On 18 Jan, 14:01, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand your point. My oldest was baptised at age 5 because we > had such a hard time deciding on which line of faith to pursue. In > the end, because both sides of the family and the majority of the > community were Catholic we went with something more socially > aimiable. This ended up being a very good choice for us, because I > felt it important to discuss alternative views to about everything > they were being taught. My kids are natural mystics now, and don't > resisit what they see as the church traditions and ceremonies, but see > them more as putting up the Christmas tree of easter egg > hunts...social ceremony. >
I see what you mean but baptism was the OTHER bugbear of mine. In that it assumes that we are born sinful and require a wash of water to get rid of it. Surely, then, If water can remove sins, a regular bath will keep us holy? After all, cleanliness is next to godliness. Now that the Pope has recanted the concept of original sin, we KNOW (capitals implying that the infallible Pope has proven the fallibility of all his predecessors) that baptism is not required. Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus, presumed to be sinless (therefore in no need OF baptism), was baptised by his cousin. In England, it's almost impossible to be married (in an Anglican church) without proving that you've been baptised, which, to me, is simply ridiculous. The Christmas tree (Tannenbaum) was a German tradition and the Easter egg pagan. All these are now sanctioned events and, as you say, more social than religious. I'm not saying that trees and eggs should be banned, but, rather, not required as some form of 'proof' of one's disciplined faith, as they are, if anything, more proof of one's gullibility by succombing to media hype over these kinds of celebrations. Of course, the 25th of December is another Mithraic aspect as, in all likelihood, Jesus was born in September. > On Jan 18, 6:53 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 16 Jan, 05:37, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I understand that you have not been reading my posts and thoughts long > > > enough in this group to understand that I do not subscribe to much of > > > the catholic requirements, beliefs, biblical interpretations and many > > > other aspects of Catholicism. My statement to you, fid, was that I > > > have attended many Catholic churches over the years. You see, the > > > fact that I believe differently has not prevented me from being > > > accepted into Catholic congregations, having my children receive the > > > sacraments even though I was never married in a Catholic church. I > > > have never been threatened or slighted in anyway for believing > > > differently. This has been my experience. I don't think that > > > anyone's generalized ideas about Catholicisms, or Christianity would > > > fit my view, which is probably closer to New Thought or the mystical > > > traditions that anything else, although my view would stretch those > > > boundaries also. Like Pat, and probably several others here, I have > > > studied may different philosophies and religions, and formed my own > > > particular world view. > > > Oooh, I STILL shudder at the thought that my children are being > > raised Catholic. I have always been opposed to certain sacraments, > > the Eucharist being the most offensive to me. How symbolic > > cannibalism and vampirism could EVER be considered 'holy' is beyond > > me. Oh yeah...it was a Pauline interpretation. Although I was raised > > Methodist, I avoided EVER taking that which was called 'communion' > > because I found it, even at age 5, to be a vile thing conceptually. > > Considering that partaking of blood, either literally or symbolically, > > would have been antithetical to 'good Judaism', I find it impossible > > to accept that such a rite was ever intended by Jesus himself. I CAN, > > though, see why he might have said something along the lines of: > > remember me when you eat and drink (a quote from Jesus Christ > > Superstar). From there, it just became totally perverted in such a > > way as to entice the Mithra worshippers, who were already doing such a > > thing, that Paul was trying to convert. Near the end of my book, I > > will be putting in a certain number of 'challenges' to current faiths > > in order for them to reconsider certain practices. The Eucharist is, > > perhaps, tops on my list. This, of course, will upset many, but, I > > feel duty-bound to try to right the wrongs of the past, lest they bite > > the innocent/ignorant/uneducated who simply don't know any better. > > > > On Jan 15, 7:11 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You are a self described catholic, his comment about your presumed > > > > belief is accurate until you modify your description of your religion > > > > of choice. > > > > > On Jan 14, 3:25 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You are mistaken about my religious beliefs and lifestyle, but right > > > > > about my mod role. Comments here should be directed at the ideas, not > > > > > the person. I am not digging for confrontation a bit. If you have a > > > > > question about my statements in this thread, I suggest you be more > > > > > direct about the statements, and not rely on your assessment of my > > > > > character (which appears to be off the mark.) > > > > > > On Jan 14, 4:29 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No its not snide at all, Molly but being that you ask I'd have to > > > > > > say > > > > > > you have been a bit edgy as of late, possibly the mod role > > > > > > initiating > > > > > > a keener sense of commentary. My comment addresses the biblical > > > > > > accounts of differentiating gender and marital roles, not hard to > > > > > > understand, secondly I'm under the impression that you are based in > > > > > > a > > > > > > biblical lifestyle, if not then forget it. Christian women > > > > > > willingly > > > > > > defer to their husbands by default, at least those that I know who > > > > > > are > > > > > > seriously attentive to biblical teachings. The comment, not remark, > > > > > > wearing the pants in the family is a very common, well known phrase > > > > > > that indicates who rules the roost. If you are digging for > > > > > > confrontation I'll just stay on the other side of the street. > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 2:30 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know what you mean. Is your remark snide? > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 2:16 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would think that you most of all should already ascribe to the > > > > > > > > doctrines of difference in religiously designated marital > > > > > > > > roles, in > > > > > > > > the biblical sense. Or do you wear the pants in the family? > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 12:58 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't see the importance in defining the difference there. