change your religion lately?

Great Debates
21

OK, matt. I wouldn’t say I had absolute faith in my self-styled Hindo-shamanistic Buddhism. Basically, I had for a couple of years been sent to a fundamentalist Baptist school, where I learned that human beings are born damned. I actually had a teacher state that children who die before they are old enough to make the decision to “get saved” go to hell- they are guilty because of original sin. I had also watched a lot of televangelists, who seemed to be more interested in preaching hatred against various disapproved social groups than they were in teaching the love of Christ. I eventually decided that the God represented by the Christians I had contact with was an evil being, and I would rather go to Hell than bow down and worship him. Around that point, I started reading books about and scriptures of the Eastern religions. It made sense to me on a purely locical level. And I don’t think Buddhism and Catholicism are mutually incompatible. Both teach basically the same moral, detatchment from material goods and love for fellow human beings. And on some level, I always knew that I was Catholic. I kind of started feeling that tug toward the Church about three and a half years ago. For a while, I thought maybe I could go to the Catholic church and be a closet Gnostic. (You should check out my bookshelf sometime. It’s really strange) But I didn’t want to give up the lifestyle I was living, and I also didn’t want to be a closet heretic within the Church. I just didn’t feel it would be right.

Anyhoo, when I moved to Vegas, the first job I got was as a live psychic on a 1-900 line. I had a neighbor, great guy, highly intelligent, believing Catholic, who would make the occasional attempt to evangelize me. We had some interesting conversations. He wasn’t one of these in-your-face religious types, he was very reasonable, but also very firm in his faith. I told him once that I had thought about going Greek Orthodox, and he said before I did that, I should check out the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church.

He gave me one of those seven day candles with a picture of St. Michael the Archangel on it. For about five days, before I would log onto the psychic network, I would light the candle and say the prayer to St. Michael. It was great, I was becoming more accurate, the readings were getting longer, which meant more money for me…

Then one day, I came home and found that my Eyes of the Golden Buddha poster had fallen off the wall. Strange. That night, as I was dialing into the network to log on, I started shaking and crying, and withing five minutes, I was on my knees renouncing Satan and all his works. I found out where there was a Byzantine Catholic Church near me, and I’ve been attending regularly ever since. I’m in an adult catechism program, and hope to be confirmed in a year or so.

Now, longhair…

First of all, I don’t believe that the church should start ordaining women as priests. Deaconesses, yes. Alter girls, we’ve got ‘em. But I really don’t have a problem with the male hierarchy. If someone wants to take up with the church on these types of feminist issues, they can leave. The Byzantine Rite will ordain married men- that’s a matter of discipline, not faith, and I really don’t have a problem with the Latin church following suit, although the priests’ wives might have a problem with their hubbies devoting so much time to the needs of their congregations that they have no time for their families. For about ninety years, the Byzantine Church in America was under the heel of the Latin church, and was not allowed to ordain married men, so if you met a married priest, he had been ordained on the other side of the Big Pond. Now, the rule here in America is that for a married man to be ordained, he must be at least forty-five years old and his kids must be grown and out of the house.

As to the question of when the problem of pedophile priests becomes the fault of the whole church, I can’t really answer that one. I will say that the problem isn’t that widespread. It’s actually quite rare for these things to happen. But when it does, and the priest gets caught, and the bishop gets caught covering up the crime, it creates a media blowout that reflects negatively on the entire church. I don’t have a lot of faith in human beings. I have faith in God.

The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.

22

I believed in the Trinity, the crucifixion, the resurrection. But I believed some with more certainty than others. Like many other Christians (this is not to say “most”) I had an uneasiness with some of the standard-issue articles of faith: the Trinity made no sense to me; the assertion that the N.T., being composed of writings of several authors and having been translated and retranslated multiple times; and a few other less-important but still troubling things.

I started having serious doubts when some of the things I had always been taught in church and Sunday school turned out to be, if not untrue, then highly unlikely. For example, I was taught that the Gospels were written by four disciples under the guidance of God (I know I am touching on a sensitive subject, and I didn’t go into this in my original response because I didn’t want to start an even-Greater Great Debate.) The Revised Standard Version of the NT, which is a pretty mainstream, oldtime version (IIRC, it appeared in 1956), states in the Preface “the authors of the Gospels are anonymous.” While you’re free to draw the conclusions that the scholars who presented the RSV are mistaken, there are a great many Christian scholars who hold the same view.

