Do you follow a different faith now that you're no longer Christian?

[florduh]

So what makes one a Christian?

[Deidre]

Who defines it, I guess is the better question. Are you defining it for someone else? Generically speaking, following Jesus would be good enough of a defintion for me, but I don't even need the label. Often times, if someone asks me my beliefs or if I'm spiritual, etc...I tend to answer, ''I believe in what Jesus taught, and try to follow His teachings.'' His teachings are what I feel comfortable as a guide to my life, but that's not to say it's not hard. You were once a Christian...the sum total of Christianity in my opinion, is forgiveness. There's a lot of white noise that gets in the way, but I don't think anyone can tell someone else...''you're not a Christian,'' etc. Many Christians feel that gay people shouldn't be a part of the church because they're living in sin. But, I don't see it that way...does that make me not a Christian? I believe that every believer's life and what he/she does is between them and God, and not for me to judge. That's the trouble with where Christianity has gone though, there are a lot of judges pointing fingers telling people they're not real Christians, but who are they to judge, you know?

 

What makes one an atheist? Not all atheists think alike either. And again, who is defining it? 

 

Faith, spirituality, etc...it's not an exact science, it's based on the believer's experiences and subjective point of view. Everyone on this site has a different story as to why they left faith, there might be commonalities in the stories that overlap, but everyone's story is unique. 

[florduh]

Atheism has a simple definition; no god beliefs. Atheists of course vary widely in what they DO believe. Christianity, on the other hand, means a thousand things to a thousand different people. Personally, I can't say who is or isn't a True Christian. I just observe that none of the Christians seem to know themselves. My Calvinist church would say that I am still a Christian, so that's what that's worth!

[LogicalFallacy]

If you tell a person "I'm an atheist", they will generally go "oh so you don't believe in god" Simple and correct. Yes they will probably have some preconceived notions of what said atheist might believe, but that's because they haven't bothered to ask said atheist.

 

If you tell a person "I'm a Christian" You will quite probably be asked what denomination, what your doctrine is and so on down the rabbit hole.

 

Here's an interesting one. If a person doesn't believe in any gods, but doesn't call themselves an atheist, are they still an atheist? I think here there is a technical definition, and an identity.

[Deidre]

37 minutes ago, florduh said:

Atheism has a simple definition; no god beliefs. Atheists of course vary widely in what they DO believe. Christianity, on the other hand, means a thousand things to a thousand different people. Personally, I can't say who is or isn't a True Christian. I just observe that none of the Christians seem to know themselves. My Calvinist church would say that I am still a Christian, so that's what that's worth!

lol! That's funny. 

 

When I left Christianity, a few of my Christian friends said ''you'll always be a Christian,'' and one other one said ''you were never a true Christian.'' It's pretty arrogant when ''friends'' tell you who they think you are, I lost a few ''friends'' during that time. 

 

So you were once a Calvinist, I don't know too much about Calvinism. 

 

[TABA]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Quote

 

I'm playing seer, or mystic here and visualizing a future where people not very different from Deidre's example become an entirely new belief system beyond that of traditional christianity, even though based out of christianity from the outset. This would be different than the Mormons, SDA's and Jehovah's Witness because they aren't taking in eastern religion and world belief outside of christianity in the way that modern people right now are doing. That would be the difference. Not a new denomination, an entirely new religion. They'd be entirely different from christianity in terms of their relationship and views about our modern world of blooming atheism and freethought. They'd long to maintain friendships and acceptable status among non-believers instead of trying to buck and ridicule them. This is basically forming up all around us right now, if you pay close attention with the history of religious revolution and evolution in mind. I'm not trying to say that it will happen like it did 2000 years ago, but the ingredients are there for it do so. I bet that sounds scary to christians, anti-christ NWO kinda stuff. And that's likely how they would attack it.   

 

 

I agree that Christianity cannot become both palatable and coherent and that, as you say, it would have to be superseded by a new religion.  I imagine it would look like some of today's liberal Christian churches, but without the baggage of the Bible, and possibly even without Jesus.  How does a new religion get off the ground though?  Does it require a supposedly supernatural event?  And what appeal would it have that the Unitarian Universalist movement doesn't already have?  Does it promise eternal life, or just a slightly more satisfying alternative to non spiritual atheism?  

