posted
As some of you may remember, I have left the LDS church. Right now I am in the process of looking for a nice quiet church to feel the spirit and teach my son bible stories. I don't want to get caught up in what is true or not. I don't want to have to prove anything. I don't want to make the mistake (well, it seems like a mistake for me) of quitting all religion and being faithless.
My "unconversion" has made me more cynical of religion. I won't get into the "whys;" OSC and a lot of members here are Mormons I respect. I am, however, becoming uncomfortable around organized religion.
quote:It is one of the larger churches in Angola, but even here they believe in the power of evil spirits - of Kindoki and fetishism.
quote: Sitting on the floor was a terrified, near naked girl of eight, her head shaven. She cowered as her mother and a pastor shouted at her.
This was an exorcism, the pastor told us. The mother's marriage had broken down, it was the child's fault as she was possessed with Kindoki.
Im reading this and thinking, "Most people are good in my opinion. Most of the people I know are religious–and they are not ignorant or abusive. Religion seems to easily morph into ignorance and abuse. It is not that way around me right now, but it seems religion gets perverted so easily. Why? Wouldn't these people be better off agnostic? Help me understand the value of religion. I now I am making the mistake of putting the abuses of a few on an entire concept...but...I am becoming more cynical then I want.
posted
I'm not too far removed from what you describe and still going through the tail end of a bit of a similar crisis of my own. I haven't gotten around to what formal education I'm going to give my kids.
I'm guessing that what you mean by not wanting to get into what is "true" is that you don;t want to argue it here? I can appreciate that... but I would suggest you decide what you think is true and figure out how you can best follow those tenets. I come from a highly authority-oriented church, too, and an important thing to remember is that you don't need anyone's permission to talk to God.
I'd happily pen-pal with you about this as well...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My suggestion for you is to look for an independent, non-denominational Christian church. Many that style themselves "seeker-friendly" are laid back, casual atmospheres, that would probably appeal to you right now.
I wish you luck in your search.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough, I'm sure, and I really don't have any input that will be helpful.
But I think cases like this, and cases where extreme forms of religion turn into justification for terrorism and other things go to show that "religion" is not one thing. Some concepts of religion are even antithetical to others. Issues of truth are sticky things, but you've got to place some truth, or at least a vague set of what you believe to be true principles, somewhere, and pursue a course of inquiry into what religion best teaches those things. In many cases, religious influence is a good thing in one's life, but it can also be very bad if the religion is teaching untrue principles.
If I found myself without a church that I believed in, I would rather teach my children why I felt current religions did not measure up to my idea of right than take them to a church where I felt that something was wrong.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Annie's right. "Organized religion" is no more a cohesive or monolithic idea than is the idea of organized nations.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I second what Belle suggests. Truth is, that's pretty much the only kind of church I feel comfortable in, even now, more than 20 years later. Key elements for me in looking for a church: every reasonable effort should be expended to make anyone feel welcome, including people who smell bad and/or look suspicious; the pastor is very clear that he doesn't know everything and that we should check what he says against scripture (in other words, he exhibits genuine humility); the pastor makes it clear that his church does not have an exclusive on truth, by which I mean, if the style of the church doesn't suit, he encourages you to find and recommends other churches that might fit better (it doesn't mean that he thinks that Christians are essentially the same thing as Hindus/Muslims/Buddhists/any other non-Christian religion).
edited to make the sentence say what I intended it to say, not the exact opposite. :blush:
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, churches go bad on a congragational level becuase they allow themselves to give in to the mob mentality. The theory applies across the board - there was a show on A&E about teen thrill killers, and one of the psychs said that none of these kids would do these things on their own, but in a group anyone will do just about anything in order to get approval from the group. I can't fathom any good reason for yelling at a little girl for her parents' marriage breaking up other than rife stupidity and being caught up in a nasty mob. Also, in this case, the mob may well have been directed by its "pastor" whose motivations can't really be divined - but if I had to guess, they wouldn't be so great.
hope that made some bit of sense
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm seeing if I've got you well-trained enough yet to show indignation and disgust at my mere presence in a religious thread.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this question remind you of Agatha Christie?
--
About the value of religion: I think that would depend on the religion, AND on whether its claims are accurate. So I'd start with "what's real?" rather than "what's the point?" Although "what's the point?" might get some interesting answers too.
--
There's also the question of: does religion easily morph into abuse? Let me rephrase it: does religion make for more abuse, or less? I suggest that some people are inherently abusive, and religion (like other things) can pull them that way or push them toward mercy. I think it's reasonable to guess that religions that have mercy as a virtue (most modern ones) push people toward mercy, and those that have heartlessness as a virtue (ancient Maya) push people toward heartlessness.