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 11:34 am, edward mason <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > To have a religion (a product of culture) is to have a > > > > > > > > > > leader to lead > > > > > > > > > > to God. Unnatural in a relationship. For those of you who > > > > > > > > > > are married > > > > > > > > > > imagine needing a leader there. How will you define a > > > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > there? > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 Jan, 16:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Makes a lot of sense Pat. ;-] > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, mate! I do try. But it's my "life's work", as > > > > > > > > > > > it were; so I > > > > > > > > > > > want it to be as sound as possible. Although, I know > > > > > > > > > > > that, even > > > > > > > > > > > though I speak the truth, many people will be VERY upset > > > > > > > > > > > by that. > > > > > > > > > > > But, that, I'm afraid, goes with the role. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 14, 7:21 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 14 Jan, 08:42, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The world seems more religious than ever these days. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Across the Middle East, fervent forms of Islam are > > > > > > > > > > >> > > growing more > > > > > > > > > > >> > > popular and more politically active. Muslim nations > > > > > > > > > > >> > > that were somewhat > > > > > > > > > > >> > > secularized 40 years ago - like Lebanon and Iran - > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are now teeming > > > > > > > > > > >> > > with fundamentalism. In Turkey and Egypt, increasing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > numbers of women > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are turning to the veil as an overt manifestation of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > reinvigorated > > > > > > > > > > >> > > religious commitment. But it isn't just in the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Muslim world that > > > > > > > > > > >> > > religion is thriving. From Brazil to El Salvador, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Protestant > > > > > > > > > > >> > > evangelicalism is spreading with great success, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > instilling a spirited, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > holy zeal throughout Latin America. Pentecostalism > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is proliferating, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > too - vigorously - and not only throughout Latin > > > > > > > > > > >> > > America, but in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Africa and even, to a lesser extent, China. And many > > > > > > > > > > >> > > nations of the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > former Soviet Union, which had atheism imposed upon > > > > > > > > > > >> > > them for decades, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > have emerged from the communist era with their faith > > > > > > > > > > >> > > not only intact, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > but strong and vibrant. Here in the United States, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > religion is > > > > > > > > > > >> > > definitely alive and well. In terms of church > > > > > > > > > > >> > > attendance and belief in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > God, Jesus, and the Bible, religion in the United > > > > > > > > > > >> > > States is stronger > > > > > > > > > > >> > > and more robust than in most other developed > > > > > > > > > > >> > > democracies. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > In sum, from Nebraska to Nepal, from Georgia to > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Guatemala, and from > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Utah to Uganda, humans all over the globe are > > > > > > > > > > >> > > vigorously praising > > > > > > > > > > >> > > various deities; regularly attending services at > > > > > > > > > > >> > > churches, temples, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > and mosques; persistently studying sacred texts; > > > > > > > > > > >> > > dutifully performing > > > > > > > > > > >> > > holy rites; energetically carrying out spiritual > > > > > > > > > > >> > > rituals; soberly > > > > > > > > > > >> > > defending the world from sin; piously fasting; and > > > > > > > > > > >> > > enthusiastically > > > > > > > > > > >> > > praying and then praying some more, singing, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > praising, and loving this > > > > > > > > > > >> > > or that savior, prophet, or God. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > But that is not occurring everywhere. I am referring > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to two nations in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > particular, Denmark and Sweden, which are probably > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the least religious > > > > > > > > > > >> > > countries in the world, and possibly in the history > > > > > > > > > > >> > > of the world. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Amidst all this vibrant global piety - atop the vast > > > > > > > > > > >> > > swelling sea of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > sacredness - Denmark and Sweden float along like > > > > > > > > > > >> > > small, content, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > durable dinghies of secular life, where most people > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are nonreligious > > > > > > > > > > >> > > and don't worship Jesus or Vishnu, don't revere > > > > > > > > > > >> > > sacred texts, don't > > > > > > > > > > >> > > pray, and don't give much credence to the essential > > > > > > > > > > >> > > dogmas of the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > world's great faiths. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > In clean and green Scandinavia, few people speak of > > > > > > > > > > >> > > God, few people > > > > > > > > > > >> > > spend much time thinking about theological matters, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > and although their > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
