Anyone non-religious here? Please be nice!

[Three Cedars Silkies]

The Way was what the early Christians called their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, his life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

Although I do attend an organized church, I don't proscribe church attendance...or anything else...aside from my belief in Christ crucified as the atoning lamb for mankind...as necessary for my spiritual life.

Many Christians avoid the term "religious" because it seems to connote rituals, dogma, denominations, churchiness, etc. Belief in Jesus (the triune), as Savior and Father is all sufficient or insufficient for me. Nothing can be added to make that relationship more full and satisfying.

So...this is me

I respect every person's beliefs...

 

[damselfish]

Just popping in to state my "non-religiousness" (not sure quite what I am). Thank you all for this thread. I can't think of another forum where it could have been carried on for so long without dissolving in a flame war.

And right alongside a thread for Christians and one for Pagans as well!

It all says a lot for the people and the mods on this forum and I can't tell you how much I appreciate the chance to know that I'm not alone in my...whatever you want to call it

...spiritual uncertainty? antipathy towards church hierarchy? joy in nature? respect for the truly holy wherever found? I don't know what to call it, that's for sure!

One of the hardest things about being outside a church is the lack of community, the lack of structure. I grew up in a close-knit Catholic parish, and I miss that aspect very much. Too bad there's not a First Church of the Not Quite Sure to go to on Sunday. Wednesday church suppers and Friday fish frys would be nice too.

 

[Chicken Chaperone]

Quote:
Oh, good gravy.... really?
If you can find a name of this group or a link I'd sure love to see it. I'm sitting here shaking my head, at a total loss for what to say
so I'll just say "wow." Yeah, wow.....

 

[SunnyDawn]

Quote:
I agree! The sense of community can be very nice! I do miss that. I went to a group that said they encompassed all religions and non-religious folks alike and they were gathering just for the purpose of promoting good works. Unfortunately not true! They were quite religious and didn't promote good works as much as they tooted their own horn for their own goodness and righteousness. I'm pretty sure that the guy in charge of the group had a much different idea when he started it. Things just seem to get a little warped once people get their hands on it.

Farmerlor, I love the idea of taking money to care for their animals! Do they have a franchise set up yet? I laughed so hard when I read that. Maybe it's wrong of me but I don't feel like it's taking advantage of their beliefs at all! Because if we are wrong and they are right someone needs to take care of the pets! As long as you really do intend to follow up with your promise should these folks prove to be right, why not?

As far as why folks don't like to be called religious when, by the dictionaries definition, they absolutely are... Well I think that tnchickenut gave us the reason. Folks do not want to be associated with hard core religious fanatics! I personally don't blame them. A few radicals can give a whole movement a bad name. Like many of my female friends would be horrified if you called them a feminist because radical actions of a few individuals come to mind. Yet if you ask them if women should be paid the same as a man if they are doing the exact same job, they will say "of course"! The definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men" (dictionary.com). I'm not trying to start a discussion on feminism now but I will state that by the dictionary's definition I am a feminist and I am not religious!

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Quote:
I am going to look that book up. It sounds amazing.

The Author is Kersey Graves. It's official title is The World's Sixteen Crucified SAviors or Christianity before Christ That entire thing really is the whole title.

It was first published in 1875

It contains this quote in the preface:

comparing Christ's history with those of the oriental gods it will be found that
1.) That he taught no new doctrine or moral concept
2.) That he inculcated the same religion and morality, which he elaborated, as other moral teachers to great extremes
3.) That christ differs so little in his character preaching and practical life from some of the oriental gods that no person whose mind is not deplorably warped and biased by early training can call one divine while he considers the others human.
4.) That if christ was a god they all were gods.

He was very much ridiculed and ostracized for the writing of this book......

 

[OccamsTazer]

That book sounds interesting. I'm not surprised that it caused a kerfuffle, but it really shouldn't. I don't see why one person's goodness is diminished by another person's. Same thing should apply to gods or demigods or houseplants, whatever you like

 

[DuckLady]

Quote:
And ducks. Don't forget the ducks.

Thanks again to all who have contributed positively to this thread. I know the OP appreciates it and so do I!

 

[EweSheep]

Quote:
Gator, thank you! That is what I was looking for to see where religion had come into role in mankind. Particularly when the Egyptians came into play as it answered my previous question.

And the rest of you, you have given me food for thoughts...even tho today, I still do not know what I am yet. I know I feel a sense of higher being but don't know what it is. On the other hand, I like the idea of evolution.

Damselfish, it would be neat to have something of that kind of church LOL! However we would be in a very minority group of non religious or non believers.

 

[pamperedpoultry]

Quote:

well said..