About your assertion that “The Bible states that Jesus was the son of God”, I’m sure there are many who can debate this either way (not the fact, but whether the NT says it), but the NT doesn’t quote Jesus saying he was. Regardless, I beleive he IS the son of God, as was Adam. But that’s not the same thing as BEING God.

My two worst fears are coming true: that if I got into a detailed reponse, my post would become too long; and by bringing up the issues that led to my embracing Islam, I would irk and offend the Christians here; believe me, that is not my intent.

All of the above to say that I had doubts about the party-line Christian theology. My background is law and its enforcement; logic is what is required to prove your case in court, not feelings or acceptance on faith.

When I first read the Qur’an and started exploring the nature of Islam, I applied the same rules (perhaps even more harshly) that I applied to Christianity later in life: extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. I went in with a critical eye, with a predisposition to disbelieve.

To try to keep this from becoming too long, let me summarize but encourage further questions, Matt: Islam is not a rejection of Christ or Abraham or Moses; it is a continuation. Orthodox Islam believes that Noah and Abraham and Moses and Solomon were all Prophets, and we are required to believe in the Torah and the Gospels, and believes that Jesus is the Christ, born miraculously without a human father, that he performed miracles and delivered the Gospel, and that he will return in the last days to fight the anti-Christ.

In evaluating the liklihood that the Qur’an is “Holy”, I took into account the following: Muhammad was a successful, very well respected member of his community. He was a trusted businessman, having been chosen by his wife (yes, she made the proposal to him, not vice-versa) because of his reputation. Why, then, would he abandon everything, risk his life and that of his family, and flee his home and way of life? A sudden psychotic disorder? Not impossible, but along with what happened in the years to come, unlikely.

There is much more involved in my examination of Islam, but I should stop now to let others attack.

23

friend agisofia,

in reading your last reply, it seemed to me that i had not made myself clear. i will try to do better:

my example of the female priest debate was in response to your suggestion that the faithful demand reform.

in lincoln nebraska, bishop bruskewicz decided that the debate on reforms had gone far enough. he gave the groups sincerely asking for discussion on these matters an ultimatum: cease and desist, or face excommunication. a dozen or so folks were excommunicated for daring to disagree with the bishop.

your second point:

all my life, i have been hearing: “it’s not the church, it’s father machiavelli.” and: “it’s not the church, it’s sister mary de sade.” and: it’s not the church’s fault, it is individual clergy, and they are imperfect."

i have come to the conclusion that it [bf] is [/bf] the church. they educated and trained father machiavelli and sister mary de sade, and sent them to our churches to minister to us and to see to our spiritual needs. are they not resposible for their actions as agents of the church?

upon coming to this conclusion, i took your advice:

i left.

Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity -Kahlil Gibran

24

Matt- To answer an earlier question, Episcopalian is " Catholic lite " :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

And Agisofia, The Catholic Church Duz ordain married priests. In Africa, where if they didn’t they would have trouble getting anyone to choose the clergy. They don’t talk about it much though…

Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

25

But I don’t understand that! :slight_smile:

Seriously - I’m not trying to prove something one way or the other. I am an atheist because I am more comfortable with a universe with no design, purpose or guiding intelligence than with the opposite. I will cheerfully admit that this is an arbitrary choice, as arbitrary as choosing to believe that someone is in charge.

Some believers have their own personal relationship with their concept of God. Some feel that the Author of the universe has his own agenda and they don’t have to do anything special. I’m fine with both of these.

However, there are plenty of people who are willing to tell you WHO the Author is, WHAT his plan is, and what YOU are expected to do.
They are the followers of religions. Their ideas tend to boil down to:

  1. God cares what you do
  2. He is watching
  3. If you upset him, you’re going to be sorry

If you follow a religion you’ve got to be RIGHT. This is a big deal, you’re talking about eternal paradise vs. eternal torment!
That is why the casual attitude of some posters who have changed their religions got me riled up. Don’t you realise what a lucky escape you’ve had?

Raza - thanks for your detailed reply! I’m aware that Islam is a continuation of Christianity. However, Muslims believe that Christians are misinterpreting the Bible in their belief that Jesus was an incarnation of God. This is what I see as an incompatibility. If the Christians are correct, then the Muslims are denying an aspect of God. If the Muslims are correct, then the Christians are worshipping a false god. Either way, can a Christian get into the Muslim heaven on general merit, or vice versa? Have you had a lucky escape?

