09 Mar 06
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are claiming that all Lutherans are irrational by virtue of their acceptance of Christ and denial of Catholicism.
I never said that Lutherans can't actually be followers of Christ - I said that they could not coherently do so.
So, you'd prefer to reject Christ altogether than to accept him as part of an incoherent belief system? Why is this preferable to being a deluded Lutheran who believes in Christ?
Isn't belief in Christ more important than consistency? If not, how can you fault skeptics who withhold belief due to the inconsistencies they observe which preclude their faith?
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerCall up your nearest Reform, Reconstructionist or Conservative* rabbi and tell him/her you want to convert. You’ll probably have to make a convincing case for your sincerity, as I believe that automatic rejection at first is part of the process. Orthodox may be more difficult. You can look it up on the web.
How?
Matrilineality is not a requirement for conversion. In fact, it is only if your mother is a Jew that your are automatically considered a Jew. One can simply become a religious Jew (again, I’m not sure about the Orthodox.) Because of the cultural issues that you mention, Reform might be the best bet.
* I don’t know if there are Conservative Jews in England, as it started as an American movement. Reform Jews in England may be called “Liberal” rather than Reform.
09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, I suppose I could do some sort of "ocean/wave" thing with it... But, yes, I think it is--at least based on my readings of the various versions. I see the connection you're making though, I think.
Is animism inconsistent with your current belief system?
EDIT: I think I spoke too quickly before about a "monistic" base in animistic systems. They really seem to be more theistic. The spirits, though sometimes called gods, are created beings, closer perhaos to angels/demons. They are individual: this river spirit is not the same as that bear spirit, and so I don't think the monistic viewpoint (or the ocean/wave) works.
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBecause I believe in the existence of objective, coherent truth. If Jesus can only be the Christ in an incoherent system, then he cannot truly be the Christ.
So, you'd prefer to reject Christ altogether than to accept him as part of an incoherent belief system? Why is this preferable to being a deluded Lutheran who believes in Christ?
Isn't belief in Christ more important than consistency?
It is - but that can only be argued from within a system that is itself coherent.
If not, how can you fault skeptics who withhold belief due to the inconsistencies they observe which preclude their faith?
I do not automatically fault skeptics for witholding belief - I fault those who are excessively skeptical when it comes to the Gospel (especially when they do not do so on other matters).
09 Mar 06
If I could not be an atheist zoroastrian (which I really can't), I would invent my own religion. It would have one simple commandment: "Thou shalt not commit any act (directly or indirectly) that can cause any other living thing grief or misery."
From that simple commandment comes all the good things one can think of. I think. Although, the religion has not yet been invented since I'm still trying to be an atheist zoroastrian. Which, doesn't work. But then again, the same could be said about most religions if viewed objectively.
Animism is interesting too. I might want to include that all things have a soul, purpose and meaning in life when writing my book of wisdom. It will be called Stockenism - the book of wisdom. And there we go! The religion has been invented.
The book, of course, will be not even one full page. The meaning of the two sentences however, are such that you can ponder a lifetime over them and still find new depth.
"Thou shalt not commit any act (directly or indirectly) that can cause any other living thing grief or misery. Everything in the universe, no matter how inanimated and cold, has a soul, meaning and purpose in life."
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by vistesdLol. I liked the getting one with nature part -- where do I sign up? 🙂
🙂
Well, given the premises that (a) I stop believing what I currently do, and (b) that I have a choice—i.e., that I am not compelled by some revelatory experience—
Broadly, animism is based on the notion of a spirit-filled universe, such spirit either manifesting itself as, or—more commonly I think—being embodied in physical things: trees, hawks, riv ...[text shortened]... a sacrificial aspect that I’d have trouble embracing—though our goats tempt me sometimes... 🙂
My only exposure to animism has been in Southern Africa, (admittedly from the biased perspective of Christianity), but from experience, I can't say it'd be a "religion" I'd enjoy -- the supernatural/spiritism part being the one main drawback.
Generally its adherents live in the constant fear of "angering" the ancestral spirits -- with the animal sacrifices to do the appeasing part (goats being the favourite). Spiritistic channeling is part of the extended package deal here, with the medium/medicine-man (referred to as the Isangoma in the local dialect) being ubiquitous in many rural areas.
When the people experience any sort of problem -- from crop failure to illness -- they go ask of the 'sangoma for the reason of their misfortune. For a price, the 'sangoma would toss his/her bones and enquire of "the ancestors". Usually, the answer is that a neighbour had "bewitched" their land or sick child and then demand payment for an antidotal potion (with ingredients varying from lion dung and human brain to local herbs, etc.).
Generally, this has been quite counterproductive when trying to convince people that their crops fail due to agricultural reasons and that illness is (normally) a result of bad hygiene.
Quite depressing.
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen you're back to claiming that Lutherans necessarily reject Christ, and thus I'm back to asking why they should be included in the group of followers that Christ wants to be unified, since they don't follow him.
Because I believe in the existence of objective, coherent truth. If Jesus can only be the Christ in an incoherent system, then he cannot truly be the Christ.
09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenAre you going to apply that at the microscopic level as well?
If I could not be an atheist zoroastrian (which I really can't), I would invent my own religion. It would have one simple commandment: "Thou shalt not commit any act (directly or indirectly) that can cause any other living thing grief or misery."
From that simple commandment comes all the good things one can think of. I think. Although, the religion has n he universe, no matter how inanimated and cold, has a soul, meaning and purpose in life."
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI have to agree with you; I would have the same stumbling block. Even though I think some of the North American versions might be more congenial--say, among the Pueblos.
Lol. I liked the getting one with nature part -- where do I sign up? 🙂
My only exposure to animism has been in Southern Africa, (admittedly from the biased perspective of Christianity), but from experience, I can't say it'd be a "religion" I'd enjoy -- the supernatural/spiritism part being the one main drawback.
Generally its adherents live in the ...[text shortened]... easons and that illness is (normally) a result of bad hygiene.
Quite depressing.
But I guess I'd be a heretic there too...
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNope - I'm not back to saying that Lutherans necessarily reject Christ.
Then you're back to claiming that Lutherans necessarily reject Christ, and thus I'm back to asking why they should be included in the group of followers that Christ wants to be unified, since they don't follow him.
09 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerLucifershammer: "So, objectively speaking, yes - rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ."
Nope - I'm not back to saying that Lutherans necessarily reject Christ.
You are impossible to argue with because you change your position or equivocate with every post.
09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseFunny. I always considered the followers of abrahamistic religions to live in fear of their God; constantly trying to lead their lifes so as not to bring the wrath of God upon them. Not much difference between them and people sacrificing animals really. They all have their ideas on how to please their god(s).
Generally its adherents live in the constant fear of "angering" the ancestral spirits
Of course, sacrificing a living thing to improve my own status with a supreme being is totally alien to me. But so is getting on my knees and talking to a invisible thingie at bedtime, or keeping my hands off a beautiful and willing female should the opportunity arise. One is horrible, one is silly and the third is just plain stupid.
From my point of view that is.