Mix and match: A faith of one's own

We live in a country that emphasizes the separation of church and state. Is it so difficult for those affected by their religion to understand the easy jump to separation of church and faith. Many of us, ex-catholics, do not object to the teachings of God and Jesus, we simply don't understand how one could tie their immortal soul to a concept of quad when the bible clearly demonstrates a concept of tri. It seems a bit sneaky and underhanded to follow men who have usurped the divine- it's like buying a knock-off handbag or a pirated movie, you know it isn't really Gucci, and it feels a little dirty, and definately inauthentic. But, if it makes some people feel as though they're gettting closer to an understanding of the human legacy, and it makes some people better PEOPLE, then it makes sense to keep it. In my opinion, you can see more faith and more genuine spirituality in the confused searching of your associate than the dogmatic drudgery of the faith blinded. Again, in my opinion, it should make "true believers" happy to see so many people struggling to find truth and wisdom and reacquiant themselves with the divine. But you see, the CEO of Pepsi doesn't want you to just drink soda, he wants you to drink Pepsi- doesn't he. It's inescapable- branding is what drives religion when you no longer have a monopoly. Universalism gets around that branding and gives you more time to search, rather than justify.

Just becuse you are not in the club of Catholic, Jewish, muslims, christian, buddisum, jarah witness, hiddumism,mormon, or others. Does not mean you
are an atheist, I know alot of people say I don't believed in thing like this, or I don't
have any group belong to. When the world is rotating around us, everything is good
we say we don't believed in anything, but all of us believed there is god such thing
when we in hard time or sad time, we all hoping there 's a soluation, or a better
outcome. at that moment you know that you are just not someone don't believed
in anything, you can not afford to say that I am an athist or whatever. That's my
take. My ex-mother in-law is from malaysa, it is a country with mostly muslims
she hates muslims, she has all kinds of name for them. And she was so lucky
when her son married me, she had it all almost I think, she always tells me
doesn't believed in any religions, and she always tells me that she is a athist,
but when her a youngest son found dead in the apartment he was living in she
change completely, so would listen to even the woodos stuff that would bring
her sons back to talk to her and I am telling you the truth. As a christian, to
begin with, I was know that if I do good, I will be reward, and if I do bad things
I will be punished so that fear that make me to be self desciplained.

I consider myself a Chratheist.

I think some of the interpreted teachings atributed to Jesus are sound and have a place in the lives of people (all people regardless if they are christian or not). I do not, however, believe that a man was clinically dead for several days and then, a few days later, was not (the litmus test for "true" christians). That's just crazy talk. Nor do I believe of any sort of divine connection between Jesus and his god any more than I believe Zeus was lightning-hurling party god that favored certain histotical characters.

Mixing beliefs can be fun.

Funerals are for the living. No one can fault any ceremony that honors the dead and helps comfort family and friends. The Unitarian church has made it possible for this particular family.

hiippydippy, this is a post about how an individual and her familly have been able to express their spirituality. There is no better or worse way to do this. You seem to be a bit hung up on the Catholic thing. Get over it, and follow your own guide. Live and let live.

Miguel, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, but thanks for sharing. Please, meet me half way, don't make me dumb everything down for you.

First, blessings for a kind soul who I'm sure will be missed by those who worked with and loved her.

Second, there is contradiction and then there is paradox: one can indeed be an atheist in the name of God (Alan Watts) or even ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Some of us, have had to be, if only to remove the iron boot of religion from the neck of our spirituality.

Put another way, one can — and may even have to — discard (images of) God in order to find something far deeper, greater, and more mysterious than the omnipotent celestial male monarch ruthlessly peddled by politicians masquerading as clerics.

Small, terrified minds will always devalue and demean the "middle ground between blind faith and avowed atheism," along with the ambiguity and uncertainty that are its hallmarks. Don't let them.

Rilke wrote “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions” .
My experience, as a cradle Catholic, a Unitarian, and ultimately, as a simple "believer", is that religion can at its best point to the infinite but at its worst attempts to define it. "Church" is being present to every moment of every day. It is living with awe and humility on sacred ground no matter where we are.

Organized religious bodies exist because they believe that God himself called them to organize. For example, Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper, "Do this in memory of me." That is why Catholics gather for the Eucharist - the Eucharist is not something you can "do" on your own.

At the same time, ministers of organized religion often scandalize their congregations by their un-Godlike behavior. It's been that way for Christians ever since Judas betrayed Jesus. Nevertheless, God can and does work through unworthy ministers and through all of us. "We possess this treasure in earthen vessels to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." (2 Cor 4:7)

Posted by Peter June 22, 09 11:09 AM

Sadly, Peter, too many organized religious bodies exist to exert control over others, and in doing so, the controlling group gets the added "bonus" of wealth and power. The perpetual atrocities visited on humanity by religious hierarchies, determined to enforce orthodoxy for their own purposes, is more than ample proof of that. What you refer to as "un-Godlike behavior" is a constant in organized religion, and speaks to that nature of organized religion. The blatant inability of hierarchies to live, as Connie mentioned, "with awe and humility" on sacred ground" is further proof of the controlling nature of organized religion. Look, it's very important to avoid confusing religion with spirituality. While there are any number of people for whom those concepts intersect and co-exist, there are vast numbers who choose one or the other, but not both.