Maybe I take things too literally, and if I do I’m sorry. I just would really like to know how religious believers make these judgements.

26

You are quite correct, Matt. The worst sin from a Christian point of view is to believe that God is a man. The worst sin from a Muslim point of view is to believe that a man is God. So, while the Christian Abyssinian king, upon hearing an explanation of Islam by a Muslim seeking refuge, stated that the difference between the two was no more than a thin line in the sand, this is one point on which Christianity stands alone.

As to your question: “can a Christian get into the Muslim heaven on general merit”, I offer the following verses (keep in mind these are translations from the Arabic; I’m not that enamoured with this particular translation, but it was what I had handy):

9.111 "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qurán: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. "

4.124, 125 “If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them.
Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend.”

27

Actually, it’s the American (North American?)version of Anglican, which I believe Matt will be more familiar with.

Matt, all I can say to you is that not everyone is as dogmatic in their beliefs as you expect them to be. And this includes many Catholics, including a very good friend of mine who happens to be a practicing Jesuit priest - some of his beliefs would have got him excommunicated (or worse) centuries ago. The Catholic Church is (slowly) learning to open its doors to people who want to belong, but can’t quite stomach all its dogma; my parents’ parish went through all sorts of grief from the diocese for its extremely liberal interpretation of scripture, but is now accepted as a valuable part of the local Catholic community. Yes, there are still strict Catholics who have just as much trouble accepting this as you do. That’s their problem.

I want to say also that I agree with Melin’s statement earlier about not being able to “take the Irish Catholic from the girl” (although I’m not an Irish girl) … I think on some level Catholicism is an identity in a way that many other religions aren’t. I’m not sure, for example, that I’d still be defining myself as a Methodist if that was the religion I was raised in.

I do still think of myself as something of an agnostic; I’m not in any respect absolutely certain that there is a God, or that the Catholic Church has the direct line to him/her/whatever. I just kind of have a feeling that there is probably something there and the RCC is the only way I feel comfortable trying to connect to it. I don’t expect anyone else to understand this nor am I claiming there’s any logic to it. As Wally put it in another thread, it’s just a gut feeling.

I respect anyone’s right to disagree.

“Shut up! I’m having a rhetorical conversation!”

28

As with everything, religion evolves. In the 15th century it was considered sacrilege if you believed witches could fly. By the 17th it was considered sacrilege if you didn’t believe they could fly. As for me, I’m covering all my bases. I’ll say a prayer to God, Allah, Yahweh, The Goddess, Zeus, Jupiter……

Bitch by Birth

29

longhair-
While I agree that the argument as to whether married men should be ordained by the church as priests constitutes a legitimate topic for debate (as I said, the Eastern rites, including the Byzantine rite, will ordain a married men), I don’t think demanding that the Church abandon her time-honored traditions constitutes a call for reform.

The demand for the ordination of women is not an issue of reform, it is an issue of feminist politics.

I respect your decision to leave the Church rather than go through the motions of receiving the sacraments of an institution whose teachings you do not believe in. It is far better to be an honest sinner than a hypocrite.

The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.

30

Okay, you’ve got me. I started reading this thread because I hoped to read an account of a true, no-doubts-or-uncertainty believer changing their religion. I guess that’s a pretty rare event but there must be SOME out there.

Raza - Thanks for the quotes!
I can’t read the Qur’an since I can’t read Arabic, but I do have a translation. I haven’t made much progress with it - in his attempt to preserve the poetry of the original, the translator has produced some fairly indecipherable english. I shall give it another go.

31

I applaud your efforts, Matt, but a warning: that’s how I started!

The translation by 'Abudullah Yusuf Ali is probably the most widely available accurate translation; the translations by N. J. Dawood and Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall are probably easier and more natural in their English. I dislike the translations that use ye Olde English. It wasn’t written in English in the first place, so trying to pattern a modern translation after the KJV seems silly (though I enjoy the KJV).

32

Cleosia said:

Ahem!

Don’t forget the First Chruch of David B.

33

wierddave said-

Now, are we talking the Latin Rite (what most folks think of when they hear the words Roman Catholic)?
'Cause the Eastern Rites have been ordaining married men as priests for the last two thousand years, give or take a couple of decades. OK, take a couple of decades. The Eastern Rites do draw their bishops from the ranks of celibate priests, mainly the monastic orders. But I would be very surprised to hear that Latin Rite bishops are ordaining married men. Does the Holy Father know about this? :wink:

The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.