Religion
Questions 81-90
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next
10 this topic area
THE QUESTION:
RE90: My understanding is that it is quite difficult to
convert to Judaism. Why is this?
POSTED AUG. 12, 1998
Mireille, 26
<mireille2000@hotmail.com>,
Washington, DC
ANSWER 1:
I don't think it is difficult to convert to Judaism. It
will require some degree of study and thought. I've heard that the
teachers are supposed to discourage the student from conversion. This
is supposed to challenge the student's reasons for converting and
also to ensure the student is doing it freely. In fact, the
politically correct description for a convert is Jew By Choice. In
any event, these Jews By Choice are often more educated in ritual and
practice than other Jews.
POSTED AUG. 24, 1998
Mark, Jewish guy, San Francisco Bay Area, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
My husband is just completing his conversion, and it
is difficult. He has to learn a lot and answer a lot of
questions about what he has learned, why he wants to be a Jew and
about his sincerity. Then he has to be ritually circumcised (just a
drop of blood, since he was circumcised as an infant, but still...)
and he must go to the ritual bath. I tell him that it is much like
citizenship. We accept everyone who is born on American soil is a
citizen - but if someone is born abroad and wants to become a
citizen, the United States rightly wants to know a thing or two about
them and checks to be sure they have learned enough about America
(civics and language tests), and that they sincerely want to give up
their ole citizenship and become Americans (loyalty oath). But once
you are a Jew, you are a Jew forever and in every way, and we welcome
the fresh insights and energy that "Jews By Choice" bring to a very
old tribe. We hope and trust that it is worth the effort.
POSTED AUG. 27, 1998
Naomi B., 43, Jewish
<benari-r@worldnet.att.com>,
Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
There's an additional difference between converting to
Judaism and converting to Christianity: Christians believe that a
person must be a Christian in order to "be saved" and have a right
relationship with G-d. Jews don't have the same concept; there is no
Jewish belief that non-Jews are damned. In other words, Jews don't
feel that helping people to convert to Judaism will automatically
confer great benefits on the new converts.
POSTED MARCH 10, 1999
Robin, 35, Jew, Bluefield , WV
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE89: As a child, my mother took me to Sunday School every
week and exposed me to all the rituals of the church. Since then, I
have had doubts and become more skeptical each year. Why do people in
a modern, sophisticated world cling to ancient superstitions and
beliefs in the name of their religion?
POSTED AUG. 10, 1998
Fred C., Corvallis, OR
ANSWER 1:
It can be because the world is a big scary place, and we
are small. Involvement in a religion makes you feel you are part of
something bigger than yourself, both in terms of whatever connection
to deity it promises you and that you are part of an institution that
was there before you and probably will outlive you. It can be because
religions are human expressions of beauty. It can be an identity
issue - part of who we know ourselves to be is defined by our
religion. It can be an attempt to impose order on or at least reach
some sort of understanding with those parts of our lives that seem to
be immune to reason.
POSTED SEPT. 19, 1998
Catherine 25, Witch
<tylik@eskimo.com>,
Woodinville, WA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I'm 44, have a master's degree in social work and have
seen a lot of pain and suffering in my life, overseas while in the
military and later on as a family counselor. My religious faith has
been a source of guidance, in a way. It has helped me respond to
people with whom I've come in contact in a compassionate way. I've
heard people talk about religion as superstition before, and I know
that religion can be misused, exploited and twisted. But, that's not
how religion has been in my life. It has provided me with a role
model (in my case, Jesus) and a value system that has helped me
respond with empathy and has moved me to try and help people of many
backgrounds, beliefs, races, creeds, etc.
POSTED FEB. 18, 1999
Bill, 44, male
<ndu75@airmail.net>, San
Angelo, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE88: I had a boyfriend who was Christian, and when I made
food, he would look up and thank God before thanking me. Is this
considered extreme or normal behavior for religious people?
POSTED AUG. 9, 1998
Marcie B., 29, white Jewish American, Boston , MA
ANSWER 1:
As a Christian I can share with you my perspective.
Thanking God for the gift of food or anything is considered
appropriate, for all things flow from God. Thanking God should not
mean that your boyfriend cannot thank you for preparing the meal.
