Hello! Question from the newbie

[Bekki659]

Hello there! My name is Becky.

My current situation in life feels rather empty... I grew up being drug around to various churches of the Christian faith; Methodist with my grandmother, Presbyterian with my mother, my father not going to any church. Like any kid, I eventually grew to hate the tug-o-war and ended up siding with my dad and never setting foot in a church again.

Since then, my religious beliefs have become rather unruly. When my boyfriend finally got up the nerve to ask me to go to his church, I was mortified. I haven't been in a church, never bother what denomination, in many years.

Upon further thought, I have decided that I would very much like to get back into the "swing of things", and find a church that represents my beliefs.

Then.. the problem. I've been browsing all types of faith, not necessarily christian, even. But it seems that I cannot find a single religion, or denomination, that matches even remotely my beliefs.

My problems:
I find a church that is against abortion, but they don't accept homosexual people. Vice-versa.

I think my beliefs are predominately christian, but at the same time, I feel VERY restricted by the fact that one may be very conservative and not accept women as equal to men, or may be very closed minded as far as other religions.

When I look at religions outside Christianity, I find it extraordinarily difficult to imagine myself as part of that religion, especially as my entire family is christian, and my boyfriend and his family are christian.

Then I look to the churches that accept ALL religions, and I feel they are too broad, and serve as a landing ground to everybody who has nowhere else to go. I dont want to be part of a community that has no guidelines...

All this leaves me scratching my head.

The reason why I am here is this: this seems to be a fairly diverse forum, and with people of the christian belief. I was hoping to maybe get a point in the right direction?

If it helps...
I do not believe in abortion other than to save the mothers life; ie dire circumstances.
I believe wholeheartedly in homosexual rights, and could never be part of a community who did not accept/support that.
I believe there is one god, whether there are three parts, well, that I haven't really thought about.
I do not believe that Christ was God himself in human form. I do not believe that worshipping Christ as anything more than a messenger is correct. I do believe that he died on the cross to forgive our sins... however as a symbol from God, not as God himself, if that makes sense.
I do not believe in the Creation theory, but rather that god is directing everything that has happened; ie a hybrid theory between evolution with a little creation thrown in there.
I do not believe that those who do not accept the christian religion fully will be sent to hell.
I believe that heaven exists, and if you lead a moral life, you will end up there regardless of religion- there is plenty of time to learn what is true once you're in heaven.
Women are equal to men.
The bible is not to be taken word for word, as it is written by men.

Those are the most important ones... I think.

So am I searching for something that doesn't exist?

Much thanks for any input at ALL.

Of course, being a new person, if this post is wrongly placed, or breaks any type of rules, I do apologize- this forum is quite overwhelming at first

[Beto]

So am I searching for something that doesn't exist?

Hi Bekki,

Have you finished searching for evidence that your beliefs are "right", before searching for a "label"? Perhaps there are things to sort out, like making sense of a person being sacrificed to forgive "sins" of unborn people, without accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, even though you say "the bible is not to be taken word for word". Would you ever approve of such suffering being bestowed on another human for a "symbolic value", directed at people that haven't even been born? Does it make sense to search for a group of people whose beliefs are predicated on the same things we can't make sense of?

[Bekki659]

So am I searching for something that doesn't exist?

Hi Bekki,

Have you finished searching for evidence that your beliefs are "right", before searching for a "label"? Perhaps there are things to sort out, like making sense of a person being sacrificed to forgive "sins" of unborn people, without accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible, even though you say "the bible is not to be taken word for word". Would you ever approve of such suffering being bestowed on another human for a "symbolic value", directed at people that haven't even been born? Does it make sense to search for a group of people whose beliefs are predicated on the same things we can't make sense of?

Well...

I suppose you are referencing Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins. If he truly was the son of god, which I think may have been possible, and I tend to believe it is that way, then I would approve of it. While I dont think it was god himself, I would also like to believe that his suffering was not exactly of the human kind. Yeah, it sounds kinda weird when I say it like that, but a "normal" human maybe would not have experienced the whole deal in the way that the son of god would have. Or maybe he would have, and he did, for us. I don't really differentiate between an actual sacrifice and a metaphorical sacrifice- the major point to me is that there was a sacrifice, and it was to forgive our sins.

