What's the difference?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:54 am

How many different types of Christianity are there now? What separates them?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:30 pm

Thanks for the response, but it wasn't really helpful.

It's all from the same book but there are many different types of Christians. Why? And how do you decide which church to join? :yh_think

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:45 pm

ShadowBox wrote: Sorry, but I don't see what you mean by many different kinds of Christians. We are either a Christian or we are not. As for churches, I suggest you try a different one each week until you find one that feels like home.

Let's see, there's Catholic, Prodestant, Presbyterian...I'm sure my spelling is atrocious...now I've heard of Christian Pluralist...oh, yeah, and Christian Science...am I crazy or are these not all different groups who separate the way they believe in the same thing? I'm pretty sure there are more and I STILL don't know what the differences are. :-2

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:41 am

Thank you!!!! :yh_worshp

So, how do all the different denominations feel about each other? Do they all consider Christians to be on the road to salvation as long as they follow Christ in any way? Or do some of them think you have to worship in their own, specific sect to be pure and righteous?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:55 am

ShadowBox wrote: Being a real Christian is between the heart and God. Which church you go doesn't matter, since we on earth cannot see what's in another person's heart. Therefore, there are real Christians in every church.

Being a Christian simply means we believe Jesus is the son of God, that He rose from the dead and that He will return someday. We try to follow His teaching of love and faith, although we are not always sucessful.

The trick is to read "His" teachings and not let everyone else in the world try to tell us what he said. The only way to do that is to read the book.

Hope this helps.

A 'real christian' and a 'christian'. Intetresting.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:05 am

ShadowBox wrote: Why do I get the feeling that no matter what I say, it will be wrong? I know a lot of people who say they are Christians but don't follow the teachings of Christ. Don't you?

Please don't nurse that feeling. People here are only expressing their views. No body is trying to prove you wrong. You are perfectly right that there are people who say they are Christians (or Muslims, or Hindus) but don't follow the teachings of their respective religion

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:27 am

I think the purpose of starting this thread was twofold. 1) I really am intrigued as to how many different sects there are in Christianity and what differences were so great as to require a split from the earlier existing ones. 2) As a part of this bringing everyone together theme that Suresh and I have expressed elsewhere, I am attempting to see if the different groups can find a common ground and reunite on the web.

Is this desirable?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:49 pm

There are approximately 22 000, no exaggeration, Christian demominations around the world.

Shalom

Ted :-6

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:52 pm

All making a fortune on a lie.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:59 pm

Ted wrote: There are approximately 22 000, no exaggeration, Christian demominations around the world.

Shalom

Ted :-6

HOLY CRAP!!!!

(Take that however one will.)

What could possibly motivate that many people to think they need their own sect?

Are there 22 000 differences in they way they worship or do some of them just not know of the others so they just think they are unique?

Thanks for the info! I figured if anyone had the answer it would be you. I wish we could hear from you more often, you seem very knowledgable. :-6

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:35 pm

ShadowBox wrote: Why do I get the feeling that no matter what I say, it will be wrong? I know a lot of people who say they are Christians but don't follow the teachings of Christ. Don't you?

I agree with Suresh. Don't worry about that. That is what debate is all about. Some people will argue just for the sake of arguing!

I'm guilty of the same thing! :p Not always! But sometimes.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:41 pm

koan wrote: I think the purpose of starting this thread was twofold. 1) I really am intrigued as to how many different sects there are in Christianity and what differences were so great as to require a split from the earlier existing ones. 2) As a part of this bringing everyone together theme that Suresh and I have expressed elsewhere, I am attempting to see if the different groups can find a common ground and reunite on the web.

Is this desirable?

The purpose, as mentioned by you, is certainly a good one.

It is not only christianity but almost all the religions in the world have such institutions or different denominations (call them sect, reformist movements, sub-religion, religion). People practice their religion and over the period some misunderstanding creeps in about the relationship between concepts and practices. Sometimes the changed practices become harmful to society and people. Now comes a person who wish to change or stop these wrong practices. There is a natural resistance. Most of these reformist then starts their own sectarian institution. Over the period this becomes a sub-religion or a new religion altogether.

