RFP (Request for Proposals) from Religious Leaders on ATS

I recently came across a very well presented biblical account of history of man, religion, mythologies, Satan and God ...it is a very large series but thought I would post this 1 part for your consideration ..peace www.youtube.com...

reply to post by NOTurTypical
I have a book I got years ago called Seal of God by FC Payne ...He drawes heavily on Ethelbert William Bullinger work .en.wikipedia.org... .. Intresting phenonom what exist below the text ...thanks for the post

(This is really a question rather than a response, but I think it might be on topic.) Most religions emphasize behavior and/or rituals to receive whatever prize they have to offer. Christianity seems to be unique in emphasizing beliefs. Am I mistaken on that? Maybe Islam is also that way a little bit, but I can't think of any other religions that require you to believe something. It might explain the missionary zeal of Christianity.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I have a book I got years ago called Seal of God by FC Payne ...He drawes heavily on Ethelbert William Bullinger work .en.wikipedia.org... .. Intresting phenonom what exist below the text ...thanks for the post

That's now on my list, I really appreciate it.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I recently came across a very well presented biblical account of history of man, religion, mythologies, Satan and God ...it is a very large series but thought I would post this 1 part for your consideration ..peace www.youtube.com...

I am really enjoying your link.

Originally posted by cloudyday
(This is really a question rather than a response, but I think it might be on topic.) Most religions emphasize behavior and/or rituals to receive whatever prize they have to offer. Christianity seems to be unique in emphasizing beliefs. Am I mistaken on that? Maybe Islam is also that way a little bit, but I can't think of any other religions that require you to believe something. It might explain the missionary zeal of Christianity.

Christianity in many (not all) of its forms does offer a prize for compliance, but threatens with a really scary and awful punishment for noncompliance while also telling its followers they have no hope of actually complying fully, so they must tithe, and pray, and just hope they get the prize anyway.

Maybe I'm not clear on your point...when you say "require" belief in something, They all require some belief in something other-wordly, metaphysical. Some have developed persuasive, uplifting and unconditional ways to bring their followers not only in the door, but wanting to stay. Those forms offer a sense of brotherhood, hope and peace of mind. Other forms have chosen to use terrorist tactics to bar the door. i.e.

Islam -- You are free to join us, but once you DO, if you leave, the rest of us are required to kill you. If you stay, when you die you'll get half a gross of virgins, but it's not the rest of us who provide them, it's Allah. (As I understand it so far) = a cultish control tactic...based on fear.

I don't know if children of Muslims are allowed to make their own choice, or if they have a minimum age thing (which would make sense; a six-year-old can't make an adult choice) or if they are indoctrinated from birth, though. That's one of my questions about their faith.

Christianity -- You are either indoctrinated from birth, or free to join us, and you can leave if you want to. But if you STAY, and you don't believe, you die and then God sends you to Hell.
If you LEAVE, you STILL go to Hell, because you were given the message and failed to heed it = a "neener-neener" tactic...based on fear.
And if you STAY but don't like the rules, we will FORCE you out (no more prayers for your soul, ever. no consecrated burial. no acknowledgment of you at all. you are dead to us) = excommunication.

That's a Q I have for the Catholics. If one is excommunicated, can he or she be redeemed and accepted back into the church? The movie "The Mission" comes to mind. Jeremy Irons and Robert DeNiro. Excellent movie about south american missionary Jesuits.

DISCLAIMER: The above examples are representations of extreme fundamentalist views, and are not in any way intended to describe the majority of the followers of either faith.

reply to post by wildtimes


A Muslim convert told me that Allah compares your good deeds against your bad deeds - with good deeds weighted heavier than bad deeds. It sounds like a Muslim wouldn't be surprised to meet good Christians and good Jews in Muslim heaven, but maybe I don't understand their beliefs.

I don't think Buddhists care what you believe at all, but maybe I misunderstand again.