Religion and sex are powerful forces. People get screwed up about things, and when it's religion (or sex), it's worse than if people get screwed up about what brand of cola to buy.
Let's also remember what anti-religion has morphed into in the past century: the Stalin purges, and 50M killed in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Anti-religion is a pretty powerful religion, and when it gets abusive, it's unparalleled, at least in sheer numbers of deaths. So I don't think dropping religion will protect us. It sure didn't protect the Chinese.
(And consider: what is the motivation here for dropping a religion, or religion shopping? Whatever the motivation is, that's the current religion. So we might not only look for a religion; we might consider the ones we're already loyal to, and using as a standard for the search.)
--
About a nice quiet church: this is so far from what I want it's hard, but I think a lot of Methodist churches might fit this bill. Maybe Lutheran?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your boyfriend or girlfriend abuses you the solution is to keep looking, not to lose faith in love altogether. Similarly, if your church abuses you, I think the answer is the same: keep looking and eventually you will find the religion that is right. Don't lose faith because of one church.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sort of feel the same way, lem. I asked, why do we even need religion in the first place? It seems extremely restrictive and frustrating for the most part. Yet, so much beautiful music has come from religion. Like laturgical masses and gospel. Other than that, it bothers and frustrates me. Perhaps because it stopped making sense when I hit adolescence.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let's also remember what anti-religion has morphed into in the past century: the Stalin purges, and 50M killed in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
*polite cough* It's worth pointing out that none of these killings were in fact really a result of anti-religion. At most, you can argue that they were politically-motivated killings by officially atheistic governments -- but, frankly, I'd argue that none of the governments in question were truly areligious, as all had as central tenets a fundamental worship of the State and its leaders.
There's an enormous and important distinction between people being killed because a government officially doesn't believe in God and people being killed by a government that officially doesn't believe in God. It's the same distinction between being beaten by a Christian for not being Christian enough and being beaten by someone who just happens to be Christian.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm guessing that what you mean by not wanting to get into what is "true" is that you don;t want to argue it here?
“Not wanting to get into what is true" has little to do with arguments here on Hatrack. It has to do with how I want to approach religion.
I define at least two types of truth--Reality (factual and observable) and Metaphorical (personal beauty and insight).
Utah is a state is an undeniable truth to me. Praying about redemption, forgiveness, mercy, love, family, and honesty is what I would consider a personal truth I glean (or reinforce) from metaphors.
There is so much truth in the Adam/Eve story. It doesn't matter to me if they existed or not literally--the story contains metaphorical truth.
When religion starts to blend reality with fantastic stories, the beauty is lost to me. In the LDS church I HAD to accept as reality that the Nephites really lived in America, that the BoM was translated from gold plates, that angels visited Joseph and restored priesthood power, that the BoA was accurately translated from Papyrus and contained the actual preserved writing of Abraham, and that Adam and Eve are truly the first humans who lived in a world with no death--which makes evolution a little hard to accept.
I don't accept any of those as being real. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't just take the good stories from the BoM: the foundation of the church rests in the literalness of it all. It is supposed to be a restored church governed by priesthood power.
Poetic truth and beauty becomes very stale when you hold it to a microscope, and by belonging to a church that focuses on the "reality" of it all, I feel compelled to hold up the microscope. Under those conditions, the BoM satisfactorily fails every test I put it to. In the end, my sense of relief at accepting it's falsehood was an answer to a prayer I was trying to force for 16 years.
I don't want to go through that again with another religion. It doesn't matter if Christ was born of a virgin birth and redeemed mankind. I would just like to hope it is true, pray, try to maintain a relationship, and focus the "truths" in the story.
I want a church that doesn't claim to be true or to know the answers--but I do want a church. However, these days I am noticing a lot of atrocities in organized religion, and I am thinking that the kind of truth I am searching for can not be found in organized religion. I hope I am wrong. I want to take Toshi someplace that is life affirming each Sunday.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or some branches of Buddhism and a few other eastern religions, though those options seem to lack some other implied requirements Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, it seems to me that what you're really asking for is a church in which you can do, say, and believe whatever you want and still have them around to pat you on the figurative spiritual head and tell you you're a good person. I don't know of many churches like that. And I would be wary of all of them.
<shrug> Of course, I've never been able to understand the "find a church that fits your particular needs and predilections" thing that many people proclaim.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because finding a church which doesn't fit your particular needs is a surer route to happiness. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I think you can find that kind of beauty in most religions and mythologies throughout the ages. I'll revise my original statement slightly... figure out what you can and cannot believe and go from there.
