rosends
Well-Known Member
Yes, I saw it when it first came around. So?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion vs. Faith
- Thread starter Tumah
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I try to defend people who share the same sentiments as I do. I try not to say (in general) the whole church/people see it this way. Just the Church doesnt teach that rituals come before faith. When people put rituals before faith, I agree it does not mean it is true faith. Thats just that and a group of other people while others in their own view agree with you even though they have different ways of expressing it.
In other words, it depends on who you talk to. The "issue" is with the people not the rituals and faith themselves. Least thats not how it is taught nowadays. Latin Mass is more tricky to decern since its not my native language an ld culture.
I understand some do that. I also understand some do not. As for church teachings, I havent read that one must have ritual first before reaching faith. In RCIA they make sure you have faith (not by ritual) before you take the sacraments. They feel if you dont have faith say the Eucharist is Jesus, taking the sacrament will mean nothing. It all revolves around faith.
Put another way, its like what you said about caith first, throw the stones, instant faith because (?) the ceremony was an success.
I know not everyone sees it this way. This also doesnt mean it defines how the church sees it. Maybe give me a teaching written from the church tenants or their bible that shows they use ritual as steps towards faith?
A lot of people (in general) base their disagreements on catholicism off the people. Indoctrinzation, societal presure, abuse by catholic teachers, etc. But rarely I hear people leave because of the faith itself rather than the history and people of the faith.
True. Does the church teach if you do ritual, something comes out? Or does it teach one must have faith for any ritual to work?
Really. Is it in the church doctrine that ritual is the steping stones towards faith?
True. Just talking about the people who dont see it as a chore and how these people who dont represent what the church intentionally teaches.
Trying to look at the good sides. I know people abuse the faith. I also know Im not 1/99 who have true faith. Im sure there is a sliding scale if not balance of some sort.
True. I havent met any around my age. Usually the older generation does because they are instructed by the chuech without being let to form a relationship with the god the church defined rather than letting them have a relarionship with the church by reading the bible, meditating, prayer, to first find the faith within without needing to depend on ritual for salvation.
Hope that long sentence made sense.
I understand youre talking about those who dont. I agree. Just those who do see it the way you do and use rituals is what I feel the church teaches for its inherants to see it.
I use myself because I know Im not the only one who feels this way. Just the church gets put down so much. Its like seeing someone cheer for capitol punishment because X person killed so he should be killed. I understand the sentiment but not everyone disvalues life to punish by eye for eye.
General statement nothing to do with what you said. Just me.
In other words, it depends on who you talk to. The "issue" is with the people not the rituals and faith themselves. Least thats not how it is taught nowadays. Latin Mass is more tricky to decern since its not my native language an ld culture.
I understand some do that. I also understand some do not. As for church teachings, I havent read that one must have ritual first before reaching faith. In RCIA they make sure you have faith (not by ritual) before you take the sacraments. They feel if you dont have faith say the Eucharist is Jesus, taking the sacrament will mean nothing. It all revolves around faith.
Put another way, its like what you said about caith first, throw the stones, instant faith because (?) the ceremony was an success.
I know not everyone sees it this way. This also doesnt mean it defines how the church sees it. Maybe give me a teaching written from the church tenants or their bible that shows they use ritual as steps towards faith?
A lot of people (in general) base their disagreements on catholicism off the people. Indoctrinzation, societal presure, abuse by catholic teachers, etc. But rarely I hear people leave because of the faith itself rather than the history and people of the faith.
True. Does the church teach if you do ritual, something comes out? Or does it teach one must have faith for any ritual to work?
Really. Is it in the church doctrine that ritual is the steping stones towards faith?
True. Just talking about the people who dont see it as a chore and how these people who dont represent what the church intentionally teaches.
Trying to look at the good sides. I know people abuse the faith. I also know Im not 1/99 who have true faith. Im sure there is a sliding scale if not balance of some sort.
True. I havent met any around my age. Usually the older generation does because they are instructed by the chuech without being let to form a relationship with the god the church defined rather than letting them have a relarionship with the church by reading the bible, meditating, prayer, to first find the faith within without needing to depend on ritual for salvation.
Hope that long sentence made sense.I understand youre talking about those who dont. I agree. Just those who do see it the way you do and use rituals is what I feel the church teaches for its inherants to see it.
I use myself because I know Im not the only one who feels this way. Just the church gets put down so much. Its like seeing someone cheer for capitol punishment because X person killed so he should be killed. I understand the sentiment but not everyone disvalues life to punish by eye for eye.
General statement nothing to do with what you said. Just me.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
So let me know which part you don't understand and we go through it again. Technically not beads , could of been knots and lots of them was long ago , the tallit symbolic similar to the rosary now one is no beads but still a ritual of prayer .
