When/where did it start, for you?

[Slim]

Here's how it started for me. To me, a returned missionary, my story looks like I'm proselyting. But the purpose of my writing this is so you can get to know why I believe the things I do, and where I'm coming from.

Growing up, both my parents are fathful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They both served missions before they met and got married. I also live in Utah. Needless to say, there has been a lot of pressure from all around saying I should be a part of this church.

However, about ten years ago, I began to realize that even in Utah, this isn't an easy church. A lot is asked of us -- we have a lay ministry, which means everyone takes part in some role in church service. We pay 10% for tithing. As a male, I was expected to serve 2 years as a full-time missionary. Since missionaries (like all church positions) are unpaid, that would also be a lot of money.

At the same time, (I was in Jr. High at the time) I was interested in science, math, and logic. All your classic fields of study for atheists/agnostics. At the time I was leaning that way. I doubt I thought I was at the time, but looking back, I don't feel like I really believed anything more than I felt like there should be some point to life.

Anyway, one thing that I've always hated is being a hypocrite. Too many times I've heard stories of people who go out on missions only to find that they weren't sure this was the true church, and only finding out then. I felt that finding out in the mission field is much too late. I didn't want to be one of those people. Also, realizing the amount of time/money/energy that my church requires of us, I realized that I had better make my decision now. Is this the true church or not? What path will I take the rest of my life?

In the Church of Jesus Christ, we are taught from when we were kids that we do need to find out for ourselves the truth. We can't rely on other's testimonies. We are taught to do like what Joseph Smith did: search for the true church. Even in the book of Mormon, we are told to read, ponder, and pray. So, I started to read the Book of Mormon, and I started praying to find out if it was true.

I didn't receive my answer at first. I thought the stories were interesting, and sure, maybe uplifting, but were they true? At the same time, I wasn't living the way I should. I can't remember what scripture it was, but I realized for the first time in my life that I needed to repent. So, I decided to change my lifestyle, and I prayed and asked for forgiveness. Immediately I felt this calm peace come over me, and I knew that my prayer was answered. I knew that Jesus Christ really did pay for my sins. As I finished the Book of Mormon, I continued to feel that same Spirit. I felt at peace. My prayers were answered, I knew for myself that the Book of Mormon was true, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was true.

That's where it started for me, but not where it ended. I don't claim to know everything. Ever since that time I have learned a lot. I am, and always will be willing to add to what I already hold to be true.

[Rei]

I'm glad you decided to make sure you knew what you believed before heading out to the missions field, Slim. That is one thing that I find to be so important and I'm glad when people have the integrity to decide for themselves instead of just going with the flow and being caught later on not knowing much about their faith.

As for myself, I've written my more complete answer as a landmark. If anyone should wish to read it, it's over in Milagre.

[suminonA]

[...] So, I started to read the Book of Mormon, and I started praying to find out if it was true. [...]

I wonder, hadn’t your parents been faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, would the Book of Mormon bear today the same relevance to you?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m only trying to "measure" the influence the culture you were brought up in had on the “truth” that you have discovered.

So the question is, given your present religious outlook, would you accept that a Muslim (to name an example) can discover an equally valid “truth” in his/hers holy book(s)?

Actually, these questions are not directed exclusively to you Slim, the idea is to see if there is a chance to get to the same (and only) truth even starting in different points ...

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

I think it can work both ways. In Slim's case, cultural proximity to a particular religion obviously drew him closer; whereas people like myself, from-birth immersion in a particular sect drove me away from it.

[jotabe]

A_B, you just took a toxic dose of it.

Actually, i think religion can work like a toxic substance: in certain amounts, under certain circumstances, it really is beneficial, curative. Get a toxic amount and it can either become addictive, making you tolerant, or you can get consciously away from it.

[suminonA]

I don’t think that many religious leaders would appreciate your making a parallel between religion and other toxic/addictive stuff…

A.

[jotabe]

I don't think many religious leaders would appreciate me period.

[suminonA]

They might be entitled to dislike your views, but not you personally

A.

[Boothby]

You know well enough that there are plenty of religious leaders out in the world who hate the sinner as much as they hate the sin.

[suminonA]

That doesn’t make it legitimate, nor in any way compatible with the “tolerance” they uphold so loudly and/or proudly.

I can understand the concept of “fighting the sin” but when in order to eradicate the sin it gets to the eradication of sinners, that’s where “love thy neighbour” and its variants are laughable in their discourse.

A.

[Sparrowhawk]

"Fighting the sin" in and of itself is a ridiculous notion. The very idea that you need to actively try to prevent certain personal behaviors in other people is ludicrous. Even if they (claim) "hate the sin" that itself is stupid and ignorant; what they designate as 'sin' and 'immoral' is personal behavior whose relevance is to its perpetrator and not an observer with a moral chip on their shoulder. To extend that hatred of the sin, of others' personal behavior, to trying to "fight" the sin (even if they try to 'love' the 'sinner' in the process) is the realm of thought-police. Neither hating the sin nor the sinner is compatible with "love they neighbor."

[jotabe]

Well, if you believe that God will make them burn in fire forever if they sin... i think it's actually very compassionate to try to dissuade others from sinning.

[Sparrowhawk]

Well, if you believe that God will make them burn in fire forever if they sin...

If you believe that, you're so f****** retarded that it doesn't matter what you think. Regardless, that's not what Christianity says anyways. It says if you don't accept Christ as your savior you will burn forever in fire. So it's not even about stopping people from sinning (even though THEY STILL TRY TO), because sinning is universal and no amount of not sinning will keep you out of hell. It's about convincing people to learn about and accept Jesus - they just keep focusing on the sinning aspect because it makes them feel good - sound familiar?

[jotabe]

I didn't say i believe that.

Still, there is so many people that believes it, that you should be worried, and saying that what so many people think doesn't matter is reckless at best. I mean, they are fellow voters!

Btw, let me correct you that most of Christianity is more worried about sinning (evil acts, evil thoughts... etc) than about accepting_Jesus_as_your_personal_saviour thingy. This last thing is important for majority of Christianity, true, but we acknowledge that people who don't believe might be saved, upon God's mysterious mercy.

(The last paragraph is about strict theological content of what the majority of Christianity believes.)

[Sparrowhawk]

Sometimes it's impossible to have a conversation with you.

[jotabe]

That's because you are watching my avatar...

But really, you were just taking what smallish groups of Christians believe, and putting it up as the beliefs of Christianity. Once we keep the facts straight, we can keep on talking about feelings. You know i love that topic. It feels so right.

[suminonA]

"Fighting the sin" in and of itself is a ridiculous notion. The very idea that you need to actively try to prevent certain personal behaviors in other people is ludicrous. […]

Sparrowhawk, I don’t find it that ridiculous in itself. And that is because the acts of one person generally affect more people. Maybe you’ve noticed that in the society around you.

So, if you generalize that so lightly, do you also think that “thou shalt not kill” is also ludicrous? IIRC killing is a sin in most of the religious books.
Where is your “moral boundary” of the rule “do as you please as long as you don’t bother others” ? Or is this rule also unacceptable to you?

The way I see it, in order for a society to be able to offer any advantages to the individuals, the individuals need to “sacrifice” some of their “freedom” for it. It’s difficult to draw the line between “now much I have to give to” and “how much do I deserve from” society , I’m not saying otherwise, but when people don’t agree on “basic morals” then (civilized) society is doomed to extinction.

When you ridicule the idea of “fighting sin” per se, you ridicule the only legitimate moral component of religion. And religion without the moral component is equal to a “imaginative fairy tale” at best. So if you’re trying to bring the discussion in that area, maybe the “Game Room” is more appropriate.

And one more thing: please retain from throwing names in here, we can understand your points ( or ask questions if more detail is necessary ) even when you talk like a civilised person. Thank you.

A.

[anonshadow]

When you ridicule the idea of “fighting sin” per se, you ridicule the only legitimate moral component of religion. And religion without the moral component is equal to a “imaginative fairy tale” at best. So if you’re trying to bring the discussion in that area, maybe the “Game Room” is more appropriate.

Oh, please. If the only point of religion is controlling other people's lives, it's a sad and sorry thing indeed.

Thankfully, I don't believe that "fighting sin" is the only real moral component of religion at all. For a lot of people? Religion is about living their lives in a certain way, and being charitable and good to others. Controlling what kind of sex other people have or whether they accept Jesus is not high on their list.

[Rei]

For the record, most of the time I run into the phrase "fighting sin" amongst Christians, it is not in the context of fighting sin in others. Rather, it is in the context of fighting sin in oneself.

[Boothby]

Rei,

I guess the whole Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion lobby is a figment of my imagination, then?

[Sparrowhawk]

OH SNAP. Home run.

:thumbs up for anon and Boothby:

[Eaquae Legit]

Rei,

I guess the whole Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion lobby is a figment of my imagination, then?

The loud voices are always the ones you hear, whether or not they're the majority.

Although as regards that particular point, it's a heck of a lot more complex for most people than simply policing pregnant women. "Bad woman! Don't sin!" is often secondary to the concern of saving a life.

[Boothby]

I'm sorry--did I say "anti abortion"?

I meant to say "anti gay marriage"

My bad.

[Rei]

Steve, anytime you can safely use "fundamentalist" as an adjective, you should know that it is almost certainly not representative of the majority.

[Boothby]

So...how many "mega-churches" do you think are out there in the US.

I think that there are enough of them, with enough followers, that I can honestly say that a meaningful proportion of Christians in the United States are opposed to gay marriage and to homosexual relationships. So, instead of the whole "love thy brother" teaching from the bible, and the "hate the sin but not the sinner," and your statement

For the record, most of the time I run into the phrase "fighting sin" amongst Christians, it is not in the context of fighting sin in others. Rather, it is in the context of fighting sin in oneself.

Well...I think your satement may have to be re-evaluated.


Most of the time I run into the phrase "fighting sin" among Christians, it is in the context of righting the sin in others, and not as much in the context of fighting sin in oneself.

[suminonA]

When you ridicule the idea of “fighting sin” per se, you ridicule the only legitimate moral component of religion. And religion without the moral component is equal to a “imaginative fairy tale” at best. So if you’re trying to bring the discussion in that area, maybe the “Game Room” is more appropriate.

Oh, please. If the only point of religion is controlling other people's lives, it's a sad and sorry thing indeed.

Thankfully, I don't believe that "fighting sin" is the only real moral component of religion at all.

I was talking about the only legitimate moral component of religion. There are many other real moral components, but <real> doesn’t equal <legitimate>.

Setting some rules (among them some about morality) and trying to teach the others the benefits of following those rules is how I read “fighting the sin” in religion. So when we’re talking about “thou shalt not kill” and the like, I see a legitimate moral application of religion.

[Note:Yet I didn’t go further with the analysis of the content of those rules, because it is such a hard thing to draw the line in moral fields (and this is not the thread to do it).]

I also think that when a person is living their life “in a certain way, and being charitable and good to others” we’re not actually talking about religion per se. That people learn to do that because of religion is not the same thing as doing it because they are “religious persons”. One might learn about morality outside the church/temple/mosque . So the essential thing is not the instrument used to deliver the education, but the education itself.
As proof for this point, we see both a) “religious” persons not being charitable, nor “loving their neighbors” and b) non religious people (atheists or not) who do those things as a result of their own choice after more or less education.

Now, take away from religion its “fight against sinning” and tell me what other legitimate moral component you find.

A.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

For me, my religous memory is very sketchy. My parents are both Christians, my mother a bit moreso than my father, but more on that later.

I don't think I ever really had a single thought about religion until I was at least 11 or 12. Kinda late, yeah, but with an understandable reason. My parents, while both Christian, disagreed on what kind of church the family should attend. My father was of the view that even though he was christian, it wasn't the natural, historical faith of African-Americans, and so he wasn't sure he wanted his children indoctrinated in that.

So, I grew up knowing who and what Jesus and God were, and with very Christian morals until about age 12. It was about this time that my pursuit of astronomy and astrology, as well as my first insights into Buddhism began to clash with my upbringing. Buddhism came around, indirectly as a result of my fascination with martial arts, and it was also about this time that the idea of Hell first came into view.

Up until that point, I'd always accepted that Jesus was a historical figure, and held him on the same level I held Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. God was far more abstract, and I thought that he was largely removed from the workings of the universe, save in times when people really needed help. Keep in mind that I was about 10.

Up until that point, I'd had two crushes in my life. One, a Hindu girl in preschool, and the other a Jewish girl in elementary school. The second time, however, was the first time I realized that not everyone knew the story of Jesus as historical fact, the way I had accepted it. Then, at some point, I found out that everyone who didn't was doomed to burn in Hell, at which point I rejected Christianity as my faith. The first time I understood the idea of faith, I rejected it, and as such, held myself an athiest throughout middle school, and freshman year of so of high school.

It was after freshman year that my mother finally realized I wasn't actually singing the hymns and reading the Bible the one time we went to church out of the year - Easter to visit my grandmother. But, around that time, I also began to allow certain ideas I then knew to be distinctly Christian back into my philosophy, but had decided that since there was no way I could accept that all who weren't Christian were doomed to Hell, I couldn't accept the whole faith.

Around this time, however, my father, his father having recently died began attending church regularly, and for a time I was brought along. After a few awkward moments around pastors and reverends, I knew that Christianity would never be my faith, even though it was my foundation, and I respect it as the faith of many, though no more than I respect others as the faiths of a few.

As it stands now, the only thing I hold as a semblance of God in my life is that inexorable march towards change that the universe carries out. I no longer see higher power as the creator, or the watchmaker, but instead as that which winds the watch. And as humans have shown a greater capacity for change than any other part of life, I can't help but think that there's a part of what we call God in each of us.

If I had to give my belief a name, it would be a belief in the will of change, because while it seems to be the natural order of things to change, almost everything else we know about the universe suggests that change is dangerous and unnatural, and so there must be something driving it, and that, more than anything is what I'd like to understand.