For example, I wouldn't recommend being a Christian if you can't believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. If all religions ultimately fail this test for you... if all you want is the beauty of mythos without wanting any of it to be true... then I recommend collecting the great old stories of Mankind from a variety of cultures and teaching them to your children.
I agree with Chesterton, though, that the note of the great myths was not "these things are" but "why can this not be?" I would search for what C.S. Lewis called the Myth that became Fact-- something you can believe happened which carries the beauty and truth that you desire-- even if it's merely the story of Robin Hood or King Arthur.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That would be the Unitarians, then. [Smile]
That is what I am thinking, but my little city doesn't have a Unitarian church....bahh!!!!
quote:Or some branches of Buddhism and a few other eastern religions, though those options seem to lack some other implied requirements [Wink]
I have seriously thought about that. Toshi is half Japanese. When I was on a mission to Korea, I always thought the Buddhists were the nicest people.
quote:lem, it seems to me that what you're really asking for is a church in which you can do, say, and believe whatever you want and still have them around to pat you on the figurative spiritual head and tell you you're a good person.
It sounds like there is an implication there that I want to belong to a church that will not hold me morally accountable for anything and just get positive reinforcement. Is that really what you are implying?
I believe that morality can be defined and that we are accountable to at least ourselves and hopefully God. I don't think you have to accept a certain mythos as literal in order to hold yourself accountable to be a better person. I have known too many moral atheists and agnostics who treat others in what I would call a “Christ-like” manner to ever judge someone based on belief alone.
Right now I am hearing a lot on the news about Warren Jeffs. I think it is scarey when someone claims to be representing God. I think the next book I am going to read is "Under The Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's an enormous and important distinction between people being killed because a government officially doesn't believe in God and people being killed by a government that officially doesn't believe in God.
That's why I didn't mention the Holocaust or the European theater of WWII, which were perpetrated by a secular government, but not one that hated religion.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's why I didn't mention the Holocaust or the European theater of WWII, which were perpetrated by a secular government, but not one that hated religion.
Ironically, the Holocaust is a better example of anti-religion than any of the Stalinist purges. Stalin didn't actually kill millions because of their faith, or because he didn't have any -- whereas the Jews WERE killed (albeit obliquely) for theirs.
It's a common myth among religious people that somehow atheism logically and inevitably leads to regimes like Pol Pot's. And I'd like to point out that it doesn't. Pol Pot would have been just as nasty if he'd been a Lutheran.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, check out stillspeaking.org... It's a useful site for the UCC (often referred to as Unitarians Considering Christ, for good or ill). The churches can run the gamut from conservative to liberal, and everything in between, so even if there is one in your area, it may not fit... But it might.
The church has been trying to rework it's image as a church for "seekers".
quote:A perfect book to read if you're not looking for "truth". I hear it's quite the pageturner. [Roll Eyes]
That is pretty snarky--maybe because you don't offer an analysis of your contempt's foundation. Why are you so quick to say it is not truth? I haven't read it, so I assume you could be right. Have you read it? Are there documentations that supports it's contentions? Are there documentations that refute the books premise?
I have not read it. I have only heard that it is about murders committed by fanatical members. I think it is about the polygamous sect, discusses blood atonement, and casts a shadow on the polygamous groups.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it was a bit snarky... but perhaps his point that reading anti-religious literature is not the best way to find a religion you can believe in is well taken.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lem- in my opinion, similar to what Jim-me suggested, is examine what you really believe.
At your core, what is really important to you? What are the underlying beliefs which affect your everyday assumptions?
This is a bit hard to do because our underlying assumptions generally include things we believe to be true but never think about.
At any rate, you should ask yourself questions, like whether or not you believe in God, and if so what you believe about him.
Or perhaps religion is not the important thing, but community. It seems to me like part of what you are looking for is a community to belong to rather than a church. One of the primary characteristics of the church you are leaving is the active community it engenders. Perhaps you should consider doing something like joining the Lion's club, or a soccer club or any other group which has values or celiefs which coincide with your own.
I would also like to echo Jim-me's advice about anti-religious literature, or any anti-religious group at all. Replacing the vacuum that will be created by leaving your church with venom strikes me as a particularly bad idea.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stalin didn't actually kill millions because of their faith, or because he didn't have any --
True enough: Stalin killed them because of HIS faith, not because of theirs.
quote: whereas the Jews WERE killed (albeit obliquely) for theirs.