Side note: If your boyfriend thanks God for a meal, he probably
thanks God for you. I know I thank the Lord for my wife. You may want
to thank God for your meal along with your boyfriend next time. The
God of Abraham is the God of the Jews, Islam and the Christians.
Emphasis should be placed on the connections and not the
disconnections between people of faith.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Jean , 39, male
<jgagnier@efortress.com>,
Westerly, RI
FURTHER NOTICE:
An action is only extreme to those who are either offended
by or ignorant of the action. I do not know if you are a Christian,
but if you are, then you would agree that you alongside of him would
thank God first and foremost for the blessings given to you. On the
other hand, if you are not a Christian or have no knowledge of
Christianity, then how can you know what is either extreme or not
extreme? For example, in other countries it is extreme to accept
millions from winning the lottery - do you want to be judged by such
ignorant individuals? If the Bible is true, the meaning of "extreme"
is void of use when used to characterize what a human does to thank
God.
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Sord, 32, male, Los Angeles, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Marcia: I'm sure the previous two respondents meant well
with their answers, but I don't feel they give you credit for asking
a question in good faith about something you're not familiar with. I
recognize that you do not have to agree with someone's personal
values to desire to understand them. I also don't think you should
consider being part of the ritual if you don't want to. Personally, I
think it was rude for the boyfriend to not thank you for preparing
the meal. Girl, he should have sent you roses! I was raised in a
Southern Methodist home. We thanked God for every meal and gave mom a
hug and kiss for preparing it.
POSTED NOV. 23, 1998
Alma, lesbian who still says grace
<pridewks@seacove.net>,
Kempner, Tx
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE87: As the son of a Jewish mom, I experienced a lot of guilt
growing up. From what I've heard and read, making their sons or
daughters feel guilty seems to be characteristic of Jewish moms. If
this is so, why is it? I would like to understand this better so I
could better understand the way I am today, and some choices I've
made.
POSTED AUG. 9, 1998
A.K., 40, Jewish male, Sitka , Alaska
ANSWER 1:
I think "guilt" has gotten a bad rap in the Twentieth
Century. Millions of people spend a fortune going to
psychotherapists, trying to lose the feelings of guilt their parents
and churches/synagogues instilled in them. But on the whole, guilt is
a healthy thing. The best definition of guilt is "The disturbing
feeling that I'm not as good a person as I should be." And that
feeling is essential if we're ever to be good people. The most sick
and evil people in this world are the ones who are incapable of
feeling guilt. If you're faithful to your spouse because you'd feel
awful if you hurt her, that's good! If you give generously to charity
because you'd feel awful if children starved and you'd done nothing,
that's good! If you refrain from hurting others because you'd feel
guilty afterward, that's good! So, don't knock guilt. Sometimes, that
little nagging voice your mother (or priest or rabbi) put in your
head is just what it takes to make you a better person.
POSTED SEPT. 1, 1998
Astorian, 37, Catholic male
<Astorian@aol.com>,
Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in Alaska? That
would no doubt cause anguish for your mother. I say this in good
humor; I had a (now dead) relative through marriage who was a rabbi
in Alaska. I know from Irish Catholic friends that this group is
often no better or worse when it comes to guilt trips. But look at
what a nice person you turned out to be! And your people (the Jews)
have survied as long as the Chinese as a people; therefore, something
mothers are doing must be OK, right?
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Fred, Jewish, 69, married, mother gone but missed
<flap@mindspring.com>,
CT
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
As the son of a non-Jewish mother, I can tell you that
guilt trips are hardly relegated to your mother and members of your
religious/cultural background. This is said in all due respect to my
mother, whom I love more than anything in the world. I get the
impression that guilt is a popular behavioral control utilized by
mothers to their sons that transcends religious belief.
POSTED JAN. 18, 1999
David, 19, with a Catholic mother, Philadelphia, PA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE86: Every time I see a woman in traditional Islamic dress, I
wonder why female genital circumcision is practiced in some cultures.
What purpose could it serve? Do many Muslim sects condone this
practice? What do Muslims in America think of it?
POSTED AUG. 6, 1998
Jonathan A.
