Religious moral dilema!!

[supersox]

Hi All

I've never posted before, so hope you will not mind this intrusion.

I have a new friend, a woman I met at a soft play area who is new to the area. We get along really well, have lots in common and she is a really lovely person. My only slight reservation is that she is deeply religious (of the 'Happy Clappy' persuasion)which I don't have a problem with per se but why do I feel like a potential new recruit?

She's quite full-on and although I've been honest and told her it's not for me I think she thinks I can be educated!

This weekend she has invited my children to her Sunday School (they do want to go) so I feel I must accompany them! Any ideas? I really do value her friendship and we get on so well in every other respect.

'Hitler youth'? Goodness!

Supersox: IMO You don't have to try out someone's religion in order to be friends with them any more than if you were a vegetarian you would need to try eating meat.

Just to say love nearlythree and overthehill's posts on this thread.

UnquietDad, it has taken me two years' to reach the point where I no longer believe in the religion that I have loved since as long as I can remember. I was talking to a friend of mine this morning about ds' baptism and I realised I can't have him baptised as I can't make any promises as to what I will raise him to believe in. It has been long, and painful, and not something I would wish anyone to go through.

nearlythree- what was the first thing that set you thinking about it? And what was the "clincher", if there was one? Very interested to hear about your experiences if you feel able to share them.

Just about to feed ds but hope to get the chance to post later.

UnqueitDad - don't want to go on too much about myself so will try to be brief. When I was considering the priesthood, I started to study theology. Part of my couse looked at the Nativity and how each story is a precurser of the Gospel -Luke or Matthew - to come. It was obvious that the Nativity stories are apocryphal and serve exactly that purpose. So that got me thinking...what else is made up? For a long time it didn't matter if smaal parts were, but it became apparent that most of the Gospels are deeply unreliable. The parts I believe to be false are what are to m ethe nuts and bolts of Christianity - that Jesus was born to a Virgin in order to fulfil prophecy, he died and rose again before ascending into heaven. The parts I believe are about Jesus the man - a Spirit-filled, inspirational figure who revolutionised the way people think and who was brave enough to teach people the way to live knowing it would bring about his death.

I'd become disillusioned with the church after it offered no support to us when our dd1 nearly died at birth. I left when my attempt to introduce some childrens' activities were blocked. But I could cope with the intellectual doubts so long as I was experiencing God in the way I always had - through prayer, even visions. That stopped about two yrs ago. During the past yr we've lost a dd1's friend to meningitis and twice thought that dd2 had the same illness - the second time came the day after ds was born and it tipped me very close to a breakdown. My faith did absolutely nothing for me and as time has gone by it has become less and less. I think the clincher was this Christmas, when I wanted desperately to believe that it was all true. Since the New Year I've slowly realised I can't keep trying to hold on to something that is gone.

I still believe in God and want to find a new way of expressing my faith. I'm looking into paganism - something that has always been of interest to me - it appeals to me not only b/c of what it stands for but also b/c I don't have to try and rationalise or 'prove' any of it. I can far easier believe in myth than I can in made-up facts. But obviously the leap from Christian to Pagan is a big one and I have lots to consider such as my dcs. In the meantime I'm enjoying myself hugely messing around with crystals and the like - a 'hobby', like you referred to earlier.

Hope this makes sense as I've typed in a hurry - ds wants his bed.

CS Lewis was about as atheistic as atheists get then after long conversations including several with Tolkein he converted to Christianity. Some of his books speak about the pain involved in his total turn around in his world view. Some might find Mere Christianity a worthwhile read for example.

nearlythree - thanks for sharing your story. Hope you find something that makes you happy.

bobsmum - I did read "Mere Christianity" about 13 years ago. I remember not being convinced by it back then - memories of going through with a pencil writing stuff in the margin! That was a while ago so maybe I should look at it again.

Nearlythree, sorry you're in such distress. If I can find where I put my b** booklist I will recommend some readings on humanism, which can be a very positive and joyous worldview as well.
I know that may sound as though I'm trying to convert you: what I would say is that sometimes reading something written by a person with opposite views to your own actually makes you feel better about your own viewpoint or at least clarifies it for you.
Best of luck.

ArchBishop Michael Ramsay used to call himself a Christian Agnostic. I think that kind of sums up how I often feel. It kind of enables you to believe in the kind of Christ nearlythree talks about without having a blind and sometimes blinkered supernatural belief.

whilst remaining open to learning spiritually. I think it is easier to be an athiest sometimes !

UnquietDad and madamez - thank you. I sometimes feel like I am two people on here. One, with years of Christian experience, study and reading argues (I hope) coherently about Christianity and its failings. The other is the one who posts show that she is in a right mess about her own beliefs.

madamez - have you come across Christian humanism? I think following the teachings of Jesus as to how to live - with social justice and care for the poor and disadvantaged - is the only sensible way to live. Christian humanism takes that but also states that there is no God and no afterlife. Anthony Freeman is a Christian humanist who used to be a priest but was forced to leave the church b/c he wrote his beliefs in a book. Don Cupitt is probably a Christian humanist also. I agree about differing povs helping to clarify your own beliefs.

Bobsmum, I only got a quarter of the way through Mere Christianity.

hope you are ok nearlythree.

Ruty, the situation at home hasn't improved and we still don't know what is going to happen. But I'm fine spiritually. Finally admitting what has happened and looking into Paganism feels really positive, and as I said I'm having huge fun with all the New Agey stuff in the meantime.

hope things do improve at home nearlythree. Admire your clarity and strength of mind in tough times as ever!

Nearlythree, thing is, Jesus (if he ever actually existed) is by no means the only person who suggested that being kind and valuing justice and helping people who need it is a good way to live. Believing in higher powers/beings isn't actually necessary to live a good life. People who don't believe in gods or supernatural beings aren't automatically violent, selfish nihilists.