I think only Christians - and especially certain Protestant denominations - say that you go to heaven if and only if you believe something.

reply to post by cloudyday


Hmmm. I do wish we had some practicing members of other faiths participating...
My understanding of Buddhism was that we all are connected and the Divine lives within us, not outside of us. It is my preferred method at this point.

I'll look into it some more, and I hope that some who are currently practicing can help shed some light on the "research" and written-up Web interpretations vs the actual daily doings.

Together, we shall....learn!!

Originally posted by wildtimes

Originally posted by cloudyday
(This is really a question rather than a response, but I think it might be on topic.) Most religions emphasize behavior and/or rituals to receive whatever prize they have to offer. Christianity seems to be unique in emphasizing beliefs. Am I mistaken on that? Maybe Islam is also that way a little bit, but I can't think of any other religions that require you to believe something. It might explain the missionary zeal of Christianity.

Islam -- You are free to join us, but once you DO, if you leave, the rest of us are required to kill you. If you stay, when you die you'll get half a gross of virgins, but it's not the rest of us who provide them, it's Allah. (As I understand it so far) = a cultish control tactic...based on fear.

I don't know if children of Muslims are allowed to make their own choice, or if they have a minimum age thing (which would make sense; a six-year-old can't make an adult choice) or if they are indoctrinated from birth, though. That's one of my questions about their faith.


DISCLAIMER: The above examples are representations of extreme fundamentalist views, and are not in any way intended to describe the majority of the followers of either faith.

edit on 10-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Just a bit correction regarding of muslim believe. No earthly punishment for someone who leave islam like to be killed. Quran stated that punishment will be in afterlife, between God and them.
Some people believe like that because of miss understanding from hadiths that saying murtad must be killed. Its against Quran itself.

Another thing in Quran about people who will have place in paradise is not all muslim and only muslim. Jew, Christian, and sabiin who believe in one God and do good things in life will have to. Sabiin can be from any religions or believe system as long as they believe the only one supreme being who create everything.

reply to post by maung


Thank you so much!!
Did you happen to see the thread in Social Issues that I had started regarding Shariah Law being replaced by The Constitution? It had some of those outrageous beliefs in there....
Would love to have your participation on that one!
--wt
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by wildtimes

That's a Q I have for the Catholics. If one is excommunicated, can he or she be redeemed and accepted back into the church?

In other churches you are disfellowshipped.
In the Gospels, you have the concept of community. The community you are part of could decide you are doomed to failure as a Christian and not continue to accept you as one of theirs. Theoretically you could join another community who would accept you. With Catholics, they believe they are the community and they encompass the entire world so once you get disfellowshipped from their community then there is no hope, period, for you.

reply to post by jmdewey60


And....do you feel this is correct?
Perpetual "disfellowship" is the exact equivalent of being "shunned". Ostracized. Banned. Exiled.

How is that, in ANY denomination, a Christ-like thing to do?

*sighs*
To be given-up-on is a tragedy and a travesty. I only hope those folks who endure that kind of rejection realize they can find community outside of organized religion.

I'ma do the eye-rolly thing on this one.
Seriously?
Really?
WOW. NOT what I would call "a family in Christ." The no-hopers are abandoned to die in the depths of their need.
Religious FAIL!!

EDIT TO ADD: *facepalm*

reply to post by wildtimes


I am not a religious leader, so I understand if you do not want to take what I have to share into consideration, but just in case you do, please read my post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope this might help you along on your path or at least give you something to consider.

Brightest blessings, mija

reply to post by wildtimes

And....do you feel this is correct?

I feel my analysis of the practice is correct in a very general sort of way but I am not endorsing any of it and it could be that I commented on your question because I am currently studying the same thing.
I think the Christian communities of the New Testament were started as an alternative to the Jewish communities where they found themselves increasingly unwelcome, so they initially were more sympathetic towards tolerating a variance between people's beliefs but built into the system was community judgment on what was considered acceptable behavior, as in what was, or was not, sin. If they found someone outside those limits of acceptability, the elders or whoever would attempt to convince the person to bring themselves into alignment with those guidelines. People had the authority and obligation to act that way according to the charter and constitution, so to speak, of the community itself, which was the purpose of the Gospels. There were four, so that allowed a certain room for variance between one community and another. I think this movement towards unification was man-made, meaning men who seek power as individuals, as opposed to a more democratic system as originally envisioned.

reply to post by Mijamija

I hope this might help you along on your path or at least give you something to consider.