[Deidre]

35 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

If you tell a person "I'm an atheist", they will generally go "oh so you don't believe in god" Simple and correct. Yes they will probably have some preconceived notions of what said atheist might believe, but that's because they haven't bothered to ask said atheist.

 

If you tell a person "I'm a Christian" You will quite probably be asked what denomination, what your doctrine is and so on down the rabbit hole.

 

Here's an interesting one. If a person doesn't believe in any gods, but doesn't call themselves an atheist, are they still an atheist? I think here there is a technical definition, and an identity.

That's true. But sometimes an atheist answers ''I'm an agnostic atheist,'' which really...agnosticism has to do with a place of knowledge, in other words...the atheist isn't certain that a god doesn't exist, but believes that one doesn't exist based on the lack of evidence. Some call themselves spiritual atheists, and on and on it goes. The thing is that when it comes to faith, spirituality, religion (not all are the same), people's ''relationships'' with their beliefs or their God or gods, will always be personal, and will vary from person to person. I don't think it's a bad thing, but I don't make up my own rules about Christianity, for example, there are obviously principles that I adhere to, but it's still a relationship between me and God, you know? Not for someone on the outside of my life to ''decide.'' 

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

I agree that Christianity cannot become both palatable and coherent and that, as you say, it would have to be superseded by a new religion.  I imagine it would look like some of today's liberal Christian churches, but without the baggage of the Bible, and possibly even without Jesus.  How does a new religion get off the ground though?  Does it require a supposedly supernatural event?  And what appeal would it have that the Unitarian Universalist movement doesn't already have?  Does it promise eternal life, or just a slightly more satisfying alternative to non spiritual atheism?  

 

The fact that there's such poor evidence for the historical claims of Jesus is infiltrating society. It's run through the ranks to where the debate is known by just about everyone. Thanks again to the internet broadcasting the debate. And I've seen apologists evolve along the way. Everyone's had to try and come up with better strategies because they've been challenged to provide strong evidence.  And at the end of the day it's pretty much lost to history. We have no idea what really happened in a concrete way. That may result in a sort of agnostic attitude when it comes to Jesus. We have a very poor understanding of who he was, if he was, and the NT doesn't necessarily even portray authentic teachings of Jesus in the first place. Bart Ehrman has a book about Misquoting Jesus. Obviously the red highlighted sections aren't necessarily what a real Jesus ever said.  

 

I can imagine liberal views evolving to the point (where my friend Robert wants to go with it) of readily admitting that Jesus may well have never existed at all, but taking the mythology like any other mythology such as Hinduism or Buddhism which don't require a strict historical reading. People get satisfaction from those eastern religions even though they may not take the Buddha's or Krishna and Vishnu literally. It's kept to a philosophical view not dependent on an historical reading. There was no Blue Boy, or Reincarnating Buddhas, and the sayings in these cases can be viewed as the sayings of various philosophical priesthoods where the mythic character speaks for various existing schools of thought. The writers use the character of the mythic hero to express existing views from various factions, some of which contradict one another but there all tossed in together haphazard anyways. 

 

And some have argued that christianity was mystical and symbolic from the outset like these eastern religions but an orthodox tradition of literalistic interpretation arose to power and wiped out the mystical and symbolic competition, leaving us with the traditional christian ideas of literalism that we see surviving now. So it's possible for christians to move to an agnostic position about god and Jesus due to the uncertainty about Jesus, but it seems to require reading the scriptures symbolically like an eastern religion. And that could result in something where christians, like the jews before them, would completely reject the new interpretation. And revolt against it. Same mythology with the same characters still going along from Judaism to Christianity, but a newer interpretation so far removed from the texts by only cherry picking, or quote mining, that it becomes it's own thing one more time around. 

 

You know the controversy about the old artifact that was written Chrestianos, and the "e" was scribbled over with an "i" by a later scribe?

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#chrestos

 

Chrestos means "The Good." Jesus Chrestos, means "Jesus the good." Jesus by itself means, "YHWH saves." 