Madamez, I don't think you can deny that Jesus actually existed, there is a lot of evidence about people dying b/c they followed him not long after his death and I think they'd have known if he was fictional. I agree he wasn't the only one to hold those views. What I think is pretty unique about him is the way he explained things, the way he looked at things. He had a gift for getting people to see things in a new light, not just about justice but about themselves, about how to deal with authority etc. Ghandi followed Jesus' methods of peaceful protest even though he remained a Hindu - he once said the whole world would be Christian if only Christians were more like their Christ. There are humanists I know - some on mnet - who say they follow the ways that Jesus taught. I don't think Jesus' message was about living a good life - it was about living a radical one.

There is a lot of evidence that there was a person called Jesus Christ who did at least some of the things recounted in the Bible (other things are exaggerated and/or made up, and the problem is telling the difference). Personally I'm happy to believe that he existed, and died, some time in the 1st Century; I don't believe any of his teachings (which seem quite sensible) were divinely inspired, or indeed that such a thing as divine inspiration exists.

I think you are right about the Bible - you either have to take it all literally or regard it all as suspect and then look for evidence to try to discern what is possibly true. The usual liberal position (one I used to hold) is too much like picking and choosing and is intellectually dishonest.

Whether you believe Jesus to have been divinely inspired or not, you can't deny he had a gift. And his stories are relevant now - the story of the Good Samaritan, for example, is striking b/c it is the 'outsider' who helps - something that we are taking on board as our country becomes increasingly reliant on migrant workers for everything from picking our carrots to staffing our hospitals.

Unquiet Dad, I might be a bit out of date on this but I rather thought that all the historical evidence there is points to there being a fair number of "prophets" around in that part of the world, at that time, many of whom claimed to be divinedly inspired and many of whom had radical ideas. I don't think there is much hard evidence that one of them was actually called Jesus Christ. As to why some concoctions of mythology survive for centuries and others don't appears to be more about random luck and/or smart operators at the top who are good at adapting the faith's requirements to what's going on around them. SOme types of fable do seem to surface and resurface simply because they say something about the human condition and/or refer to a significatn historical event.

I agree deciphering the bible is problematic, and it is even more problematic trying to reconcile a belief in God with some of the terrible things that we experience in this life, but don't think a liberal interpretation of the Bible is necessarily intellectually dishonest nearlythree, there are many rigourously intellectual theologians who have a liberal and i believe very sound interpretation of the bible.
Love the Gandhi quote.

Obviously, ruty - I mean, Rowan Williams has about fourteen brains and he still manages to be a liberal. A better way of putting it would have been to say that I believe it to be intellectually dishonest - others, including those with far more knowldege than I could ever have, will believe differently. When I was a liberal an accusation I often used to get was that I believed the nice bits and ignored the bad, and in the end I couldn't argue with that b/c basically it was true. That's not to say I disbelieve the Bible b/c I don't. I just start from a position of doubt and then look for ways to be convinced. Some things convince me, others don't.

Madamez, you are right, there were several men thought to be the Messiah. One called Simon something (knackered brain gone blank) was the type of Messiah the Jewish people thought they were going to get - his armed rebellion was extremely successful and for a while he caused the Romans no end of problems, until he and his army were massacred. Jesus was different in that his message was of peaceful dissent. 'Going the extra mile', for example, wasn't a position of weakness. A Roman soldier could demand that a Jewish person carry their goods for a mile. 'Going the extra mile' could have got the Roman into trouble with their own authorities.

One reason I believe that Jesus was a real person is that, once you strip away all the stuff the evangelists added in order to make their own particular points, you get a clear and consistent picture of what Jesus was like. There is also the consisten source, Q, used in the Synoptic gospels. You might be interested in the work of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars - I think they number over a hundred - who vote on what they think Jesus actually said. Some are Christians, some aren't. The results are very interesting - the whole of John's Gospel is ruled out, for example. Geza Vermes, who is Jewish and one of the best Jesus scholars in the world, is also worth a look. He sees Jesus as a prophet, nothing more, but does not deny Jesus' existence. He has a great postscript in o0ne of his books where he dreams of Jesus coming back and being astonished at teh faith that has sprung up around him. In his dream, Jesus tells his followers that they can keep their rituals if they like, but to rely on themselves for guidance as to knowing what is right.

Incidentally, given the locality where Jesus is likely to have been born, Vermes thinks Jesus would have been short and thick-set.

madamez - I think it's fair to say it's inconclusive. Apart from the Gospels, the other sources for the historical Jesus would appear to be Flavius Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews" and a passage from the "Annals" of Tacitus. I have to hold my hands up and say I've not read either of these!

The Jesus seminar sounds fascinating nearlythree. I'm sorry you've come to that conclusion, about a liberal interpretation of the bible being intellectually dishonest - at the moment i don't agree with that, and I haven't yet found anyone I've argued with about it to have a compelling enough argument - also with the archaic translation issues I don't feel the Bible that we read is the correct version anyway. You know how I feel, that Christ would probably be horrified to know how the bible and his 'religion' turned out! But he probably knew it would happen too. I don't know, I do know it is very difficult. All any of us can do is stay open to learning and possibilities i suppose.

For all I know in five yrs time I'll have done an Alpha course and believe it all! In the end I felt like I was trying to fit round pegs into square holes. I've tried, Ruty, I really have, I've read and read and thought but I can't convince myself. I never wanted to give it up. At Christmas I tried soooooooo hard, and it was magical watching the dds (esp. dd1) taking in the Nativity story, but it was magical b/c I was seeing it through their eyes, not b/c it had the same meaning for me. I will keep on celebrating the religious element of Christmas b/c there is no point without it but thinking about it is very painful.