Yes, I approve. If I were the daughter of god, if I truly was, God knows I would endure the same thing if it was requested of me.

Not saying that's the truth, and the sacrifice was real. I would also be more than satisfied with a metaphorical sacrifice.

And also, this is where I take issue with the ambiguity of the Bible. There are so many ways it could have been changed. But, I listened to a sermon once about the bible... it was titled "Pick and choose". That's what I do...

The bible, taken as one will, requires the reader to adjust to a certain ambiguity. One can choose to go over every detail, and pick it apart, or simply gather a few facts that are believed to contain a certain amount of relevancy, and run with it.

That's how I think of the bible. Its contents, questionable at times, yes, Ill admit that.

And uh.. go easy on me here. I'm eyeball deep in a 7 page paper on an obscure middle eastern topic

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Why limit yourself to a label? Forcing yourself into a specific denomination will do nothing but make you compromise some of your beliefs. The best way to find a church that you believe in is to look within.

[Beto]

I would also be more than satisfied with a metaphorical sacrifice.

If you're entitled to see a "metaphorical sacrifice", than others are entitled to see metaphors on several levels of the religion, eventually going all the way up to the point where the Christian "God" is simply an evolved metaphor for the Sun. Can you suggest a way to determine what degree of "metaphorization" is acceptable, or a way to determine if yours is the "right" one?

And also, this is where I take issue with the ambiguity of the Bible. There are so many ways it could have been changed. But, I listened to a sermon once about the bible... it was titled "Pick and choose". That's what I do...

If you "pick and choose" the Bible is completely irrelevant, as you're picking things you already agree with and "feel" right. Why do you need a book to tell you how you already feel?

The bible, taken as one will, requires the reader to adjust to a certain ambiguity.

A prejudiced person will "adjust" and read the prejudiced OT as literal truth, others will "adjust" to see much of it as metaphorical. Why do you take issue with a person that thinks homosexuals should be put to death? They "adjust" that part of the Bible as "true". You're validating this approach.

One can choose to go over every detail, and pick it apart, or simply gather a few facts that are believed to contain a certain amount of relevancy, and run with it.

I suppose I can do that with the "Satanic Bible". It contains several humanist principles I agree with. Does that make it the inspired word of "Satan" (not the Christian devil btw), or something of "transcendental origin"? No, it's just something LaVey wrote.

And uh.. go easy on me here.

Trust me... I'm much more laid back than other members you'll run into.

I'm eyeball deep in a 7 page paper on an obscure middle eastern topic

No hurries.

[Bekki659]

If you're entitled to see a "metaphorical sacrifice", than others are entitled to see metaphors on several levels of the religion, eventually going all the way up to the point where the Christian "God" is simply an evolved metaphor for the Sun. Can you suggest a way to determine what degree of "metaphorization" is acceptable, or a way to determine if yours is the "right" one?

I dont see it as being "entitled" or not. I believe that religion is highly personal, and whatever level of metaphorization you are comfortable with, that's fine. I dont think that people should limit themselves to being wrong or right. What I believe now is very fluid. If I find, upon closer study of a subject, that another explanation is more in accordance with my principals, it may very well change my outlook.

If you "pick and choose" the Bible is completely irrelevant, as you're picking things you already agree with and "feel" right. Why do you need a book to tell you how you already feel?

Why not? What if its more of a confirmation than an order? There are some select parts that I find comforting, and an enhancement of what I already believe. There are also parts that I would not condone. Those parts are usually older practices... and may not be valid in my life today.

A prejudiced person will "adjust" and read the prejudiced OT as literal truth, others will "adjust" to see much of it as metaphorical. Why do you take issue with a person that thinks homosexuals should be put to death? They "adjust" that part of the Bible as "true". You're validating this approach.

I was referring to abstract concepts, such as the crucifiction of Jesus as a reality or as a symbol.
Things like the example of treatment of homosexual people are a contrast between people who would take the bible literally enough that they still believe that ALL that's said in it as valid today as well. I am not one to be that traditional, and the example of homosexual people is one that I am firmly against- as times have changed since back then.
There is a separation, for me, between EVENTS that might have happened, and rules that people were meant to live by. Therefore, the event of the Crucifiction and the belief that homosexual people should be put to death are, in my opinion, not comparable.