It is an irony that most of these reformists have broken the existing religions rather than uniting already existing different denominations under that religion. There had been wars. There are still people fighting over their interpretations claiming that they are only right. In Hinduism also there are many denominations, but conflicts do not result in wars. This is mainly because the basic doctrine is that God is one and different people worship Him in different ways.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:15 am

So, what would cause understanding and tolerance between different sects? You would have to figure out what created the intolerance.

One thought, although I am not sure of the differences, is that the concept of hell and judgement day is to blame. If one believes hell is a physical place full of red demons that will whip us and make us scrub their toilets all day...and one believes that the "evil" of others would condemn the human race to toilet scrubbing...then it could cause anger and aggression towards those that will compromise the future of the human race and one as a part of that "leviathan".

Of course not all denominations are aggressive towards the others. Some, I suppose, merely wish to worship in a church that won't submit them to lectures and interpretations that they don't agree with. In a way, more churchs means more ways to develop spirituality and its all good.

On the other hand, there are certainly many who need to push their style of belief, Christian or other. What is the incentive to overpower the will of others?

I had one actress boom at me. "I am going to save your soul!!!! Whether you like it or not" at which point I responded politely. "While I appreciate your concern for my soul, and thank you deeply. I do not feel the need to be saved and I believe that is essential to your accomplishing your goal." Unfortunately, or fortunately, the actress went on a rampage and it resulted in her screaming all kinds of horrible names at me and I got an all expense paid vacation...which was exactly what my "soul" needed.

"Practice tolerance" is an edict of Christianity (I believe). So what is it in the Bible that is creating so much intolerance that the edict is being overpowered?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:53 am

ShadowBox wrote: I'm a Christian, and that's a new one on me. People who are that confused haven't read the book. That's why there are so many sects -- people are easily misled because no one reads the book.

All Mexicans steel cars

All Black men rape white women

All Christians are pushy, evil, threating people who believe a lie

Bigotry is alive and well afterall.

Are you implying that Jesus did not promote tolerence?

I have read the book, by the way. I hold it to have some value, as well as many other books.

Just a reminder that Hitler read a book, The Communist Manifesto, and used it to create something entirely different than other leaders who adopted the same manifesto. Who's to say that other "Hitler's" aren't doing the same with the bible?

Tolerance destroys bigotry so, if it not in the Bible for you, search yourself for the disease. If you find yourself infested, you now know the cure.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:20 am

koan wrote: I am attempting to see if the different groups can find a common ground and reunite on the web.

Is this desirable?Very! I have found that when I was a missionary in Africa, missionaries from very different groups got along very well, and we all enjoyed comradery and mutual respect. There wasn't the competitiveness you would expect. Ironically, the one group that was most critical (at least of my group) was the "non-denominational Christian" mission. Seems odd doesn't it?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:42 pm

I would love for Cap'n Buzzard to explain his comment "all based on a lie". It is a rather broad statement that could mean almost anything.

Koan: Thanks for the complement besides formal training in translation and interpretation, both Greek and Hebrew, Biblical history and a great deal of formal and informal study on various religious topics I have devoted much time to understanding the "Book", the history surrounding the "Book" as well as the archaeology concerning the "Book" and a great deal of theology.

I believe there to be many reasons for so many denominations and a great part of the problem comes, not as per Shadowbox's comments about reading the "Book" but from each reading the "Book" in their own ignorance and of course disagreeing with others interpretations.

To put it a concise as possible the Bible is a combination of: myth, legend, poetry, folk tale, short story and fiction among others. It was not dictated by God nor edited by Him but was mans response to his experiences of the Divine. It does contain throughout kernels of history but is not a history book and should not be read as one. The authors never intended it to be taken literally.

The Bible was written in a style called midrash which makes a great use of metaphor. Without some knowledge of Midrash and the use of metaphor it is difficult to interpret what is written. The great heresy of both the reformation and the Renaissance was the development of literalism. Dr. Marcus Borg puts an approximate date at around 1690. Up to that point it was read by most as it was intended to be and not as an historical document.

