted in this poll, describing what makes them say they are Christian while, at the same time, not actually feeling they practice Christianity to warrant a vote in that category itself.

Do they mean "cradle Christian" or "non-church attending" or what?
 
What is a 'cradle christian'?

Another question: where do we draw the line between religion and philosiphy?

Is Marxism a religion as it infulances every facit of a persons life? Confusism? That's a philosiphy but infulasnces interpersonal relations. The argumant is an academic one.
 
A "cradle Christian" is someone born and baptised into a Christian environment, who often ticks the "yes" box next to Christian when asked their religion, irrespective as to whether they practice and believe in the faith or not.

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom or knowledge.

Faith is the belief in doctrines and a spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof.

Marxism is not a religious faith. It is a political and economic theory based on the writings of Karl Marx who advocated the abolition of private property, and State provision of work and subsistence for all.

Confucianism is a philosophy.

The argument is not academic. There isn't, in fact, an argument. These are statements of fact, not personal opinion.
 
While not being a 'cradle christian' I find the term deaply ofensive.
 
jamesveldon said:
While not being a 'cradle christian' I find the term deaply ofensive.
Click to expand...

I find the concept of a cradle Christian offensive too.

My own take on life is that everyone should be free to choose their own path, spiritually speaking.

Although I'm a Pagan and my Wife is an Agnostic, my kids will never have our opinions forced onto them - the key is to provide good, responsible and wholesome guidance without depriving them of options or self awareness.

When they are old enough to ask questions about religion, they'll get answers about religion - all of it - to enable them to make their own minds up.

Cradle Indoctrination seems to me to be incredibly unfair and wholly domineering - I know there's the question of saving the child's soul - but can't you defer the indoctrination until an approriate time and save remotely for a while?

I look around and I see so many people who are turned off religion in such a big way - i'm sure there are many on this site - who were force-fed at school and at home.
The brainwashing tactics used - the repetitive hyms etc etc - it doesn't mean anything unless there's meaning in it.
Kids aren't thick.
Religion in general IMO would do itself a big favour by laying of the early recruitment program.
 
My own impression / understanding is that the one - god who has posted here is, historically, simply a metaphor or explanation discovered and recognised following a gradual distillation of broader philosophical questions. In standing for all that cannot be understood, the 'one god' is surely, in a sense, somehow a metaphor for either all the other former gods - or else a metaphor for what god might even mean.

I always think of this debate in terms of, for example, the way in which the numbers of laws of science seem to be gradually reduced. We come back to a basic truth which we can notice but not explain. The wind analogy works to an extent for me - although, I think, we can explain the wind.

I certainly don't see my position as anti religious. And, of course, I don't even really have the language to explain what I mean exactly. Personally I don't think there is any bigger question than whether or not one believes in God. Ultimately - I do. But I don't know for sure what I mean by God.

Personally I think that there is so much potential good and so much good science and sense in the thinking that resulted in Christianity. For me the words of the funeral service give me purpose and yet seem so clearly also sensible. I don't find a huge gap between science, Christianity or, even agnosticism. I personally find great peace in the sense that my matter and energy is part of a greater immortality. Metaphorically I can certainly see us as the children of God.

A Muslim friend once told me that in his upbringing the personification of God was effectively considered blasphemous. That made good sense to me. I think that trying to explain God is pointless.
 
My own impression / understanding is that the one - god who has posted here...
Click to expand...
In view of the fact that otherwise quite sensible people seem to be of the impression that GOD really is posting on this thread and that others are quite often posting quite sensible and thoughtful stuff.

Isn't it about time that the Mods closed this thread down? Before things get out of hand.
 
