“Why Don't You Look Into Jesus?”

[blü 2]

Killing is optional, the purpose is unholy bloody warm meat.

Most grateful! I'll light the barbecue ...

Here, cow cow cow

 

[Sundance]

I'm surprised that I'm one of the few who voted yes, though perhaps I shouldn't be.



Some important features of Christianity that make it easier to do this: (1) of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity is easily the most polytheistic of the three major branches with its plethora of semi-divine figures in its mythos that you, as a polytheist, can simply call deities outright; (2) as Christianity spread worldwide, traditions incorporated aspects of indigenous polytheistic religions creating abundant forms of syncretism to draw inspiration from; (3), progressive or liberal Christianity is a thing, and allows for considerably more flexibility within Christianity than more dogmatic or orthodox traditions.

I wouldn't think reconciliation would be difficult at all, given all that. You'll have to ignore all the people screaming and whining that you're doing it wrong, but that's a thing on every path.

Oh, how your words are as fresh air, Q! I greatly appreciate them.

 

[Sundance]

Absolutely.

But give yourself plenty of time. There is no need or expectation that you must develop such an inclusive theological paradigm, immediately. And in fact, I would say there is no need to do so at all, unless you feel specifically driven to do it.

Religions are just ways in which we humans conceptualize and employ the idea of "God" in our cultures and our individual lives. They are a pluralistic phenomenon by the relative nature of the human condition. And understanding this, it becomes easy to accept them as such. Imagine four mountain climbers standing at the base of a huge mountain; one to the north, one to the south, one to the east, and one to the west. Each climber will see a "different" mountain standing before them. And as they begin to climb, each will experience a very different set of challenges and difficulties. But once they reach the top, they will be sharing the same vista, and they will be experiencing the same sense of elation and accomplishment. Yet even then, not exactly the same.

"God" is a mystery far greater in scope than any one human or group of humans can conceptually comprehend. So no one religion 'has it right'. Each provides a conceptual experience of "God" from it's own cultural, geographical, and historical perspective. Yet there remains much that they (we) don't know.

PureX, thank you immensely for your response! I very much like the imagery.

 

[Sundance]

I was raised Christian and my entire extended family are Christian. It's hard not to include Jesus now and again in my own personal devotions. But apart from social convention I don't really have a connection with Jesus. So he remains a bridge between me and everyone else.

Interesting, Sheon!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

All the best with that. I had some positive and not so positive experiences with a few churches before I changed my religion nearly 30 years ago. It probably comes down to local knowledge with having a church that's in your neighbourhood, a peer group that you click with, as well as a theology your comfortable with. I'll be very interested to hear where you end up.

Well, I'm feeling drawn towards Eastern Christianity (Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Christian). I blame @Shiranui117. I find myself agreeing with Eastern theology more and more. Western Christianity tends to be more of a downer with a depressing view of humanity, imo. I'm just worried if, if I do try to find an Orthodox parish to belong to, how I will be accepted as I'm transgender.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, I'm feeling drawn towards Eastern Christianity (Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Christian). I blame @Shiranui117. I find myself agreeing with Eastern theology more and more. Western Christianity tends to be more of a downer with a depressing view of humanity, imo. I'm just worried if, if I do try to find an Orthodox parish to belong to, how I will be accepted as I'm transgender.

Sounds exciting. I've never explored it, mainly as it wasn't an established faith commuity in my city 30 years ago when I was searching so not an option. It became established here about 20 years ago initially due to the Egyptian community.

The Eastern Orthodox Christian community as I understand it, has evolved through very different cultures and experiences to us Westerners (Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and communism). Some churches have a very close relationship with the Roman Catholic Church as there has been a lot of healing over the years. Being very traditional I can see it would be an attractive option for someone from a Catholic background (mine was Protestant). There hasn't been the same level of exposure to Western liberal ideas so I wonder about their view of the LGBT community. Then again, I still believe love conquers all and that has to be at the core of any Christain Faith.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not gonna lie, it hasn't been easy for me as a spiritual seeker. My mind has flipped every which way, to the point where I've lost a sense of my own self. Don't get me wrong, everyone! I haven't lost my now firm polytheistic conviction (especially as an unlimited polytheist )! Never. Though, I often times start to think deeply about my relationship with the religion of my youth – Christianity....

Mind you, I hold no animosity whatsoever towards it, or towards Jesus Christ, or The Bible. It's undoubtedly an ever-lingering presence in my life (and a positive one, at that, conjuring more than pleasant memories and emotions). However, with my 21st birthday speedily approaching, I realize that I'm on the threshold of the future of manhood, and that I can't hold on to the past. At the same time, though, my past will always be a part of me. I can't deny it. Religiously, I see no reason to distance myself from Christianity (again, despite my polytheism).

My question is: Do you see any way for me to reconcile my past (Christianity) with my present (unlimited polytheism)? Is it even possible or should my past simply be left in the past?


Thanks, everyone. I very greatly appreciate the advice given.

I voted no... but for me the question is what changed your position?

Or, as it was with my wife, did you go to church but never really connected with Jesus?

 

[Sundance]

I voted no... but for me the question is what changed your position?

Or, as it was with my wife, did you go to church but never really connected with Jesus?

Ken, my beliefs are simply the natural product of my own perspectives on Life. I dig Jesus. Though, I'm an extremely open-minded character.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, my beliefs are simply the natural product of my own perspectives on Life. I dig Jesus. Though, I'm an extremely open-minded character.

Cool....