 

Altogether, an ancient inscription that literally reads as, "YHWH saves the good." 

 

They could pick up on that and claim that originally it was just about doing good, or trying to do good. "Chrestos," Plain and simple. And that later orthodoxy complicated it with notions of the anointed and took the whole thing off course. There's a good reason for a split.  Those who simply want to do their best to do "good" and leave it at that, without further complicating things. They could call this new movement Chrestianity, and claim to be recovering an old antiquity that was almost lost to time, but revived now. Just like how you can ask if someone's pantheist and they'll say, no panentheist. In same way someone could say, no not christian, but rather chrestian. 

 

And it could encompass all these liberal views we see going around like everyone's saved, it's ok to mix and match with other religions, atheists are free to do as they please without harassment, gays and lesbians are fine and well - and they could basically roll everything considered apostate and heretical by orthodox christians into a new movement with a basis that simple. Just doing good, that's it. It could consume something like the universal life church into it's fold: http://www.ulc.org/ 

 

I've heard much more ridiculous claims as a basis for a new belief system, look at the Mormons. This is actually semi-rational sounding in comparison. But I admit that this creative thinking involves a degree of intellectual dishonesty along the way. Just like the origin of christianity involved some intellectual dishonesty with respect to the Jewish scriptures they were quote mining. I don't think any one has started a new religion without being intellectually dishonest in some way. That seems to be a requirement for belief systems...

 

 

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, Deidre said:

That's true. But sometimes an atheist answers ''I'm an agnostic atheist,'' which really...agnosticism has to do with a place of knowledge, in other words...the atheist isn't certain that a god doesn't exist, but believes that one doesn't exist based on the lack of evidence. Some call themselves spiritual atheists, and on and on it goes. The thing is that when it comes to faith, spirituality, religion (not all are the same), people's ''relationships'' with their beliefs or their God or gods, will always be personal, and will vary from person to person. I don't think it's a bad thing, but I don't make up my own rules about Christianity, for example, there are obviously principles that I adhere to, but it's still a relationship between me and God, you know? Not for someone on the outside of my life to ''decide.'' 

 

I have to admit that the above advise is what I always give christian friends who are not in the frame of mind to let go of the church and christianity. In real life, real time, I take every case according to what I think the person can handle. It always comes down to what I'll call a direct connection between the individual and ultimate reality, where god represents ultimate reality. There's no church or religious authority that rightfully stands as middle man between the individual and the god. The connection is direct. I do this because people come to me asking questions because I've gained a reputation as knowledgeable about religion and rebellious against religious authority among friends and family. I just had an episode like this with an old friend from high school who's on the verge of collapse, and expressed to me discontent with the institution. Explaining to her what's wrong with institutions that try and place themselves between the individual and their god, and how that can even be considered anti-christian, seemed to help alleviate her building crises.   

[Deidre]

30 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I have to admit that the above advise is what I always give christian friends who are not in the frame of mind to let go of the church and christianity. In real life, real time, I take every case according to what I think the person can handle. It always comes down to what I'll call a direct connection between the individual and ultimate reality, where god represents ultimate reality. There's no church or religious authority that rightfully stands as middle man between the individual and the god. The connection is direct. I do this because people come to me asking questions because I've gained a reputation as knowledgeable about religion and rebellious against religious authority. I just had an episode like this with an old friend from high school who's on the verge of collapse, and expressed to me discontent with the institution. Explaining to her what's wrong with institutions that try and place themselves between the individual and their god, and how that can even be considered anti-christian, seemed to help alleviate her building crises.   

I agree that religion is not needed. I don't consider myself as "religious," but I'm knowledgeable about religions.  I will agree that no one needs a religion or religious institution to be the go between when it comes to having a relationship with God. Think the main problem with religion in general is that many religious people seek to intrude into the government etc with their views. Not just Christians. Since Islam is growing at a significant rate I see it surpassing Christianity, and it will be interesting if Sharia Law tries to wedge its way into government. Time will tell. 