<jdames@intrex.net>,
Raleigh, NC
ANSWER 1:
It seems to me that the ideas that lie behind genital
mutilation are not very different from American ideas about
circumcision. Certainly, the degree of mutilation is far more severe
and life threatening, but the ideas behind some of it, at least in
the Sudan, are concepts of purity, what is desirable and pleasing to
the husband and what is deemed appropriate for marriage. Women who do
not go through this ordeal in many areas are generally not desired
for marriage. This is often seen as unacceptable. I think the main
reason for the practice is to enhance the man's pleasure. The removal
of the clitoris, inner and outer labia and stitching up of the vagina
desensitize the woman and make it tighter for the man. We have
similar ideas behind our practice of male circumcision (health), the
stitching up of the vagina (men's pleasure) and the removal of the
clitoral hood (women's pleasure). Pharonic circumcision (the removal
of the two sides of the vulva), though, is a much more dangerous
practice, causing life-threatening circumstances at times of
menstruation, urination, intercourse and pregnancy. As for people who
come to the United States, many retain their cultural values and
continue to practice it. Like the issue of the veil, women are often
the staunchest supporters of the practice.
POSTED AUG. 18, 1998
Jaimie W., 23, female, anthropology major, Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE:
To Jaimie: I don't think the tightness created, and
suggested male pleasure derived, is a major factor in the practice of
female circumcision. It is more to do with the other point that you
mention, the prevention of female sexual pleasure. The whole point is
to prevent women from seeking sexual gratification from outside their
marriage. At least that is the impression I have gotten from talking
to people of Islamic Arabic cultures. Male circumcision has evolved
for completely different reasons. It has a strictly health-related
function. In arid, desert environments, a foreskin can cause
problems. I don't think I need to explain this in detail, but dirt
granules can get into the wrong places and literally cause
friction!
POSTED AUG. 20, 1998
K.B., reproductive scientist, Durham, Great Britain
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I think it is very important to understand, at least from
what I think I've learned, that the practice of female circumcision
is a cultural phenomenon that is distinct, separate and independent
of Islam as a religion. In other words, my understanding is that
female circumcision reflects the culture of the Middle East and
Africa, and does not reflect Islam per se (note that the practice
also happens among some non-Arab and/or non-Muslim African cultures
as well). I may be wrong, but I'm almost certain the custom predates
Islam as well. I have never heard of the custom outside the
aforementioned regions, such as in the Indian subcontinent or
Southeast Asians, where many (in fact the vast majority of) Muslims
live. Relatedly, it's important to remember that not all Muslims are
Arab and not all Arabs are Muslim. If you see a woman wearing
traditional Islamic clothing, you can't assume they are Arab. And you
should certainly not associate such a woman or the image of such a
woman with female circumcision. While there is some overlap of
Muslims and Arabs practicing female circumcision, the custom must be
separated and put in its proper cultural context.
POSTED NOV. 19, 1998
Mihir, Indian/Jain, 25
<mishah@vt.edu>, Skokie,
IL
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
As U.S. Peace Corps volunteers in Ethiopia, we found that
13 of the 14 provinces practiced the ritual of clitoridectomy. The
only province that did not was Gojam province. When we asked our
instructors why, we were told simply that the practice ensured the
fidelity of the female. The belief was that the less pleasure felt,
the less chance that a woman would seek sex with a man other than her
husband. When I later traveled to Kenya, I found that
clitoridectomies were no longer practiced there. I was told that this
was due to British influence, because their colonists were "appalled"
by the practice. As Americans, we seemed to be more in favor of
giving orgasmic pleasure and less concerned about fidelity. A
favorite saying among the men in our group was, "Let's go jam in
Gojam!"
POSTED FEB. 9, 1999
Paine E., male
<starswirler@geocities.com>,
Tampa , FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE85: I recently read that the date Christians use as the
birth date of Jesus is the birth date of Tammuz, a sun god, and that
the symbol of this god is the cross. Does anyone have any further
information regarding this?
POSTED AUG. 1, 1998
L.A.M., Sidney, NY
ANSWER 1:
From my understanding of Christian history, Christians
used a pagan holiday to make their celebrations less conspicuous. I
believe Dec. 25 is the Roman "feast of the undefeatable sun" because
after that date, the days get noticeably longer. If they celebrated
on an off day, that would be more noticed and more likely to bring
persecution. Further, Romans crucified many people (not just Jesus).