Ontheleft,
I am only really familiar with the Catholic Church among organized religions. I think that since the Vatican gave up temporal power (I think in the 1800s) they have focused much more on spiritual matters and helping the poor.

While there will always be ambitious people in any organization (and I have met a few priests who seemed ambitious) I have met many priests, sisters, and yes even bishops who seemed to be genuinely concerned only with teaching the Gospel and helping those in need.

While it is true that we must seek God and develop a spirituality on our own, we still need a church. We believe as Catholics that the sacraments (Eucharist, baptism, etc.) give divine grace, and we cannot give ourselves the sacraments - we receive them from others through the Church. There's a reason why Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Our Father, who art in heaven..." and not "My Father, who art in heaven..." Seeking God has to be done both individually and communally.

To Peter
"we still need a church". What about a community of faith? My issues with Catholicism include its exclusivity and exclusionary practices and the assumption that it is the singular conduit to the divine. Anyone who embraces a particular religion has every right to do so and to practice as they see fit . If they "need a church" fortunately they are free to attend one.

Posted by Peter June 22, 09 10:04 PM

Actually, Peter, the RCC never gave up temporal power - it was taken from them during Italian reunification. In response, Pius IX (the man to whom Lord Acton referred when he said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely") called Vatican I and demanded infallibility for his every utterance. The current version of "papal infallibility" was a political compromise with a despot pope, despised by inhabitants of the former Papal States, a pope infuriated by the loss of his temporal kingdom. Your current pope has lamented that Europe is no longer on its collective knees to his church, and your bishops continue to demand that everyone live their lives in obedience to the Catholic hierarchy.

And people do not universally need a church. Some people may, but many do not. Religion can contribute to spirituality, detract from it, or have no effect whatsoever. Keep in mind what Jesus said about public prayer and public piety. Keep in mind, also, that he was most critical of the RCC of his day - the Sadducees. Who then had him killed.

Connie - The Catholic Church believes that it has been established by God (through Christ) to be the primary way to salvation. However, it also believes that God can and does lead others to salvation by other means. I'm not a Catholic theologian, but I think this is what the Church believes.
If a person did not think their religion was true, then why would that person follow it? Doesn't every religion think that it is the true religion?

OnTheLeft,
You are probably right about Italian reunification. As for papal infallibility, the Church believes that the pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morality, by a special grace (Matthew 16). He can certainly be wrong in practical matters, politics, etc.

The bishops do not demand obedience from non-Catholics. For example, they do not tell non-Catholics they have to go to Mass on Sunday, etc. When they speak in the "public square" it is about morality or basic human rights, which is not religion but can be discovered through philosophy and the natural law. For example, abortion is wrong not because "the Catholic Church says so" but because it is morally wrong - it violates a basic moral code.

As for the Sadducees and Pharisees, you're right, Jesus was harsh toward them, especially for their hypocrisy. But "the RCC of his day" would be the 12 apostles and the other disciples, including Judas who betrayed him. Peter betrayed him too but was humble enough to ask for forgiveness. So, Catholics must admit (whether they are bishops or "average Joes") that they are capable of both good and evil, and not be self-righteous but humble.

"The Church is not a hotel for saints but a hospital for sinners."

Posted by Peter June 23, 09 11:01 PM

Pius IX demanded blanket infallibility - the current version was a compromise. The idea of papal infallibility is, of course, nonsense on its face. The Catholic bishops do indeed demand obedience from all - their demands on matters of gay marriage, for example, extend beyond Catholics to society as a whole. Their opposition to women's rights as well. Abortion does not violate a basic moral code - not all moral systems agree on it. It violates RCC doctrine. That is hardly a basis for universality or public policy. And Sadducees and Pharisees were indeed the RCC of its day - the established religious order. Jesus and his apostles bucked that order, they were not the establishment. As does the RCC, they demanded adherence to their doctrines, and blind loyalty to their leaders.

OnTheLeft,
You strike me as not just an unpleasant person but also an ideologue on an order at least as worrying as those you criticize. If you were a practitioner of 'organized religion', you'd surely be a George W. or a Jerry Falwell, not an MLK, Jr., or a Dorothy Day.

You say, "'un-Godlike behavior'" is a constant in organized religion, and speaks to that nature of organized religion." But let's be fair, 'un-Godlike behavior' is a constant of humans, and speaks to the nature of the human condition. To be sure there are just as many obnoxious, selfish, power-mongering people who are religious as who aren't. But I do believe that the most beautiful people I've encountered in my life -- people who are loving to a fault, nonjudgmental, kind, who devout their lives to providing food to the hungry, a welcome to strangers, clothing to the naked -- more often than not happen to be people who find meaning for their lives in 'organized religion'.

Finally, a reading suggestion: Robert Wright's new one, The Evolution of God -- a much more thoughtful and nuanced examination of the virtues and vices of 'organized religion' than your own. (And written by a committed agnostic to boot!)