One further comment needs to be made here. Just because something is not historical does not make it false. Much truth can be presented in both midrash and metaphor and it need not be historical.

I'm sure there are other reasons for such splits withing the faith but that should give you an idea at least.

Shalom

Ted :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:00 pm

telaquapacky wrote: Very! I have found that when I was a missionary in Africa, missionaries from very different groups got along very well, and we all enjoyed comradery and mutual respect. There wasn't the competitiveness you would expect. Ironically, the one group that was most critical (at least of my group) was the "non-denominational Christian" mission. Seems odd doesn't it?

Very interesting, and odd indeed.

What kind of criticisms tend to arise. Where are the crucial dividing points? Do you think they can be resolved?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:59 am

koan wrote: So, what would cause understanding and tolerance between different sects? You would have to figure out what created the intolerance.

One thought, although I am not sure of the differences, is that the concept of hell and judgement day is to blame. If one believes hell is a physical place full of red demons that will whip us and make us scrub their toilets all day...and one believes that the "evil" of others would condemn the human race to toilet scrubbing...then it could cause anger and aggression towards those that will compromise the future of the human race and one as a part of that "leviathan".

Respect for others' faith will cause understanding and tolerance between different sects. I have been taught by my religion that 'You are worship Him in your own way and shall reach Him. Others who worship Him in their own way shall also reach Him.' If I believe in this then there will no intolerance. Many people believe that hell is here in this world and people face it every day. Fear of hell can only make people worship Him but may not believe in Him.

[QOUTE]Of course not all denominations are aggressive towards the others. Some, I suppose, merely wish to worship in a church that won't submit them to lectures and interpretations that they don't agree with. In a way, more churchs means more ways to develop spirituality and its all good.

On the other hand, there are certainly many who need to push their style of belief, Christian or other. What is the incentive to overpower the will of others?

I had one actress boom at me. "I am going to save your soul!!!! Whether you like it or not" at which point I responded politely. "While I appreciate your concern for my soul, and thank you deeply. I do not feel the need to be saved and I believe that is essential to your accomplishing your goal." Unfortunately, or fortunately, the actress went on a rampage and it resulted in her screaming all kinds of horrible names at me and I got an all expense paid vacation...which was exactly what my "soul" needed.

I agree with your analysis.

"Practice tolerance" is an edict of Christianity (I believe). So what is it in the Bible that is creating so much intolerance that the edict is being overpowered?

It will be quite interesting to know.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:51 pm

Gupta

Some very good thoughts there. As a Christian Pluralist I can appreciate them. We need mutual respect for the validity and values of the other great faiths of the world. All are aiming toward the Divine.

Shalom

Ted :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:39 pm

On rereading my prior post:

"Practice tolerance" is an edict of Christianity (I believe). So what is it in the Bible that is creating so much intolerance that the edict is being overpowered?

It struck me that Bible readers do not necessarily comprise the majority of the intolerant. I still ask the question but with a note that it is obviously not an issue exclusive to Christianity.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:59 pm

Koan :-6

You ask "BIG" questions. Good ones though. That is a big topic and one that I could write a book on and may do so one day.

The problem is no one issue but many. Part of it is the nature of the Sacred Scriptures and how they came to be written. Another part is a question of reading and interpretation.

The traditional paradigm reads the Bible as an infallible and accurate historic account of the events of the past.

The emerging paradigm views the Bible differently. It is man's written response to his experiences of the Divine. It was neither dictated nor edited by God. It was written in a particular style called midrash which makes a good deal of use of metaphor. While it contains kernels of history throughout it is not a history book and was never intended to be read literally. The emerging paradigm takes into account the great and profound fund of knowlege that has been accumulated over the years: evolution, archaeological finds, historic findings etc. This makes the Bible a far more powerful book then the hitoric, infallible reading can ever do.