But since that is how he died (for us and our sins) it has become a
symbol of his sacrifice for us.
POSTED SEPT. 1, 1998
Andy, 26, Catholic, New York, NY
FURTHER NOTICE:
Your question was a good one. It is believed by Bible
scholars that Jesus was born sometime before December - probably in
October, though the Bible doesn't give us an exact date. The Jews did
not in that time celebrate birth dates, so birth dates were recorded
only as the year and events happening at the time. Jesus died in the
spring of 33. C.E. at 33 1/2 years old. Moreover, at the time of his
birth, shepherds were "living out of doors and keeping watches in the
night over their flocks." In Israel, late December is a cold, rainy
season during which sheep would be kept in shelters overnight. The
Dec. 25th date came from the Romans and apostate, Christians adopted
this date as Christ's birth. Search for Truth and you can find
it.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
Ruth M.
<ruthmcgill@ivillage>
Asheboro, N.C.
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Under the calender in use at the time, Dec. 25 was the
shortest day of the year - the Winter Solstice. It is used as the
birthdate of numerous sun gods, including Attis, Mithra, Horus,
Quirinus, Indra and others, all preceding the Christ myth, and all
containing elements such as a son of god, virgin birth, crucifixation
on a cross or tree, resurrection, reappearance to followers and
ascension to heaven. The fact is, all the dates in the Christian myth
are borrowed from earlier traditions. Some writers say such dates
were used because they were already known at the time, making it
simpler to convert people to the new "approved" faith. The book
Pagan Christs by J.M. Robertson presents a brief comparison of
some of the earlier "SUNS of God" to the Christ story.
POSTED FEB. 2, 1999
Ed H., male
<EdHam0132@aol.com>,
Silver Springs, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I don't know enough about the worship of Tammuz to answer
your question specifically. However, the Winter Solstice has been
celebrated in nearly every culture. When the early Christian
missionaries went to convert the Pagans of Europe, they adopted the
Solstice as a time for the worshipping of Christ. Many "Christmas"
traditions are in fact Pagan remnants.
POSTED FEB. 10, 1999
Molly S., 38, white female, Pagan
<stormborn@uswest.net>,
Phoenix, AZ
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE84: Creationists believe the universe, planets and life came
from God. My question is, who or what created God?
POSTED JULY 29, 1998
Bob, 38, agnostic, TX
ANSWER 1:
In my spiritual world, I call God anything I don't think I
can or will ever know. I don't pray to God, I don't ask God for
things, and I don't blame God for things. God simply is.
POSTED AUG. 27, 1998
Bakum, white Jewish) male
<bakum@bigfoot.com>, San
Francisco, CA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I'll answer that question if you can answer this one:
Which is longer, a line or a ray? A line goes infinitely in both
directions, a ray goes infinitely in one direction. The answer, of
course, is that the question is unanswerable. Infinity is infinity,
or forever, whether in one direction or two. The same applies to the
power and existence of God. Although we humans tend to think we are
pretty smart, we really are so feeble in our simple-minded logic
there is no way we can truly understand God. God has always been and
always will be. God just IS. All time is NOW to God. We tend to try
to apply the same spacio-temporal laws we live by to God, the maker
of the laws. It doesn't work that way. I don't claim to have any
understanding beyond anyone else; I just realize that I am unable to
understand God except in what He has revealed of Himself. A similar
question I've heard before is can God make a rock so big He can't
lift it? Same logic as before, it implies a misconception of
comparing infinity to infinity and one being bigger.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
Eric R., 27
<ericandjjrubio@mindspring.com>,
Monroe, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I agree that God is unknowable. There is no logical
argument that can ever prove or disprove the existence of any
supernatural being. Squabbling over specifics is irrelevant. From
what I gather, the point is to have faith and not question the
specifics of the story. The question implies the philosophical
assumption that everything must have come from somewhere. By the way,
mathematicians do distinguish between degrees of infinity. A line
actually is longer than a ray.
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Joshua, agnostic
<schnids@bigfoot.com>,
Pittsburgh, PA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
God is eternal and has no begining and no end. He is
beyond our capability to completely comprehend. He is the Creator and
we are the creation. I've always found it interesting to ask
agnostics the same question, namely, before the Big Bang when the
universe emerged from nothing, who or what existed to set the process
in motion?