I became a Christian at 28. Hope your journey brings life to you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ken, my beliefs are simply the natural product of my own perspectives on Life. I dig Jesus. Though, I'm an extremely open-minded character.

Remember not to be so open minded that your brain falls out.

 

[Sanzbir]

I answered "other".

I think the prime difference between "polytheism" and "monotheism" is simply the definition of the word "god".

Take, for example, a Catholic and a Taoist

Let's take the following definition: "A holy individual who dwells in heaven and has tangible power on the material world, who was once a mortal being before they ascended."

The Taoist says "That describes a god." The Catholic says "That does not describe a God, that describes a saint."

Then another definition: "A singular, infinite, endless, subtle force that guides all things."

Now the Catholic says "That describes a God." The Taoist says "That does not describe a god, that describes the Way."

Both the Catholic and Taoist believe in a singular, infinite guide and a host of holy mortals ascended to heaven. But one is a "monotheist" because he uses the word "god" to describe the former and another is a "polytheist" because he uses the word "god" to describe the latter.

Monotheists and polytheists, many times, are simply working from different definitions. They both believe in the same general concepts, but disagree on which concepts the term "god" should apply to.

 

[Jumi]

Then another definition: "A singular, infinite, endless, subtle force that guides all things."

Now the Catholic says "That describes a God." The Taoist says "That does not describe a god, that describes the Way."

Both the Catholic and Taoist believe in a singular, infinite guide and a host of holy mortals ascended to heaven. But one is a "monotheist" because he uses the word "god" to describe the former and another is a "polytheist" because he uses the word "god" to describe the latter.

The Way of the Taoists does not have the personality of a God either, so there's that. Guiding is probably something that presumes human-type of intelligence too, not an attribute of the Way.

 

[Sanzbir]

The Way of the Taoists does not have the personality of a God either, so there's that.

That's why I kept that attribute out of the wording of the example.

Guiding is probably something that presumes human-type of intelligence too, not an attribute of the Way.

I disagree on that assertion. The most obvious counter to guidance presuming human-type of intelligence would be the ability of a service animal to guide a blind person. But even strictly non-sentient things, like a Garmin or GPS or even a simple map, can guide a human.

In the early days of nautical navigation the stars served to guide sailors, though the stars have no will of their own.

And I think Tao Te Ching 25 is enough to show that the Tao, as understood by the Taoists, does guide, as things follow it:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

For reference, a definition of guide is "a thing that helps someone to form an opinion or make a decision or calculation" which would apply both to a Catholic conception of God and the Taoist conception of the Tao.

 

[Jumi]

I disagree on that assertion. The most obvious counter to guidance presuming human-type of intelligence would be the ability of a service animal to guide a blind person. But even strictly non-sentient things, like a Garmin or GPS or even a simple map, can guide a human.

In the early days of nautical navigation the stars served to guide sailors, though the stars have no will of their own.

As a guide, the stars are much like the Way of the Taoists. You can follow the stars and you will find your way somewhere if you understand how use them. Natural landmarks are a guide, but not because they guide you, but because you remember that this landmark will lead you to a destination if you remember it.

And I think Tao Te Ching 25 is enough to show that the Tao, as understood by the Taoists, does guide, as things follow it:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然
Man law earth, earth law heaven, heaven law way, way law itself.

With 自然 meaning spontaneity.

Here is a more readable translation:
Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Dao. The law of the Dao is its being what it is.

For reference, a definition of guide is "a thing that helps someone to form an opinion or make a decision or calculation" which would apply both to a Catholic conception of God and the Taoist conception of the Tao.

Perhaps, but if the guide is not the same, isn't it a moot point if some sentence is ambiguous to describe multiple separate things.

 

[Sanzbir]

Perhaps, but if the guide is not the same, isn't it a moot point if some sentence is ambiguous to describe multiple separate things.

Isn't it the same in both instances?? The definition I provided works with both entities and conceptions thereof.

 

[Jumi]

Isn't it the same in both instances?? The definition I provided works with both entities and conceptions thereof.

No, they are clearly different, like a microchip designer is different from thunder. Both move electricity, but... not the same.

The first is a direct creator God. The other is not God and is an indirect cause of things. God is more akin to will of Heaven which follows after the Way.

 

[Sanzbir]

No, they are clearly different, like a microchip designer is different from thunder. Both move electricity, but... not the same.

The first is a direct creator God. The other is not God and is an indirect cause of things. God is more akin to will of Heaven which follows after the Way.

My point was that the definition I intended did not specify direct or indirect. Just a "guide" in general. Also I think Taoist philosophy might also debate the distinction between direct and indirect to begin with.

But eh, whatever. I acknowledge that the similarity between the Catholic conception of a God and the Taoist conception of the Way is not as strong as the other half of my analogy, the Catholic conception of a Saint and the Taoist conception of a God.

Perhaps for the latter part of the analogy I should have used differing religions rather than just sticking with the original two. The Tao is still close to other religions' definitions of a "god" anyways, if not so much with Catholicism. I pretty much just stuck with the example of Catholicism and Taoism because those were the two used in the other half.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you. Now I have to find a church to call home.

You found a Church! Congrads -does her happy dance- Don't know if you said it on another thread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like the new religion...

Phò thiện hạnh (kindness)

We could all do with a little more of that.

Looks around. Yes, we could. Internet does show a bit about one's character.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You found a Church! Congrads -does her happy dance- Don't know if you said it on another thread.

Huh? I didn't say I found a church.