Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haven't even set foot in Utah as yet, but if I did, that is a place I would try to catch an organ concert at.
They say that the most overlooked part of an organ is the room it is in and its acoustics (not just reverberation but resonance and what frequencies are or aren't absorbed). There is an instrument of nearly 6000 pipes in this little college town but it is cooped up in too small a building. I can only imagine the in-person impact of those large instruments in more than adequate spaces.
Perhaps someday.
Well, be sure to look me up before your trip so we can get together.
Krister Stendahl was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar. He was, at one time, Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984.
One of my favorite of his many writings is Three Rules of Religious Understanding that I personally find very worth keeping in mind when discussing religion with people whose beliefs and practices vary. The three rules were:
(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”
By (3) Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in another religious tradition or faith, elements you admire and wish might find greater scope in your own religious tradition or faith.
He believed it possible, and I agree, to put all three rules into practice while still arguing that a particular faith is to be preferred above all others. Some people have a really hard time following any of these suggestions, but I find them very admirable. What do you all think?
I don't think the first principle will work. Not consistently. All religions sell themselves as being good, which is fine. There are times when they're being relatively honest. But some of the worst religions sell themselves as being the best. Scientology. Christian Fundamentalism. Islamic Extremism. They idealize what they do as if it's some great mission, when in reality, they're a cult, a cult, and a terrorist cell, respectively.
Another poster already said it, but I think the sentiment is important. Actually seeing participation is more useful than just asking. If you ask a scientologist why you should be a scientologist, you're gonna end up being pretty unhappy. And while a Methodist isn't exactly going to say negative things, you're much more likely to find a good community in that community over a Scientologist one.
I don't think the first principle will work. Not consistently. All religions sell themselves as being good, which is fine. There are times when they're being relatively honest. But some of the worst religions sell themselves as being the best. Scientology. Christian Fundamentalism. Islamic Extremism. They idealize what they do as if it's some great mission, when in reality, they're a cult, a cult, and a terrorist cell, respectively.
Another poster already said it, but I think the sentiment is important. Actually seeing participation is more useful than just asking. If you ask a scientologist why you should be a scientologist, you're gonna end up being pretty unhappy. And while a Methodist isn't exactly going to say negative things, you're much more likely to find a good community in that community over a Scientologist one.
Well, you may get a rose-colored glasses picture painted by the members of a church, but when people who leave a church disgruntled over something, they are generally chomping at the bit to make that church look as bad as possible. As for people who have merely studied, but never actually been a part of the religion they seem to have all the answers to, however well-intentioned they may be, they simply cannot have the same insights into a religion as someone who actually embraces its fundamental beliefs.
I know that it I wanted to understand Catholicism, I would probably get a more accurate picture of the religion by asking a Catholic for information than going to a Jehovah's Witness for it. And I strongly suspect that I'd get more reliable information on Judaism from a Jew than I would from a Hindu.
Imagine being in a group setting with many people you don’t know. and the following conversation commences as one person approaches you:
“Hi, Scott, how are you?”
“I’m doing well, thanks, but... uh... my name is actually Mike.”
“But the person on the other side of the room said your name was Scott.”
“He did? Well, I'm afraid he's mistaken. My name is Mike. Always has been.”
“I don’t think so. I happen to know the guy who told me your name is Scott. He's an honest guy. Why wouldn't I believe him?”
“Maybe because I'm telling you that my name is Mike. Maybe he thinks my name is Scott, but it's really Mike. You can trust me on that.”
“Sorry, he says you're Scott and I have no reason to disbelieve him, Scott."
If you were Mike, wouldn't this be as frustrating as hell for you? I guess that in the end, you have to just decide who you're going to trust. How do you go about doing that?
Well, you may get a rose-colored glasses picture painted by the members of a church, but when people who leave a church disgruntled over something, they are generally chomping at the bit to make that church look as bad as possible. As for people who have merely studied, but never actually been a part of the religion they seem to have all the answers to, however well-intentioned they may be, they simply cannot have the same insights into a religion as someone who actually embraces its fundamental beliefs.
I know that it I wanted to understand Catholicism, I would probably get a more accurate picture of the religion by asking a Catholic for information than going to a Jehovah's Witness for it. And I strongly suspect that I'd get more reliable information on Judaism from a Jew than I would from a Hindu.