POSTED JAN. 29, 1999
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford , MI
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
God exists outside of our concept of linear time,
therefore He has no beginning and no end (or you might say He is the
beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega). Because of this,
there is nothing that came before Him to create Him. This is
difficult to grasp for many humans, because we live in an existence
where time is linear.
POSTED JAN. 29, 1999
Stephen S., 31, Catholic-Episcopalian, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I believe humans created gods out of a need to explain the
mysteries of the cosmos (i.e. Where did it all come from?) and out of
a need to give character to the underlying life force within all
inhabitors of the planet.
POSTED JAN. 29, 1999
Gypsy (Eclectic Neopagan)
<gypc@accessus.net>
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE83: My six-year-old daughter would like to know why only
Native American men and not women are allowed to dance around fires
in the tribes that have these traditions.
POSTED JULY 28, 1998
Grant and Katie, 35 & 6
<artmcm@aol.com>,
Jacksonville, FL
ANSWER 1:
It's very tricky and probably inaccurate to generalize
about Indian traditions since there are several hundred different
ones in the United States alone. But from what I know, most
traditions believe in the separation of masculine and feminine roles,
power and influence. There are also many rituals that are for women
and girls alone. Some tribes have had women warriors and did
allow them to take part in warrior rituals. Please don't get any
ideas that all Indians believe in the subordination of women or the
"squaw" (which is a crude word meaning vagina) stereotype from old
movies. There are some tribal nations that have that problem, but
there are also many that are traditionally female-led or at least
with a great deal of female influence.
Your daughter has been misled by someone practicing what is called
projection, projecting your own wrongful traits onto other cultures
(in this case discrimination against women). There are hundreds of
different tribal traditions with many variations. But in general,
most Indian peoples believe in separate roles for men and women. A
few tribes are male-dominated and some have special dances set aside
for warriors only (sometimes including women warriors). Many are
female dominated, with women as head of the household. But in
general,Indians traditionally practice separate spheres of influence
for men and women, such as different councils for each group.
POSTED NOV. 10, 1998
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
It depends on the dance and the tribe.
POSTED JAN. 20, 1999
Steven, 29, Cherokee, male, Dallas, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE82: Occasionally I experience anti-Catholic bias from some
Protestant Christians. I understand that since the Reformation there
was a general feeling of distrust directed toward Roman Catholics by
the sects that broke away, but why do some people still hold on to
that distrust? What is it about Catholics that scares certain fellow
Christians?
POSTED JULY 27, 1998
Stephen S., 31, Catholic, San Antonio, TX
ANSWER 1:
There are many reasons I have an anti-Catholic bias. For
one, I feel there is a high degree of hypocrisy in the Catholic
church, such as the practice of annulments (allowing people to pay
the church to get out of a marriage "honorably"). I have even seen
this done in marriages that yielded children. Many Catholics, I have
observed, feel that they only have to go to Christmas and Easter
mass, and confession. The very act of confession is against my
beliefs about Christ. My church feels that Christ is our high priest,
and therefore confession is only placing unnecessary middlemen
between us and the work God would do in our hearts. Many Catholics I
have known feel that as long as they confess their sins and go to
mass every now and then, they are still Christians and free to sin as
they please. Other denominations are guilty of this, but it seems to
be a pattern. A related issue is that it was hundreds of years before
the Catholic church began to hold mass in the vernacular, withholding
God from the people. The Catholic church is also very oppressive of
women, not allowing them to be priests. Additionally, the icons
(saints, virgin Mary, etc.) that are prayed to are considered a form
of idolatry by many Protestant denominations. The leadership of the
Pope also frustrates many Protestants. We feel that his leadership
allows Catholics to simply follow him, and not analyze for themselves
whether things are biblically sound or not, such as birth control,
abortion or communism. To me, Catholicism seems to be a weak faith,
one that allows for spiritual flabbiness through the delegation of
responsibility in the church structure (priests, pope, bishops, etc.)
that has flourished because of early missions to underdeveloped
countries.