Not critising but is not only Catholics that use items as symbolic to faith .
rosends
Well-Known Member
The tallit/tzitzit on it are not symbolic. They are a direct commandment with a particular purpose throughout the day and an additional role within prayer.
If you want all the info on the gartel, here it is:
3651.Before davening one should make a separation at his waist between his heart and the private areas to fulfill the posuk of "Hikon Likrosecho"; prepare yourself to greet Hashem. For this reason many have the minhag to wear a gartel for davening.Shulchan Aruch with Mishnah Berurah 90:2
3652. Others however, do not have the custom to put on a gartel because a) they rely on the psak of the Bais Yosef that the necessity to wear a gartel is only for one who is accustomed to wear a gartel all day, and/or b) they rely on the waistband of one's undergarments which also acts as a separation between the heart and the area below the waist.Shulchan Aruch with Mishnah Berurah 90:2
"Wearing a "Gartel" in R'shua Harabim on Shabbos"
According to some Poskim (including the Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa) one is permitted to wear aGarteleven though it is not fastening other garments (i.e. it is worn on top of a regular belt) because it is classified as a garment in it's own right worn in honor of one's Tefillah. However, according to R' Moshe Feinstein aGartelis halachically no different than any other belt and simply wearing it directly over another belt is forbidden because it serves no protective, useful function. Therefore, in order to comply with this stricter ruling one should wear theGartel(assuming one has the minhag to wear aGartel) around the outside of a jacket or coat so that it is fastening the jacket in place. If this is not practical, theGartelshould be brought to shul before Shabbos.
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 301:MB134, see Sha'ar Hatziyun 169, and SA 301:35, Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 18:5, Igros Moshe OC 2:35, OC 3:46, OC 4:101:5, YD 2:35, Sefer 39 Melocho
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Thanks proved my point if you said you worn a belt to stop your trousers ending round the ankles I would agree however again is use of items in a symbolic nature connected to a specific religion
rosends
Well-Known Member
What point do you think I proved. I just showed that the items are not symbolic.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
They can not be anything else as they serve no physical purpose apart from to satisfy your beliefs .
Least a burka does protect from harmful uva
rosends
Well-Known Member
the gartel has a particular physical use (as quoted) and the tallit has a particular physical purpose in addition to its service as a reminder. those uses are expressions of belief, much the same as a burka. Claiming that the burka blocks uvas (if you meant it seriously) would then mean that the burka in a sunny country would be categorically different from the exact same act/clothing on a cloudy day. Is your vision of religion dependent on the forecast?
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
The rosary a reminder and serves physical purpose by this logic , back to square one .
rosends
Well-Known Member
That's fine. And if you want to cast the net wide, anything is similar to anything else as they are made of atoms. The rosary beads, if used to count repetitions of prayer are categorically different from the tzitzit. Are there similarities? One can always find similarities by changing the criteria of comparison.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
If you apply same method of logic to each is conclusive ,however is one enters from a biased perspective it is easy to understand your abstract argument
Yes, I am aware of that. I am not entirely sure what your point is, unless you are speaking of customs or traditions. I would argue that those particular traditions are not entirely relevant as they changed dramatically over time. There was no Protestant church until Martin Luther and even there, thinking of Episcopal churches, there are many rituals that are seen in Catholic churches that the Episcopal church uses and also some of the more conservative Lutheran churches. Keep in mind that originally, the Christian faith was entirely Catholic. And much of those traditions were taken from Pagan rituals.
Exactly and perfectly spoken. Not everyone who has faith expresses, or even some do not express anything, do this in the same manner. Thank you for saying this so succinctly.
Perhaps you are mistaking the beads that some of the eastern faiths use. They are for meditation and prayer purposes. They are in no way Jewish.
Which would make him a YEC. Or Young Earth Creationist. They believe that the world is only that old. It is not implicit in Judaism. Perhaps he was trying to mix some faiths together for his own purposes.
For you Carlita, not for all peoples. And that is the point. For you, ritual is implicit in belief. For another, such as me, it is not. I am not sure why you believe that we have to agree with you on this. Can we just not both see that we have those differences and that is perfectly acceptable?
In the first page before you jumped in, I told the OP that faith is the core of religion and religion is the practices of ones faith. 105 is a summary of all that was said since you jumped in the middle expressing your opinion about something I already thought@wizanda and I already finished talking about.
---
I am terribly sorry I "jumped in" to a conversation which you ended. I shall not express any more opinions in threads where you are speaking. Good day.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Its primary adherents are jews
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Only real evidence of religion prior to roman invasion is Stonehenge , being of age I can look at the world make my own choices , Christianity for me . I do not want to live in Israel I'm English .
Forced into a choice I would choose Islam or Hinduism as alternative to christianity considered Islam before however my mother had me christian was her wish.
Last edited: