The church i went as an agnostic had decent sermons. They were apolitical and focused on Jesus. The people were also nice. It was a conservative church, so a majority had conservative views lockstep mostly what you see in the media. I consider myself a California moderate so i didn't particularly click with that church.
I see what you are saying now. It's not the message, it's the delivery. Some preachers, for some reason, think they way to deliver a message is by being insane ranters and using hateful rhetoric. Got it.
Especially since so much of Paul's writing is explaining about how faith in Christ is freedom from the Law instead of being in fear of it. Paul focuses on the joy of redemption and forgiveness instead of fear of condemnation. I think there are churches who proclaim this "good news".
That is inherently the basis of Christianity. It isn't meant to be the rigid structure you might see in the Catholic church. The simplistic basis is to love God and to love your neighbor (which is everyone in this world). How one chooses to express their love is left up to them. So sure, it can seem like chaos. There is nothing wrong with having multiple denominations, but like everything in life, it becomes a competition for money or power or popularity. Nearly every church I've attended focuses on growing their church over growing the individual.
As part of the Baha'i faith (which few of ya'll have heard of), the one thing we don't have the "we're right, you're wrong" thing. Well, we might have a few who get semi-self-righteous, but they're few and far between. This is mostly because ours is a progressive revelation, and we respect each monotheistic faith as a stepping stone for the next---Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the Bab, Baha'u'a'llah---that God reveals his message gradually through His prophets as time unfolds. And so we learn to respect the other faiths. I'm not trying to say "that's why we're better", but I will say, that's a part of what drew me to the faith, because I agree with you: adherents to whatever faith do get fixated on things like, "And only through Jesus will you be saved", and "Mohammed was the last prophet, so anyone AFTER claiming to be a prophet of God is a heretic". I always thought these statements were part and parcel for each faith at each point in history to win over converts and keep them toeing the line. Then it becomes hard for a new faith to say, "Even if God's fundamentals are immutable, mankind and civilization and people's understanding of science and history and technology are changing, and so man becomes ready for that much more of God's revelation". But people often don't want to hear that. You can't fill a cup if it's already full. Unless you up-end the cup first, I guess. As far as the Baptist Church, I've been to a few. Most recently? 6 years ago. Father's Day. A traditionally "Black" Baptist Church, which is to say, I probably looked like the white-guy key grip on the church movie set of "The Help". Aaaaaanyway, it was fun, it was interesting. But the preacher's sermon turned viciously anti-gay, just vicious, all of a sudden, clear blue sky: "God's love, praise Jesus, community in faith, IT'S WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG for man to lie down with man, it's WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!" And on and on. It's probably the one thing that I'll never reconcile. Baha'is are not judgmental of homosexuals, but the faith teaches that all marriage should be between man and woman (thankfully, there's no harassing language or attitudes toward anyone, including homosexuals). Just like other monotheistic faiths preach. Me, I don't have a problem with it. I guess it's like many Catholics and birth control. What the church teaches doesn't make sense. So you think, "I don't agree", and keep it to yourself. Boy, did I go in five tangents here or what?
Bahai appealed to me, except for their views on marriage and sex which ran completely counter to their stated goal of "unity through diversity". Kind of lost me there. Which is really a pity given that most of the rest of the religous foundation is exceptional, IMO.
Please correct me of I'm interpreting incorrectly, but with this, it also takes a 'we are right you are wrong' stance. If Jesus was only prophesying the next messengers arrival, then that means Christianity's belief that Jesus is son of God is wrong. And same for other religions. Of course you probably don't act in a self righteous manner and you respect other religions, just like many in other religions hold those same principles.
Essentially: 1) No sex before marriage. 2) No homo. It sticks out like a sore thumb as every other one of their social causes is so all-inclusive it's astonishing. It may just be an antiquated relic of the origination period or even the culture it developed in (19th century Persia). Heck, it may not even be something all that important (I'll let ROXTXIA answer that). It just left me cross-eyed with the disparity in one teaching relative to the other. But I don't want to detract from their message - the above is just one major reason why I got disinterested with the organization. I still really like virtually all the rest of their tenets.
I think it's wrong to say that if a religion teaches that something is "wrong" then it is not inclusive. It actually is possible for there to be things that are not good.
True, but irrelevant to the example being presented. I don't want to derail...so I'll leave it at that.
Great OP. And I'm glad you haven't given up on the idea of God/a higher power. There is a God that's of love and compassion but how to understand he/she/it/they/whatever will slowly be revealed to you if you don't like Wizard of Oz: have a heart, brain and courage (and no that's not a coincidence, I can explain later).
I'm a follower of Christ, At my church there was actually a sermon on youth and it was over how there are too many rules and not enough Christ relationship building going on. That for kids it seems it is all about making them abide by rules forgetting that the most important thing is their personal relationship with God and Jesus so usually the side-effect of this is when they are old enough, not only do they have a negative view on Christianity but they are tired of dumb 'rules' and with no real relationship with Jesus they leave Christianity. However I try to live my life within Jesus' own words, not Moses
Well I have and it was at the church I grew up at. Some real ignorant backwards folk, though some of it was fueled by the way so many were treated growing up and in their early adulthood. You guessed it, I go to a church here in the South (south of Houston) with lots of old black folks who were treated like dog pooh years ago. It explains their bitterness and lack of education/sophistication. I still love them though, lots of good in their hearts. On a side note, it troubles me greatly that so many are still falling for this elementary version of spirituality (not just Christianity but organized religion in general). So many are caught in the circle: Spoiler Then when you try to tell people about some of the ways they may be being deceived, they think some savior from the sky is going to come down and in one stroke of magic eliminate all of their problems. You're looking at things too literally if you think that.
Some Hindus claim that Jesus is an incarnation of Vishnu so in that way he is also holy but that might be for a different thread. In principle I am inclined to agree with you. There are certain bright lines that separate religions and to that sense they are incompatible. That is why I am not too troubled if a Christian were to say I am going to Hell because if that is what they believe as a non-believer I have no basis of argument. It would be the same as if a Christian were offended if I tell them that they will be reborn as a land snail. That said neither of us will likely get the other to attend each other's services like that. My own standard is to recognize we live a pluralistic society and we show mutual respect, tolerance and not trying to impose one's own religious views on society as a whole. For example I bring this up often regarding Gay Marriage. Many religious people claim that by allowing for state sanctioned means that we are forcing those whose religious views to accept a standard of marriage not consistent with their views. The problem with that is if we accommodate that position then any state sanction of behavior of not consistent with any religious view would also be forcing that view on the religious. In that case then we should outlaw eating pork since the state allows for and even sanctions (through meat inspection and farm subsidies) it that is forcing those who keep Halal and Kosher to accept a definition of food not consistent with their religion. The same goes for beef for Hindus and for drinking alcohol for Muslims and Mormons. As part of a pluralistic society it is important to both recognize that others have different beliefs and they are entitled to those, even if it is things I would disagree with like hating gays, it is how they act or impose those beliefs on others that is important.
Baha'i is the only organized religion that even came close to making any sense to me. Mostly, because, as I understand it, there is no tenet along the lines of "Everyone who doesn't believe x is going to hell." I can never comprehend how people who believe in a loving god can simultaneously believe that this god has condemned billions/trillions of souls to burn for eternity because they don't believe in him. That is so obviously something that came from the small minds of men.
I know of Baha'i and looked into it. It's a nice idea, but it takes a lot of liberties with how it connects all the religions, and I was uncomfortable with the idea of having to register with a group, or that a picture of Baha'ullah was so incredibly sacred (he was a prophet, not God).