[Joshpantera]

I live in the bible belt of Florida. I work with the public in sales. I deal with christians every day. Even I choose to tell people I'm spiritual but not religious when asked. It's beyond stupid to make some atheistic stand in business. And I don't do it. That's privately discussed only in appropriate circles. I always use the analogy of Neo in the Matrix because it's so dead on. When you operate as knowing among the unknowing you have to choose your words, pick your battles. But here, online, that's really the only place we can cut loose and speak 100% freely. Especially as concerns ex-C. This is a necessary outlet for a lot of people... 

 

Your insight on the problem of religion intruding on government is something we discussed as well. Just as you've described it. I was explaining what's so very wrong with demanding the ten commandments be a part of the judicial system or displayed in front of court houses. And how it's not different than allowing any other religion to shoe horn itself into secular government. And science. I talked about the problems with opposing science with the bible. She was very receptive to it all. But it's all new and foreign ways of thinking. She's in the digesting it all phase. So I'm only giving her advise in small steps.

 

 

 

[Ellinas]

Hmm... only been around sporadically and then this thread happens when I'm not looking.

I'm going to rewind a bit back to the original question, the answer to which is clearly "yes".

In fact I have never considered myself an atheist or had any inclination so to do.

Now, my concept of deity is probably rather different to many, and certainly very different to that normally found in Christianity.  It leads me to assert that it is irrelevant to anyone except oneself what god or gods or concept thereof one follows/connects with (whatever terminology seems appropriate to the individual).  I simply choose to identify (in pagan terms) as a non reconstructionist Hellene - a bit of a mouthful that would probably cause some reconstructionists to become apoplectic.  But that's their problem.

Why?  Because asserting some form of deity makes sense to me, and the Greek pantheon and mythology is that with which I am most comfortable.

In the end, though, it's not so much a different faith (as I have no allegiance to any group with their practices and doctrines) as my own way of navigating my meandering through life.

If that makes any sort of sense...

[TABA]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:39 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

This is an example of how some one can become spiritually immune to christian proselytizing. This is in edition to being intellectually immune to christian proselytizing. Good verses evil, nonsense. It's all a matter of perspective. Hell fire or pearly gates in an afterlife? What does that even mean with respect to omnipresence? Does god punish and reward itself through this elaborate ruiz of hide and seek? What is the meaning of Revelation with respect to omnipresence for that matter? 

 

 

 

This has been a very thought-provoking topic for me.  For some time now, I have considered myself psychologically immune to reconversion, having had the feeling that my mind has been reprogramming itself, so that ideas I accepted as a Christian no longer make sense to me.  You have referred to intellectual immunity and spiritual immunity.  I think I have pretty damn good intellectual immunity at this stage, but I am beginning to see now the importance of spiritual immunity also.  As somebody who has never been very spiritual, I think I may actually be somewhat vulnerable in that area.  Just this week, our 12-year old dog suffered a major health issue and I fear he will not be with us for much longer.  Don't get me wrong: losing a beloved pet is not going to send me running back to Jesus, but I could see some personal crisis making me wish that there were a god.  Since intellectually I cannot accept that, it would behove me to develop my spiritual side in a godless direction.  I found out that my local library has the DVDs of 'The Power of Myth' with Joseph Campbell, so I'm going to check that out for a start.  We'll see if a middle-aged dog can learn some new spiritual tricks.  If nothing else, it should expand my horizons...

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/8/2017 at 5:38 PM, Ellinas said:

Hmm... only been around sporadically and then this thread happens when I'm not looking.

I'm going to rewind a bit back to the original question, the answer to which is clearly "yes".

In fact I have never considered myself an atheist or had any inclination so to do.

Now, my concept of deity is probably rather different to many, and certainly very different to that normally found in Christianity.  It leads me to assert that it is irrelevant to anyone except oneself what god or gods or concept thereof one follows/connects with (whatever terminology seems appropriate to the individual).  I simply choose to identify (in pagan terms) as a non reconstructionist Hellene - a bit of a mouthful that would probably cause some reconstructionists to become apoplectic.  But that's their problem.

Why?  Because asserting some form of deity makes sense to me, and the Greek pantheon and mythology is that with which I am most comfortable.