I don't follow you, Andro...? Seems pretty sensible to me so far.
 
i've been refering to myself as a "Catholick" lately(born and raised catholic). i've never really read much of Crowley, although i like the way he added the K to magic to distinguish it from something else, as well as Jhon from Coil adding it to music to make "musick" in order allude to a much deeper context in music. i love Catholicism's teachings and service to the poor and ungodly; but i also love it's aesthetics, rituals, traditions, dark history and design, i.e. votive candles, easter, blood into wine, communion, the inquisition and cathedrals. but as a "catholick", i feel i can basically get the same spiritual advice from a rabbi, buddhist monk, muslim teacher or any other religious clergyman. because God is really everywhere if you think about it, just interperated thru different cultures.

my beliefs are the "luciferian/humanistic" sides to a human. i see the angel Lucifer as something totally different from Satan and the devil. to me, he was first angel to rally against God because he allowed humans to die; he objected to the pain and suffering of mortality and humanity. he did't like the idea of an "end". and with this, he was cast out. the humanistic side of what i believe has to do with the heart: homosexuality, adultery, etc. this is a grey area because it involves the heart and i believe that, although God can make a heart, he can't control it or judge it. i've learned this from experiance. having had lovers of both sexes, having had a married woman as a lover once. not once did i feel guilty, because all of this was done in perfect love, without malice, evil or hate.

God is the manifestation in man to do good; Satan is the manifestation in man to do evil; Lucifer is the realisation in man that he is human, mortal, flawed and down on the this earth to live and know that he has the ability for a higher consciousness...intellect, knowledge, a thirst for truth.

i can remember when i was a pious little boy going to catholic school, sneaking kisses with girls in front of the preists, fooling around with boys, worrying myself to death thinking i was going to hell because of sexuality. now a days, my heart is not something for God to hold court over, just a vessel in which i feel all the world with...like Lucifer did, feeling people dying of disease, war, hate, destruction, evil and corruption.

ok, i'm done... ;)

i hope that didn't annoy or weird anyone out
 
It all sounds too perilously close to the Process Church of the Final Judgement for me.

However, that anyone should take offence to the term "cradle Christian" is staggering. It has most often been used by Roman Catholics who, having lapsed, refer to themselves as being only "cradle Catholics." That is to say they were raised in the RC faith, but no longer attend Mass and other obligations peculiar to their faith.

Though they still feel some attachment to Roman Catholicsim, their own lack of commitment to the faith of their young life disqualfies them from describing themselves as being anything other than "cradle Catholics."

Anglicans in similar circumstances are altogether less bothered. Such obligations are fewer and, even if they only attend baptisms, marriages and funerals within their parish church they will invariably describe themselves as "C of E" ~ sometimes adding "I suppose."

A practicing Christian is one who believes in Christ as the Redeemer and knows that He lives.
 
Exorcistate, have you ever read the Urantia book? What's your opinion on it if you have? Could a person be a Christian if they used the book as the primary source for Jesus's teachings, rather than the NT?
 
I haven't read anything of that name, but it would be unacceptable to every Christian within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to supplant the New Testament with anything.
 
Exorcistate said:
However, that anyone should take offence to the term "cradle Christian" is staggering. It has most often been used by Roman Catholics who, having lapsed, refer to themselves as being only "cradle Catholics." That is to say they were raised in the RC faith, but no longer attend Mass and other obligations peculiar to their faith.

Though they still feel some attachment to Roman Catholicsim, their own lack of commitment to the faith of their young life disqualfies them from describing themselves as being anything other than "cradle Catholics."
Click to expand...

As a formar catholic I have never came across thos term and I'm afraid I do find it ofensive.

It's inportant that we get these kind of misunderstandings out of the way so we can have a debate in wich everyone feals welcome.
 
Speak to your parents' generation who are Roman Catholic, or, better still, to your grandparents' generation. They will definitely be familiar with this term, and it is not at all derisory. It is used almost exclusively by those who consider themselves to be "cradle Catholics."

As for "everyone feeling welcome" ~ how is that possible? I have Satanists on at least three threads telling me that I'm the intolerant one because of my strong disapproval of Aleister Crowley and diabolism in general. How is everyone going to feel welcome on a forum such as this one? It is neither possible, nor is it particularly important. What matters is that everyone expresses themselves without defaming and harassing other MB users.
 
jamesveldon said:
While not being a 'cradle christian' I find the term deaply ofensive.
Click to expand...