In general, the Catholic church does not offer the freedom of
worship and individualism that I desire out of a church. Many kinds
of music are prohibited in Catholic services, and speaking in tongues
(a biblical doctrine - see Acts) in a Catholic mass would be
unacceptable to parishioners. I have been told by Catholics that I am
demon-possessed and a member of a cult because of this, so maybe that
relates to my bias.
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Julie H., Protestant, Assemblies of God, Springfield, MO
FURTHER NOTICE:
Julie, a lot of your information is outdated or highly
inaccurate (i.e. praying to icons is considered idolatry in
the Catholic Church - the paintings and statues are simply symbolic,
like stone-carved Buddhas and Nativity sets). I elected to leave the
Catholic Church a few years ago, not because I disliked the religion
specifically, but because organized religion in general does not hold
appeal for me. However, prior to that I received 12 years of
education on my faith. I would suggest that you talk to someone
credible and educated on this topic, and you may find that the
behaviors you're referencing are those of "bad" Catholics. In other
words, the Catholic Church does not approve of some of these things
either. Other things are inaccurate - there are groups that speak in
tongues within Catholicism. When you're gathering information, be
sure to consider the source. Catholicism has gone through a lot of
changes in the past 30 years, but many of those have not yet caught
up with public perception.
POSTED SEPT. 5, 1998
D.M.M., white, female, ex-Catholic
<donikam@hotmail.com>,
Charleston, SC
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am surprised Julie H.'s response was posted. It seems to
me that it falls somewhat outside the bounds of what discussion on
this forum is supposed to be. In any case, I would like to add my two
cents on the issue of anti-Catholic bias. It is my perception that
anti-Catholic bias has less to do with the actual religion than it
does with the ethnicity of the Catholics themselves. The United
States was founded and dominated by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants,
and since the very beginning there has been prejudice against
Catholics. A lot of Irish are Catholic, and there was a ton of
prejudice against the Irish. The same goes for Italians and many
Germans and Mexicans, etc. The same people who were looked at as
being different because they weren't "white" (the Irish were called
"black") were also discriminated against because they had a different
religion.
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Wendy D., 24, non-practicing Methodist
<wiebke@juno.com>,
Atlanta, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
A part of the answer might be found in the responses to
RE72. For a lot of Christians, the idea that anyone can come between
a believer and God is heretical. That would include statutes, saints,
priests and the Pope. Christians believe that they have a direct,
personal relationship with God and can and should talk to Him
directly, not through an intermediary. To some Christians, the
statues in Catholic churches seem like idolatry. Many Christians find
the Catholic rituals to be scary and mysterious. Another issue is the
great deal of publicity the Catholic Church has gotten in the last 10
years or so for child molestation by priests; and then it seems that
many times the church simply transfers these priests or covers up the
allegations. This type of behavior runs counter to living a moral and
ethical lifestyle, which we expect from our clerics.
POSTED JAN. 12, 1999
Sara, female, Oakland, CA
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I think it's from not understanding the Catholic religion.
The main questions I've gotten from friends are "Why do Catholics
pray to Mary? She's not God" and "Why do Catholics pray to saints?
Isn't that idolatry?" Occasionally I get something about the
infallability of the Pope, and I don't think issues such as the sex
scandals with priests that occurred a little while back help, either.
Mostly people don't understand the first two questions, I've
found.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Marissa L. 15, Catholic, female
<lytylfyly@hotmail.com>,
Sault Ste. Marie , MI
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I've been both, and the real reason is that the heart of
Protestant theology is protest against religious authority.
Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church and the authority of
Rome by declaring that the Bible alone was the sole basis of the
Christian faith. When asked to define a cult, for instance, the
Protestant will declare "anyone who claims you need another source to
correctly interpret the Bible." This includes Catholics. The further
the group's theology and Biblical interpretation is from Catholicism,
typically the more fearful and antagonistic they are toward
Catholics. Some denominations go as far as embracing Catholic
heresies in their theologies ("Name it and claim it" churches have a
strong dose of gnosticism in their teachings, for instance) and will
almost kick you out the door for being Catholic. I've been there. I
know.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Peter P., Roman Catholic, Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
Growing up in a Baptist church, I can tell you there is a
lot of disagreement with certain Catholic "ceremonies." For instance,
the confessional - as long as God knows what you did and how you feel
about it and you have asked his forgiveness, why is it anyone else's
business? My pastor has plenty of more important things to do than
listen to my shortcomings. Also the Hail Marys - she was obviously a
fantastic women to be chosen as the mother of Jesus, but she is not
God and therefore does not need to be prayed to. I'm not saying the
Catholic Church has it all wrong - after all, it was the Catholic
monks who labored to give us the Bible. It is the same source of
contention among all denominations - interpretation. Just look at how
many different "kinds" of Baptists exist.