In the end, though, it's not so much a different faith (as I have no allegiance to any group with their practices and doctrines) as my own way of navigating my meandering through life.

If that makes any sort of sense...

 

Like a said earlier, the forum hasn't seen this much action in a while. Deidre's got the ball rolling. And I think we're all having fun with it. Maybe a few misunderstandings, but that comes with sensitive issues...

 

I think I get what you're saying. Someone could do what you're doing with the Egyptian, Sumerian, Roman or Asian myths for that matter. Do you think of the gods literally, or symbolically as in metaphor and analogy? 

[Joshpantera]

20 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

This has been a very thought-provoking topic for me.  For some time now, I have considered myself psychologically immune to reconversion, having had the feeling that my mind has been reprogramming itself, so that ideas I accepted as a Christian no longer make sense to me.  You have referred to intellectual immunity and spiritual immunity.  I think I have pretty damn good intellectual immunity at this stage, but I am beginning to see now the importance of spiritual immunity also.  As somebody who has never been very spiritual, I think I may actually be somewhat vulnerable in that area.  Just this week, our 12-year old dog suffered a major health issue and I fear he will not be with us for much longer.  Don't get me wrong: losing a beloved pet is not going to send me running back to Jesus, but I could see some personal crisis making me wish that there were a god.  Since intellectually I cannot accept that, it would behove me to develop my spiritual side in a godless direction.  I found out that my local library has the DVDs of 'The Power of Myth' with Joseph Campbell, so I'm going to check that out for a start.  We'll see if a middle-aged dog can learn some new spiritual tricks.  If nothing else, it should expand my horizons...

 

 

 

My emphasis on the omnipresent factor is well chosen. If anyone got all the way through the Alan Watts video Florduh posted they'd see how what I'm saying corresponds to what he was saying, because I'm speaking from the same general state of mind. And if you dive into Joseph Campbell you'll find that when he deals with issues of the eternal and transcendent, it's the same as well. They're showing in great detail how immature our western spirituality is with respect to the eastern, like Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta ideas. The eastern are deeper in scope.

 

And I posted an interesting video and started a topic no one has ventured into yet about consciousness, and how that applies to the whole of existence:

This actually adds more depth to the spiritual immunization I'm speaking about. In short, christianity doesn't deal well with it's own contradictory claims of omnipresence by insisting on god being something less than truly everywhere present. When you understand that argument well and then approach the issue of consciousness and awareness and realize how fundamental it may turn out to be, by way of deduction as described in the video, you'll notice that the potential, "Primacy of Consciousenss" argument in no way shape or form flatters or bolsters monotheistic thinking. Even though I've heard apologists readily try and pull the, "Primacy of Consciousness" idea out of their bag of tricks in debate with atheists. I'll deal with issues of consciousness on that thread if any one wants to go their at some point. But I will say, the issue of the myth of the holy spirit in christianity is wrapped up in consciousness and awareness as an explanation for such an experience. And that doesn't necessarily diminish the experience, it just identifies a potential reasonable explanation deeper than interpreting it in christian terms will allow...  

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I will most likely never participate in another "religion" unless you consider the occasional trip to my mother's church on one of their pot luck dinner days following a religion. I doubt I will be able to tell my mom I've lost faith in the bible. It would probably hurt me as much as it would her just knowing the worry and sadness she would suffer thinking I may not be with her in heaven. 

 

Besides, they have good food, so on those days I will worship beef, pork, chicken, various casseroles,pastries, and all the calories the will provide for my hungry soul. 

 

However as far as my own spirituality, while I do not believe in any gods per say anymore. I still don't believe all of what has happened on earth or any other life bearing planet has been by chance. 

 

I work in the maintenance field. I know that if a machine is bought for a specific purpose and all the parts of that machine come in. That machine will not work until it is put together by us. Not only that it had to be engineered and designed for that specific purpose. 