Over here we have people who call themselves "cradle Episcopalians" or "cradle Methodists" meaning that their immediate family subscribes to a particular denomination and that they were raised to follow the doctrines of that denomination.

The "cradle" modifier is sometimes used as a nasty remark meaning "my family really belongs here and you are just a convert." And, indeed, used that way, "cradle" is offensive.

In what way is "cradle Christian" offensive to you, James? I'm sure no offense was intended!
 
Exorcistate said:
What matters is that everyone expresses themselves without defaming and harassing other MB users.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how everyone is welcomed.

(Enough for today, I've got to go scrub the kitchen tiles!)

Best to everyone.
 
satanic abuse of exorcistate

93,

>I have Satanists on at least three threads telling me that I'm >the intolerant one because of my strong disapproval of Aleister >Crowley and diabolism in general.

My friend, if you are going to make blanket statements or perpetrate down right lies about AC then you are going to get picked up for it.
In the same way, if I made unsubstantiated claims about Christianity I'd expect to be criticised.
Hopefully I am strong enough to be able to learn from other people and able to change my world view if my facts are found to be flawed.
The beauty of these forums is that there is a wide range of interests and beliefs on them. I for one welcome the inclusive nature of the Fortean Times messageboards and the fact that you can rub shoulders with Catholic oddballs, Diabolists, conspiracy freaks and so forth. The debate here is spirited but good natured and some of the tangents are most productive.
You have a distinctive voice, even if I disagree with everything you say. Don't go developing a martyr complex. Satanists, Thelemites and Diabolists are remarkably tolerant in the main.
Satanists don't tolerate stupidity. Thelemites don't tolerate people obstructing their Will. It's that simple.

93 93 93

Peter Grey
 
As we've pointed out passim, debate about points or issues is fine: personal insult is not, and will attract moderational attention.

Everyone does have the right to speak, provided it is not at the expense of another.

Can we lighten the tone a little, please? This is a discussion about religion as a whole, not a sniping contest.

Thank you.

Stu.
 
Some religions have the belief that they have a Divine right to convert people from other faiths:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Ananova:

The Church of England has backed bids by evangelicals to try to convert Muslims, Hindus, Jews and followers of other faiths.

A move to actively seek conversions was passed overwhelmingly by the Church’s General Synod in York.

While recruiting non-believers has always been a Christian duty,
converting people from other faiths has been seen to have
difficulties by some in the modern age.

The motion promoting the conversion crusade comes as Church of England flocks dwindle. It has lost a quarter of its worshippers since 1990.

Leading Muslims have expressed concern, saying Church of England missionaries engaged in important charity work are likely to face increased suspicion among the Muslim community.

Suleman Nagdi, of the Federation of Muslim Organisations, told The Sunday Times: “Christians will be doing active missionary work through interfaith work, and this could be damaged as we will be suspicious that they have an agenda.”

Alison Ruoff, a leading evangelical from the diocese of London, supported the motion. She said: “Christians have to say the gospel is for everyone. We have to stand up and not be concerned about being politically correct.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trouble is that when this belief runs so deep, it is sometimes impossible for them to see how bigoted and offensive this is for the practitioners of other faiths.

It's nice that there is concern for everyones soul, but maybe their soul is just fine following the spiritual path that they have chosen and are meant to follow.
 
Quicksilver said:
The Church of England has backed bids by evangelicals to try to convert Muslims, Hindus, Jews and followers of other faiths.

A move to actively seek conversions was passed overwhelmingly by the Church?s General Synod in York.
Click to expand...

I'm simultaneously appalled, astonished, and embarrassed!

Nooooooooooooo. :eek!!!!:
 
The Church of England has backed bids by evangelicals to try to convert Muslims, Hindus, Jews and followers of other faiths.

A move to actively seek conversions was passed overwhelmingly by the Church?s General Synod in York.
Click to expand...
As the Reverend Tony Hancock might have said, "The Church of England has believers all over the World! None in England, but all over the World!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top