I suppose I can do that with the "Satanic Bible". It contains several humanist principles I agree with. Does that make it the inspired word of "Satan" (not the Christian devil btw), or something of "transcendental origin"? No, it's just something LaVey wrote.

If that's what you desire, you absolutely may, in fact, I would definitely support it.
I refuse to do anything other than share my beliefs with those who want to hear them.
Does it make it the word of Satan? If you believe in Satan, and you believe that his words might have come through in some way in the writing of that book, then sure. If you choose to just take some of the concepts, then that's just lovely too. That would be exactly like me taking a piece from the Jewish Holy book and applying it to my life. Since I dont believe that the christian faith is the correct faith overall, I believe that it makes for a more well balanced person to have influence from all areas.

On that note, I am also a vegetarian, because I agree with the Hare Krishna belief that when you eat, you should give thanks to god. In that religion, eating meat would be like presenting God with a carcass. It seems repulsive to me. But that's one of my adapted beliefs.

[Beto]

Does it make it the word of Satan? If you believe in Satan, and you believe that his words might have come through in some way in the writing of that book, then sure.

"Sure" what? Would my belief make "Satan" a real entity to everyone else?

On that note, I am also a vegetarian, because I agree with the Hare Krishna belief that when you eat, you should give thanks to god. In that religion, eating meat would be like presenting God with a carcass. It seems repulsive to me. But that's one of my adapted beliefs.

If you don't mind me asking, with the number of children dying from starvation every day, why would anyone feel inclined to thank "God" for their food? Is "God" actively putting food on your table instead of in the mouths of those children? This is something I cannot fathom, and perhaps you can put in perspective.

[Bekki659]

If you came up with a persuasive argument for why he was real, you might achieve an audience. (not saying that the worship of Satan doesn't already have one)
That is, after all, what made the christian God real to so many people. Jesus convinced them, so the story goes.

Is "God" actively putting food on your table instead of in the mouths of those children? This is something I cannot fathom, and perhaps you can put in perspective.

I dont mind you asking a bit.
Let me tell you a bit about myself... its been my life's goal to, in some way, help these exact people who you are talking about.
Whether is was God, Luck, or pure chance that landed me where I live, in a family where I was provided with food, I am thankful for it.
Food, just as much as the books I'm able to buy, and the classes I am able to take, gets me one step closer to helping people.
I take nothing for granted. If I could give whats in front of me to children in India, or a starving mother in Africa, I would. No doubt.
But since it is here, I eat it, and I am grateful.

[Beto]

I dont mind you asking a bit.
Let me tell you a bit about myself... its been my life's goal to, in some way, help these exact people who you are talking about.
Whether is was God, Luck, or pure chance that landed me where I live, in a family where I was provided with food, I am thankful for it.
Food, just as much as the books I'm able to buy, and the classes I am able to take, gets me one step closer to helping people.
I take nothing for granted. If I could give whats in front of me to children in India, or a starving mother in Africa, I would. No doubt.
But since it is here, I eat it, and I am grateful.

Assuming "God" creates the food, either it is spread randomly across the world, or "God" decides what goes where. You can be thankful in the latter instance, but "God" must ignore some who need food to give it to you. Now the former instance is perhaps more complicated, but I don't see a need to thank for food randomly made available if I didn't have a choice in needing it to survive. Do you see my dilemma?

[Bekki659]

Assuming "God" creates the food, either it is spread randomly across the world, or "God" decides what goes where. You can be thankful in the latter instance, but "God" must ignore some who need food to give it to you. Now the former instance is perhaps more complicated, but I don't see a need to thank for food randomly made available if I didn't have a choice in needing it to survive. Do you see my dilemma?

God does not create food though. WE create food. Food is not random, because we live in a more prosperous section of the world, we get food.
There is no chance, luck, or religion involved in that.

I doubt that god has much influence in the world when it comes to things like food, or which countries are the way they are.

Sort of seems like God, if any, would have assumed a laissez-faire position in the world. If there was some kind of being running about giving people food here, and not there, we would know. Maybe, just maybe, at the beginning of things, he/she/it influenced the world, but as the world developed, he/she/it let it be.

Its now up to people, and our free will, to make our surroundings... and improve those of other people.

[Beto]

Thanks for your answers, Bekki.

Welcome to the forum.