 

At some point all the parts and conditions necessary for life to exist were on this planet. At this point I believe there is still some type of spiritual energy connecting us all that made these changes take place. I think we all have had those moments we have felt someone staring at us, looked up and knew exactly where to look to find that person. Also I'm sure we have all experienced Dejavu. I have personally experienced dreams that later happened verbatim as they happened in the dream. Sometimes years apart. I've also experienced what I believed to be "ghosts", which is actually contrary to biblical teachings because most teach we either go to heaven, hell, or stay in the grave until resurrection. Our brains are just supercomputers sending electrical signals throughout our bodies telling each part how to function. Some of those functions are involuntary like our heart and organs. They do their jobs and recieve those signals without us having to think about it.  Our actions, physical outward movements, require our thought. We are consciously moving our arms and legs etc.  

 

I think whatever this energy is sparked life and gradually formed cells through evolution to create all the earth's functions. It isnt perfect and has defects from time to time. But we can see everything working together to serve a purpose that leads to the next step in life and spreading life in various forms across the planet.

 

Exactly what this energy is? I dont know. What I do know now is that no religion on earth knows the truth. There is no book or human being that will be able to answer the why's, how's, and what's. I won't know until I die what the answers are. I may be wrong and it may be nothing. Or it may have been aliens that started this process. 

 

My hope is that reincarnation is real in some way. Unlike many of my christian friends i didnt consider myself a stranger on this earth just passing through. I love this life! I love its experiences. Ive loved beinga child, teenager, a man, a father, a brother, a son, a boyfriend, a husband, working to become an electrician which was what I wanted from my youth, the people i have met along the way, the laughter and even the crying. I know now that its a longshot but if i had all of this to do over again. That would be my heaven.

 

Maybe all this is spurred by my love for science fiction but my friend who is pantheist told me something when we talked. Having been atheist before he told me he hoped that I never lost faith in something because being atheist is lonely. 

 

Best regards,

           Dark Bishop

[Joshpantera]

^You're speaking to several pantheists, so I'm not sure what criticism you'll receive or from who.

 

Once again, the link I just posted to the "Awareness Broken Down" is pivotal to the questions you've just asked and the direction you're thinking. What could that energy be? I have a pretty good idea. The idea doesn't eradicate the mystery factor, but it advances speculation a long way. That's a question and subject that deserves an entire thread. But no one's gone there yet. 

 

 

 

 

[TABA]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My emphasis on the omnipresent factor is well chosen. If anyone got all the way through the Alan Watts video Florduh posted they'd see how what I'm saying corresponds to what he was saying, because I'm speaking from the same general state of mind. And if you dive into Joseph Campbell you'll find that when he deals with issues of the eternal and transcendent, it's the same as well. They're showing in great detail how immature our western spirituality is with respect to the eastern, like Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta ideas. The eastern are deeper in scope.

 

And I posted an interesting video and started a topic no one has ventured into yet about consciousness, and how that applies to the whole of existence:

 

 

I'm going to watch the videos in the thread you started, and see if I can make head or tail of it.  I think you're operating and thinking at a level that's over most of our heads here.  But I'm going to give it my best shot and tell you what I think.  I'm sure I'll have plenty of questions, hopefully not beginning with "Dafuq is he talking about?"

 

[Joshpantera]

The second post has the original video, with a lot of illustration. That's probably the better one to watch first. I bet you won't think it's as confusing as you think. Russell is a physicist who can explain this in a very scientific way. I think it's the scientific oriented explanation that makes it easier to understand. 

[TABA]

7 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The second post has the original video, with a lot of illustration. That's probably the better one to watch first. I bet you won't think it's as confusing as you think. Russell is a physicist who can explain this in a very scientific way. I think it's the scientific oriented explanation that makes it easier to understand. 

 

Well that should help, him being a physicist.  I'm an engineer, which is a long way short of being a physicist, but I hope to be able to understand what he's getting at.  It's that metaphysical stuff that's so alien to me.  Anyway, I'll give it my best shot and report back, even if it's not until some time over the weekend...

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

^You're speaking to several pantheists, so I'm not sure what criticism you'll receive or from who.

 

 

Your right I may have spoke to soon. I just thought since it seemed most were athiest here that belief in anything supernatural may be scoffed at. I've known some pretty zealous athiest in the past. But that may have also been because at the time, I was trying to convert them, being a very zealous Christian. I will edit that part out. Thanks josh.