 

[OrpingtonManor]

Quote:
See, I don't see where the government of the west is to blame. Most western governments are democratic in nature, which means that they reflect the will of the people. Society had to have their notion of personal responsibility erode before being able to abuse governmental programs, and many more of the governmental programs are a result of personal responsibility eroding. It's like warning labels on appliances. If nobody ever tried to use a hairdryer in the shower, would there be a warning label telling us not to use a hairdryer in the shower? When enough people let their personal responsibility lapse, the government stepped in to take responsibility for the good of society. Large companies dumped waste in drinking water, and a regulatory committee was formed to prevent this.

There is this mindset, particularly among certain sects of the religious, that society now is the worst it could possibly ever be, and I just don't get that. Just a century ago, one in thirteen women in the US were dying in childbirth, children as young as three were working in mines, women could be lobotomized for speaking their minds, etc.... There is a trade-off. I'm willing to put up with someone like Kanye West being considered a celebrity in return for antibiotics, the right to vote, and the glory that is the internet. Returning to the past won't remove the problems of society. It may, at best, change which problems are considered worse.

But too often there just seems to be this attitude that it's one or the other. I'd love for every parent who wants to stay at home with their kid while the other parent works to be able to do so. I don't love this attitude that because I, a woman, would prefer to be working outside the home that I am single-handedly responsible for the collapse of society.



It comes down to that while I wholeheartedly support freedom of religion, I am adamant that freedom of religion includes and is dependent on freedom from religion. The government should not be favoring any religion over any other. Unless a law can be fully supported with only secular arguments, it has absolutely no business on the books. The word 'god' has no place on any government issued documentation or in any government required declarations.

I can tell a Christian that they are free to practice their religion, but if I also require them to pray facing Mecca 5 times a day, are they really free to practice their religion? If I make them acknowledge Buddha every time they enter a government building, are they really free to practice their religion? If I make them recite an oath to Vishnu every morning, are they really free to practice their religion? And if the curriculum of the school is heavily biased towards the teachings of Scientology, do they really have freedom of religion? And if the Native American holy days are the only ones allowed to have their message acknowledged and name spread, do they really have freedom of religion? And if I persist pressuring them to join me in my Pastafarism whenever the opportunity remotely arises, do they really have freedom of religion? If when they did something good, I congratulated them on what a Baha'i thing it was to do, am I not being rude towards their religious beliefs by assuming that they must subscribe to mine in order to be 'good'?

I to often see scripture in people's forum signatures that amount to the equivalent of 'believe as I do or you are a bad person and going to be punished for all eternity' and I find it rude, especially when the person with such a signature would be up in arms and foaming at the mouth if someone from an 'opposed' religion were to speak their viewpoint. I find it just absolutely disgusting how many people claim their religious freedom is being violated when they are prevented from forcing their religion on others and proselytizing to the unwilling. Not long ago someone I know was absolutely up in arms about an attack on her religious faith and how Christians were being discriminated against. Did some research, and the real story was that the Christians were opening a secular meeting with a Christian-specific prayer and a Jewish individual who needed to attend the meeting requested that the prayer, if there was going to be one, be more inclusive of other faiths. I try to be as open minded as I can on the issue, but I've really yet to see a single real incident of Christians in this country being persecuted and I grow a little tired of hearing certain subgroups claim that they are. Having someone disagree with you is not persecution. Having someone ask you to back up your statements is not persecution. Having someone tell you to quit preaching at them is not persecution. I got outed as an atheist in high school in the bible belt. Pull the other one.

I have a friend who recently joined Doctors Without Borders. His religious faith and strong belief in Jesus Christ led him to the decision that the best thing he could do with his life is dedicate it to helping others. Several years ago, he was having a crisis of faith, and came to me. And I encouraged him to stay with his faith and helped him wrestle with answers to some of the questions he was having. In my opinion, there are two types of religious folks. Those that are religious because they find strength and comfort in their religion and it helps them be a better person, and those who are religious because they think that being religious makes them a better person than you are and thus they get to control you. Faith is a good thing. Group-think is not. If religion helps you guide your life, more power to you. Please don't ever think your religion gives you the right to guide my life.

In my mind, there is praying for someone, and then there is preying for someone. If I complain about having a bad day, and someone says 'I'm praying for you', that translates to 'I am keeping you in my thoughts and directing some of my energy at hoping things get better for you'. That is polite, friendly, and loving. But if I mention that I am an atheist and someone says 'I'll pray for you to find the light', that translates to 'you are a bleeding idiot and I think your free will to believe as you wish needs to be revoked so you instead believe as I do because I'm a better person than you are'. And frankly, that's obnoxious and downright rude.

Religion can be a good thing. Faith can be a good thing. Everyone has the right to be free to have both. That means that no one has the right to pressure anyone regarding either. No telling them what they should believe. No forcing them to participate in acts specific to another faith.

I know I'm a little late to the party, but I've been away for the weekend. This post was so well written!

I'm catching up here. Might be a couple of days, since you all are so prolific! Wow!