Imagine being in a group setting with many people you don’t know. and the following conversation commences as one person approaches you:
“Hi, Scott, how are you?”
“I’m doing well, thanks, but... uh... my name is actually Mike.”
“But the person on the other side of the room said your name was Scott.”
“He did? Well, I'm afraid he's mistaken. My name is Mike. Always has been.”
“I don’t think so. I happen to know the guy who told me your name is Scott. He's an honest guy. Why wouldn't I believe him?”
“Maybe because I'm telling you that my name is Mike. Maybe he thinks my name is Scott, but it's really Mike. You can trust me on that.”
“Sorry, he says you're Scott and I have no reason to disbelieve him, Scott."
If you were Mike, wouldn't this be as frustrating as hell for you? I guess that in the end, you have to just decide who you're going to trust. How do you go about doing that?
Don't get me wrong, that principle would probably work in most cases. But it is something to consider. The WBC isn't going to tell you upfront that they are scum, for example. In most cases, it would be reliable to just talk to someone of that faith. So I'm probably being too critical. But with all the cults and fanatics, I strongly urge caution.
Opinions are what everyone has, along with other pieces and parts.
One of the greatest experiences of my life was the day a group of us accidentally crashed a Hindu wedding.
It was in Detroit at the old Fisher Mansion--where it was typically open house on Fridays.
As we entered, we were swept up into the wedding line and started our perimeter dance around the bride and groom.
The ceremony was fabulous and the food was the best--though I kept looking for the utensils.
Then we were all ushered into the great room and the sage and incense was lit. It was kind of like a huge square dance without the caller and no real limitations.
As long as the focus in religions remains on what is believed ABOUT God and Jesus or whatever there cannot be any ecumenism. If the focus switched to how we are to BE, then the differences would more readily vanish, although not completely. I have little use for specific beliefs ABOUT God and Jesus. I am completely concerned with what God wants me to BE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
And I've tried to tell you what He wants you to be...
Sorry, Richard, Jesus told me and He is far more credible. Besides, He provided an unambiguous example by His death. It doesn't get more obvious than that, but that kind of perfect agape love is difficult to implement, even imperfectly.
Don't get me wrong, that principle would probably work in most cases. But it is something to consider. The WBC isn't going to tell you upfront that they are scum, for example.
Well, obviously, they're not going to tell you that they're scum, because they don't believe they are. But if you were to ask them what their stance was on the LGBT community, or interracial marriage, for instance, don't you think they'd be pretty out-spoken in telling you what they thought?
Quote:
In most cases, it would be reliable to just talk to someone of that faith. So I'm probably being too critical. But with all the cults and fanatics, I strongly urge caution.
Sure. I'd agree, but I also think the word "cult" is thrown around much too freely. For a lot of people it has become a quick and easy way to identify any church they don't like.
Opinions are what everyone has, along with other pieces and parts.
One of the greatest experiences of my life was the day a group of us accidentally crashed a Hindu wedding.
It was in Detroit at the old Fisher Mansion--where it was typically open house on Fridays.
As we entered, we were swept up into the wedding line and started our perimeter dance around the bride and groom.
The ceremony was fabulous and the food was the best--though I kept looking for the utensils.
Then we were all ushered into the great room and the sage and incense was lit. It was kind of like a huge square dance without the caller and no real limitations.
Cool! My son's significant other is Hindu. She's pretty much non-practicing, but the religion is still very important to her parents. If they ever end up getting married, I suspect it will end up being a big Hindu bash!
That sounds fine, but I suspect it would set off alarm -bells in the Faithful brain, as suggesting an adulteration of their true faith with false doctrines.
There is only one TRUTH. It is in-arguable fact.
As the result, there is only one TRUE FAITH.
True faith is faith based on The Truth.
The rest is arguable religions and only very very few know some of The Truth. But those who do, will not argue any religion as they know better than to argue to start with.
Only those lost and confused will argue as they argue not to convince others, no matter how much they try to make it appear that way.
They argue to convince themselves as they have DOUBT. They have doubt as somewhere deep inside of them they are aware that what they believe to know is not TRUE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
