|
I've been struggling with something religious, and I think I finally understand where it's coming from. I actually have a Master's in Religious Studies, with a focus on early Christianity and Zen Buddhism. I feel like, in all my Christian studies classes, the professors' had hugely different views on Christianity, Christ, and even the existence of God than most mainstream Christians and I feel like I started to feel that, if Christianity can't handle the scrutiny of experts, most of whom came with a firm desire to legitimate they're existing Christian beliefs, then it was kind of silly to assume Christianity was an expression of anything true. What made it hard was I came from such a drastically different viewpoint and experience level with certain subjects that I also felt I couldn't confide in anyone about it, because they wouldn't understand or would lose their faith as well. Has anyone else had an experience where a deeper exploration of Christianity or Christian History challenged their beliefs?
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
How has that education manifested positively? For what it's worth, I was raised evangelical Protestant, went to a Lutheran College, and got my Master's at a Catholic seminary that was connected to a local Buddhist school, and now associated more with Buddhism than Christianity. I read so many books by people like Elaine Pagels and other atheist/agnostic Biblical scholars, and I saw the other students wrestle with or lose their faith so often, that it wore me down in a way. It wasn't some sudden moment of deconversion, but a gradual wearing down. Part of that was probably that the school was from a very different tradition, so I had difficulty interacting with the community religiously, and if I had that support, I may have turned out differently. That's partially why I'm posting; I never felt I could talk with others about my crisis, and because of it, I feel I never gave Christianity a "proper chance."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
How do people in this thread deal with the constructed nature of Christianity? So much of what Christians take for granted theologically is the result of centuries of discussion and argument from people who based their thoughts on their assumptions. While it was originally focused entirely on Jewish issues and identity, it quickly focused on Roman theological concerns and developed alongside that culture's assumptions, both logical and cosmic. If the Trinity and Jesus' relationship to God are both developed from a worldview we no longer agree with, can they still be valid?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
I agree with that, but then why follow the Christian faith in particular? Why not UU, or deism, paganism? Just personal preference? I worry that, because I consider human attempts to comprehend the Divine to be inherently doomed to fail, you cannot make any meaningful statements about the Divine. It becomes like those centrists that say because both sides "have problems" they're both equally bad, and everything becomes a blurred mess with nothing defined. Not criticizing anyone's faith, of course, more working out my own stuff and how I consider one should relate to the Divine while being open minded.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
CarpenterWalrus posted:I've always understood Carnaval and celebrations like it to be sort of release-valves for otherwise pent-up and repressed urges. They typically come just before or after periods of abstinence like Lent, right? On a smaller scale, evangelicals hold revivals in the same tents, on the same grounds, with the same organ player and audience as carnivals. Anton LaVey was inspired to write the Satanic Bible in part because he played organ for both the carnivals and preachers and saw the same people going to both events: first to get freaky, then to repent. And, just because the Church allows carnival, carnivale, carnaval, etc. to exist, doesn't mean that they condone the typically promiscuous activity that happens there. I still see carnaval/carnival as part of the cycle of guilt/forgiveness that is Christianity's bread and butter. You do realize you're talking about practices that have existed in entirely different times, cultures, and contexts, right? Even if that overly simplistic answer was in fact the majority reason behind one such practice in one particular context, it wouldn't explain them all. It's almost like painting the world's largest religion as exactly the same everywhere is overly simplistic!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
CarpenterWalrus posted:Of course I'm speaking broadly. I'm not discussing specific practice or dogma, but trying to point out general principals. My original assertion was that most sects of Christianity have rules and laws that govern how and when their adherents have sex, which was met with incredulity. Carnaval was brought up to counter that, and held up as an example of Christianity's complicated relationship with sex. Sure, ok, but it doesn't help understand why Christianity has those restrictions in place to begin with or to argue against the fact that Christianity does, in fact, attempt to control its believers' sexuality. Again, that's not an attack on Christianity, it's recognition of a fundamental aspect of it. I guess my issue is that you're presenting sexual moors as a uniquely Christian or religious thing. There are plenty of examples of Christian groups that don't care or focus heavily on general sexual behavior, but your argument that any sort of judgement or expectations around sex are unique to, or at the very least, essential to, Christian practice, and that is abnormal. The group of cultures which believe "don't cheat on your spouse, and unrestrained sexual practice is dangerous" is basically every culture, religion, and identity.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Imagine a car that's constantly having certain parts of it removed and replaced while it's moving. If that's existence, karma is the momentum of the car.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