Thanks, mija.

I read your linked post. (Also s/f you).

My "path" is already well under way, but I appreciate the gesture. I think you are absolutely correct. It is incumbent upon us to to look back at our actions (which at the time seemed correct -- because I truly believe that everyone is doing their very best at all times) and say to ourselves, "Self, you have harmed others. Your actions, while you thought they were reasonable and worthwhile, did harm to others. It is up to you to say 'I was wrong, and I regret hurting those whom I have hurt, even if it was not intentional."

This is SUCH a hard thing to achieve. It requires absolute humility and reconciliation with one's deepest self....(and not just for 12-steppers, but for everyone).

Your post did have signifance for me, and I appreciate your disclosure and thoughts.

reply to post by wildtimes


Here is what wikipedia has to say about the reversal of Catholic excommunication:

In the Catholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offence involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicated person, and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in the internal (private) forum only, or also in the external (public) forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[7] Since excommunication excludes from reception of the sacraments, absolution from excommunication is required before absolution can be given from the sin that led to the censure. In many cases, the whole process takes place on a single occasion in the privacy of the confessional. For some more serious wrong-doings, absolution from excommunication is reserved to a bishop or other ordinary or even to the Pope. These can delegate a priest to act on their behalf.

Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: the excommunicate was either a vitandus (shunned, literally "to be avoided", by other Catholics), or a toleratus (tolerated, allowing Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicated person). This distinction no longer applies.

Excommunication

I am happy it helped. Thank you for considering my perspective on things.

I think that all religions hold the possibility of spiritual fulfillment, Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Judaism, Buddhism....

But until a person is right with themself and take that personal responsibility all religions will be hollow and nothing will ring true.

That is just my thoughts, of course.

Everyone comes to things in their own way, at their own pace. I think you are wise person to enlist others and learn from others, I wish more people would search out faith the way you are, but then sometimes people do not search out faith at all....sometimes it just comes to us. Either way works really, you are open, and I think that is what matters most.

Good luck on your path!

reply to post by cloudyday


Hey, thanks for that!

I'll read it again, but at first blush it appears that one is either "privately reprimanded" or "publicly chastised."

I think private reprimand is the better way every time, UNLESS the infraction is so egregious that it demands public awareness and sanction -- as in the cases of priests abusing youths or members of the congregation.

Public humiliation is to be reserved for those who flagrantly and unashamedly broach the tenets of the org repeatedly and without remorse.

(Disclaimer: I am not a spiritual leader, and ATS is not a sacred spiritual confessional. I just think that calling a student to the front of the class to deride and humiliate them is wrong.)

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by cloudyday

 

Hey, thanks for that!

I'll read it again, but at first blush it appears that one is either "privately reprimanded" or "publicly chastised."

I think private reprimand is the better way every time, UNLESS the infraction is so egregious that it demands public awareness and sanction -- as in the cases of priests abusing youths or members of the congregation.

Public humiliation is to be reserved for those who flagrantly and unashamedly broach the tenets of the org repeatedly and without remorse.

(Disclaimer: I am not a spiritual leader, and ATS is not a sacred spiritual confessional. I just think that calling a student to the front of the class to deride and humiliate them is wrong.)

I'm not an expert but based on that wikipedia quote the repentance is public or private "depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant". So the publicity is not designed to add extra humiliation; it is designed to assure the rest of the Church that it was sincere. Somewhere I read that originally confession was made publicly to the entire parish rather than privately to the priest. In some ways that might have been good like group therapy I suppose.