Not at all. Converted Jews were rounded up and killed together with the observant.
quote:It's a common myth among religious people that somehow atheism logically and inevitably leads to regimes like Pol Pot's.
I've never heard this myth before, despite being surrounded by religious people all my life, so it can't be very common.
quote:Pol Pot would have been just as nasty if he'd been a Lutheran.
This would be more credible if a Lutheran had killed off half the population of a country, and if Lutheranism didn't contain the Golden Rule, and if Lutheranism did contain something about exterminating people who got in the way of Lutheranism's goal. But those things aren't true. I find no reason at all to believe this statement.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This would be more credible if a Lutheran had killed off half the population of a country, and if Lutheranism didn't contain the Golden Rule, and if Lutheranism did contain something about exterminating people who got in the way of Lutheranism's goal.
Three guesses as to why I find this hysterically funny.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only explanation I can credit is that you have found a part of the Lutheran liturgy that calls for exterminating opponents; you have proof that the Golden Rule was never a part of Lutheran religion; and you have identified a Lutheran that has killed off half the population of his country. If that were true, it would be a pretty sick joke, one that I hope no one would find worth hysterical laughter, but I guess it could at least be ironic.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only explanation I can credit is that you have found a part of the Lutheran liturgy that calls for exterminating opponents; you have proof that the Golden Rule was never a part of Lutheran religion; and you have identified a Lutheran that has killed off half the population of his country. If that were true, it would be a pretty sick joke, one that I hope no one would find worth hysterical laughter, but I guess it could at least be ironic.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I want a church that doesn't claim to be true or to know the answers--but I do want a church.
While I certainly don't want to stand in the way of you going to a Unitarian Church (where do you live again?), let me point out that there is a big difference between a church saying "We have The Truth and everyone else is wrong," and "We believe we have a version of the truth and we see that truth in many other religions, as well." Many 'liberal' branches on the religious tree are very comfortable with the second.
Personally, I don't know that 'non-denominational' means a whole lot in many instances. Around here, it usually means the 'holy spirit' appeared to some guy in a dream, told him that the church he was in wasn't sufficiently fervid enough, and commanded him to build a church and preach forthwith a 'pure' message of the Bible.
I don't know where you stand on homosexuality, but I am going to stick my neck out and say that whether or not a church supports gay marriage is probably a pretty good barometer of the type of church you're looking for. I say this not to be controversial and start an argument, but to save you time. Maybe if you just call around and make a list of all the churches/synagogues/temples in your area that support gay marriage, you can cut down on travel time. Just a thought.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of interest, Will, do you believe the Golden Rule is a) unique to Christianity and b) a core element that has kept Western civilization from descending into Pol Pot-like barbarism?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:<shrug> Of course, I've never been able to understand the "find a church that fits your particular needs and predilections" thing that many people proclaim.
This begs the question, exactly how much do psychological and social needs affect our personal belief systems?
Beatrice, isn't it entirely possible that belong to the church you do "fits your particular needs and predilections?" It just might be that your needs are satisfied by a more traditional church.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
a) I don't know, and b) no, because in at least 2 instances (Third Reich, and USSR) the West has descended into Pol Pot-like barbarism. I'd also add the extermination of the Tasmanians.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue that the West has descended into genocidal barbarism even more often than that.
The point I am attempting to make, Will, is that there is nothing uniquely peaceful about Christian societies, nor anything inherently murderous about atheistic ones.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point taken, without dispute. (I wasn't claiming atheist societies are inherently murderous. It sounds like a thing of going to extremes: I did say that some atheist societies have done unprecedented mass murder, and you seem to have concluded that I meant that all atheist societies do unprecedented mass murder. But that's not sound. PRC did unprecedented mass murder. Japan is fairly atheist now, and it's quite well behaved in that regard, even if it did produce Pokemon.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Beatrice, isn't it entirely possible that belong to the church you do "fits your particular needs and predilections?" It just might be that your needs are satisfied by a more traditional church.
Actually, as a Latter-day Saint, I'm not in a church that many would term "traditional."
But to answer your first question: no. If I were to pick just based on my personality and preferences, I would probably pick either Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy (I enjoy history and architecture) or go the other way and find a church that doesn't have so many strictures on what I can and can't do.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were you born LDS, Beatrice? If not, how did you choose a church that does not match your personality and preferences?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, Will, I was concerned by your claim that "anti-religion" has morphed in the last century into Stalinist purges, Cambodian killing fields, and the like. As you concede that not all "anti-religion" has in fact so morphed, and moreover concede that a number of your examples are not in fact consequences of "anti-religion," I'm happy; you didn't make any qualifying statements in your original comment, however.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