I asked this in the Buddhist thread a couple months ago, but I thought I'd ask this thread as well: does anyone else go through periods where they worry they're using religion to delude themselves? I have a very intense fear of death, particularly the idea that nothing exists (for me) after it, and sometimes I get in periods of thought where I worry I'm forcing myself to believe things to hide from the fact I know on some primal level it's all a lie to hide from the reality of death. I don't think that ALL religion or religious people are doing that, just me, and worry that, at the core of my being, I think all ends in nothing. Sorry, maybe a bit heavy, but I don't really have a traditional religious community I really participate in or can confide in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Would this be a good place to talk about my lapsed faith, or would that not be kosher? I got a Master's in Religious Studies, and had a serious crisis of faith during it, but didn't feel like I could talk to anyone about it, either due to social expectations or a hope to not lead people in seminary to question their faith and gently caress up their lives. Ever since then, I feel I haven't found people I can talk to about it, so I don't have closure. I want to be able to hear from people that have no doubt gone through similar things and come out intact, so I can reexamine everything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
My basic story is I was raised evangelical, though I always erred more liberal than others I knew. Ironically, early interest in SA and hearing perspectives outside of my bubble probably contributed. That said, I always felt that people spend way longer dead than alive, so whatever happens with that is much more important than people seem to acknowledge. I became fascinated with religious history and other religions as attempts to explore this, and in college, was introduced to Buddhism and began incorporating some Buddhism into my Christian beliefs. When I went to get my Master's in Religious Studies, I went as a lay person who had fallen in love with the beauty of religion. But as I studied early Christianity and Judaism, I came to increasingly feel that there wasn't anything I didn't see in other religions. Slowly, a narrative formed in my head: Truth is true, forever. As such, God can't change, but Abrahamic religions have changed dramatically. It started with a proto-Yahwestic group that had beliefs roughly analogous to its neighbors, that moved to a more nationalist bend under constant invasions and identity threats. That group just happened to discover there was one God during a diaspora among a monotheistic group, and they also developed a story that a great leader would rise up and save them, like so many groups and religions do. When the Roman era came and ideas were flowing, there were many self-proclaimed prophets, so it makes sense one would strike a cord with existing Roman anxieties and develop a following. However, persecution and an apocalyptic "any day now, He will return" mentality gave it further legs and cultural staying power until it eventually meshed and morphed with the existing Hellenistic belief system enough to be tolerated, then accepted, then encouraged. This is a (very) rough, non-religious understanding of Christian history, and I realized I would reject it as superstition as I had so many religions growing up if it hadn't been what I was raised to think. What makes it more special or provable, other than I was what I grew up with? Most Christians, particularly in Protestant Christianity in my experience, don't handle that kind of doubt that well. They believe being a Christian means believing, in your heart of hearts, that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah. But can't be sure of that given that everything else feels so circumstantial, so normal, when you try and look at it from the outside. And the fact I was told that half of Old Testament scholars eventually lose their faith made me feel that I was on to something. I know that I'm not the first person to ask these questions and come out still Christian, but I never really get an opportunity to talk to people able it and get the answers I wanted. I've heard priests and pastors say they, "doubt so others don't have to," but that feels like lying to yourself, and I had a professor in graduate school say that the complete non-religious history, with nothing supernatural or transcendent, was what he believed actually happened, but God "chose to reveal Himself that way," which feels like a cop out; there are thousands of religions you also think were non-supernatural, why is this special? All this said, I don't identify as an atheist. I would probably identify as a Buddhist if given census questions. Also, sorry, phone posting at work. Hiro Protagonist fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Kind of piggybacking on my previous post and the conversations it inspired, how do Christians in this thread balance the apocalyptic "coming Kingdom of God" in Jesus's sermons and the conviction amongst early Christians, some of which were directly taught by Him, that He was returning soon, which the 2000 years since the Resurrection? Obviously it would mean they were mistaken in their understanding, but WHY were they so wrong, and WHAT is the Kingdom of God supposed to be then? It feels like "the last guys got it WAY wrong," is the catchphrase of Abrahamic religions, and you'd expect some sort of consistency. Hiro Protagonist fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2022 16:22
|
|