 

DB

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Your right I may have spoke to soon. I just thought since it seemed most were athiest here that belief in anything supernatural may be scoffed at. I've known some pretty zealous athiest in the past. But that may have also been because at the time, I was trying to convert them, being a very zealous Christian. I will edit that part out. Thanks josh.

 

DB

 

This forum section is for alternative spiritual views to christianity. They wanted an area where members of eastern or nature religions can escape atheistic pressure, so to speak. But at the same time we have a mix of ideas about alternative spirituality going on. There's naturalistic ideas about spirituality and supernatural ideas. So no one ought to give you a hard time for exploring thoughts and ideas even if they include supernaturalism from a non-christian view. 

[Deidre]

On 3/8/2017 at 5:38 PM, Ellinas said:

Hmm... only been around sporadically and then this thread happens when I'm not looking.

I'm going to rewind a bit back to the original question, the answer to which is clearly "yes".

In fact I have never considered myself an atheist or had any inclination so to do.

Now, my concept of deity is probably rather different to many, and certainly very different to that normally found in Christianity.  It leads me to assert that it is irrelevant to anyone except oneself what god or gods or concept thereof one follows/connects with (whatever terminology seems appropriate to the individual).  I simply choose to identify (in pagan terms) as a non reconstructionist Hellene - a bit of a mouthful that would probably cause some reconstructionists to become apoplectic.  But that's their problem.

Why?  Because asserting some form of deity makes sense to me, and the Greek pantheon and mythology is that with which I am most comfortable.

In the end, though, it's not so much a different faith (as I have no allegiance to any group with their practices and doctrines) as my own way of navigating my meandering through life.

If that makes any sort of sense...

It makes total sense. I appreciate you sharing this. It's about what makes sense to us, what makes us feel complete maybe? Not sure if that's quite the right word, but...it only matters to follow your own heart. Ancient Greece seems to have beautiful rituals and traditions. Do you follow any particular set of ''traditions'' or anything that stands out from other faiths?

[Ellinas]

On 09/03/2017 at 11:40 PM, Joshpantera said:

I think I get what you're saying. Someone could do what you're doing with the Egyptian, Sumerian, Roman or Asian myths for that matter. Do you think of the gods literally, or symbolically as in metaphor and analogy? 

 

Literally.  I envision them as a sort of disembodied "elder brethren".  Basically, I differentiate "God" (which I conceive as a sort of ultimate consciousness) and "the Gods", a description of discrete consciousnesses of a nature basically the same as, if of greater capacity, than ourselves.

And if anyone wants to know what evidence I have for this - none at all.  As I said, it just "makes sense" to me.

 

16 hours ago, Deidre said:

It makes total sense. I appreciate you sharing this. It's about what makes sense to us, what makes us feel complete maybe? Not sure if that's quite the right word, but...it only matters to follow your own heart. Ancient Greece seems to have beautiful rituals and traditions. Do you follow any particular set of ''traditions'' or anything that stands out from other faiths?

 

No - that's the point of "non reconstructionist".  I suppose I'm a sort of antithesis of Hellenismos.  I base my ideas and beliefs on the Greek pantheon and philosophy (insofar as I understand it) but see no value in trying to reconstruct a past that belongs to a very different culture to our own and which would have evolved into who-knows-what if Christianity had not so rudely interrupted.  Therefore, "Athens pickled in aspic" is of no interest to me.  It's a background that informs my views.  Basically I say hello to the Gods each morning, have a chat (so to speak) on my way to work and make occasional small offerings as and when I decide (for whatever reason) that they would be a good idea.  It's all very unobtrusive.

[Ellinas]

It occurred to me after I'd posted the above...

 

On a pagan forum of which I am a member, there are several who are avowedly atheistic/humanistic in their approach.  They seem to base their identification with paganism on a general idea of spirituality as it relates to natural cycles without any thought for the so-called "supernatural"

 

Whether that is a "faith" as such, I would leave to others to decide, but it is certainly a path open to the ex-Christian, even those who disown all concept of deity, if so inclined.