POSTED JAN. 21, 1999
Mel, Baptist, Sand Springs, OK
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
RE81: Why do people believe in religious dogma that is more
than 2,000 years old?
Fred C. , Corvallis, OR
ANSWER 1:
By 2,000 years, I assume you meant Judeo-Christianity. As
a Christian, I don't believe in "religious dogma," but in God. One of
the reasons I believe is that I have experienced God working in my
life. Also, I believe God is not dead, but alive and therefore active
and important today. History is almost always applicable because the
nature of humanity hasn't changed - lessons can be learned from the
past. The Bible is like this. Shakespeare is still moving people,
even though his works are hundreds of years old and contain customs
few today readily understand. Both contain truths about humanity and
are still relevant. I was never taught the Bible as dogma. It's seen
by many in my church as a way to get to know God and as instruction
for life, but not to be made your god. Jesus warned against obeying
the law over serving God.
POSTED AUG. 17, 1998
Julie H., 19, Christian, Springfield, MO
FURTHER NOTICE:
I assume by religious dogma you are referring to the
beliefs practiced by many denominations today. Actually, most of the
ways current Christians practice are very different from the early
church. Keep in mind that the early church had no history of
Christians to pull from. The first Christians were a hybrid of Jews,
Romans, Greeks and others. Many of the cultural practices of these
people filtered into church practice over the years. Keep in mind,
though, that Jesus himself condemned the holier than thou church
leaders of his time, the Sanhedrin, or the Jewish leaders. Following
church dogma will not get you to heaven by Christ's teachings. We are
saved only by God's forgiveness of our selfish sinful nature. It took
Christ's sacrifice in our place for this grace to be given to us.
Christ taught to love and serve one another. This is what the early
church did. You'll see this if you read the book of Acts and Paul's
writings.
POSTED AUG. 31, 1998
Eric R., 27
<ericandjjrubio@mindspring.com>,
Monroe, GA
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Does the phrase "built to last" ring a bell? For me, it is
difficult to understand why people would put faith in a religion that
has not stood the test of time. Actually, I think most religions
claim to be eternal (i.e. a lot older than 2,000 years!), but some
have more historical evidence backing their claim. The thing I love
most about my faith, the Mass, is its timelessness. It combines the
basic elements of food, drink and story, but then allows the freedom
to be adapted over time and in different places, to meet the needs of
believers Here and Now.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Judy F., 36, Episcopalian
<alexant@juniata.edu>,
Huntingdon , PA
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
When one considers the early origins of Christianity, not
to mention the types of people who practiced it, it is a wonder it
survived 1,000, let alone two. I feel religion in general, and
Christianity in particular, to be a reassurance that at the end of
life, there is something more. Christianity, more than any other
religion, seems to promote this idea, and requires little of anyone
seeking it. All the early Christians were required to do was be lowly
and humble, which generally wasn't a problem for them. Small wonder
then that it supplanted the older faiths, which required far more of
their followers. A pity...
POSTED DEC. 16, 1998
Elric L., Pagan, 29
<elefay@hotmail.com>,
Pasadena, MD
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
You may as well ask, "Why do people still believe in
gravity after all these years?" Because it still works. With the
Judeo-Christian religion, at least, it has never been conclusively
debunked, and there remain strong arguments in it' favor despite
2000-plus years of heated debate. There's no real good reason to
discard it.
POSTED JAN. 19, 1999
Peter P., male, Roman Catholic
<PPROUT20@aol.com>,
Redford, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
Because it has stood the test of time. God has not
changed. He is the God of all time, and His Word is still relevant in
the 1990s.
POSTED JAN. 27, 1999
T. Arthur, Christian
<MrsArthur1@aol.com>,
Sterling Heights, MI
To respond
BACK TO TOP