I hope this answers some of your questions. Feel free to ask more if you wish. Please remember I am but a humble servant of my Lord following the path that I have chosen. I do not know everything and in fact the more I learn the more I realize how little I really do know.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:23 pm

koan wrote: On rereading my prior post:

It struck me that Bible readers do not necessarily comprise the majority of the intolerant. I still ask the question but with a note that it is obviously not an issue exclusive to Christianity.

Yes you are right that there are others who are also intolerant. Hate and violance in the name of religion is not confined to one group of followers only. The difference is only in degree of intolerance and it manifests itself in practice. Some are intolerant to such levels that entire world is threatened with their hate and violance. Then there are others whose intolerance has resulted in some isolated cases of violance. Your question is valid. Let some member answer it. It will be sure interesting.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:30 am

I wonder if it has to do with stability? People hate change and look for security to make them feel safe. Many seem to find this sense of safety in religion. They can go to a place where somebody can give them a guide book and tell them what to do to ensure they are good people. The Ego wants to be proud of itself so it is glad to have a guidebook and eagerly awaits approval from others who also have the same guidebook.

Now if someone comes along and says "You are not a farmer from the east side of town, you are a merchant from the west." The Ego would become outraged and indignant at the threat to its identity. To the 'intruder', if he lived to the east of the farmer and saw that the farmer sold the produce that he cultivated, his statement would also be true. If it turned out Jesus was not a fisher of men but a fisher of trout and they had translated it all wrong the security of that belief is threatened and the Ego would fight to have the new translation thrown out. Even if he was a regular fisher of trout, it doesn't mean everything is lost...it just sheds a different light on one part of the story. A fisher of trout may still have a lot of good things to say. :yh_giggle

Okay, carried that one far enough. Back to the basic note of stability and need for safety. Perhaps a realisation that if you take one thing and turn it over and over, coming up with a new perception of it each time, you do not end up with no knowledge of the thing, you end up with an expanded knowledge of it.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:02 pm

koan wrote: I wonder if it has to do with stability? People hate change and look for security to make them feel safe. Many seem to find this sense of safety in religion. .........

Back to the basic note of stability and need for safety. Perhaps a realisation that if you take one thing and turn it over and over, coming up with a new perception of it each time, you do not end up with no knowledge of the thing, you end up with an expanded knowledge of it.

Resistance to change is a natural trait of humans. If people are at peace and comfortable with the existing situation then any change will be resisted. You have to create confidence about the chnge that it will be beneficial to them in comparison to existing situation. I am in training and consultancy business and face such situations every day. 'Keep on talking to them', it may lessen the resistance. On the other hand, if people are not at peace and comfortable with a particular situation then they themselves will seek a change.

You are right, with every change your perception changes and it also expands your knowledge. That is the beauty of change.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:06 am

So, Suresh :-6

You and I have already started a path and the Garden is just as good a place as any.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:24 pm

koan wrote: You and I have already started a path and the Garden is just as good a place as any.

Yes, Forum Garden has become a path.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:30 pm

How's your path going Suresh? I'm lost in the brambles somewhere. Temporary I'm sure.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:33 pm

telapaquaky :-6

"Seems odd" Actually it doesn't surprise me. There are some 22 000 denominations within the Christian faith and many, but not all, seem to think they have the hot line to God and they alone.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:55 pm

I consider myself a "Secular Humanist" with a believe as ye will attitude towards others. Epithets thrown at me by some who call themselves Christians have been less than Christian, when they find out that I am a Humanist

In our society today, it can be very harmful to be a known non-believer and because of that, suspect that there are a large number of closet non-believers. It's far easier to go along. But that is a whole nother thread.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:18 am

Lon wrote: I consider myself a "Secular Humanist" with a believe as ye will attitude towards others. Epithets thrown at me by some who call themselves Christians have been less than Christian, when they find out that I am a Humanist

In our society today, it can be very harmful to be a known non-believer and because of that, suspect that there are a large number of closet non-believers. It's far easier to go along. But that is a whole nother thread.

Will you please elaborate on this term "Secular Humanist"?

What is it in which you don't believe?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:20 am

koan wrote: How's your path going Suresh? I'm lost in the brambles somewhere. Temporary I'm sure.

Like I told you. When I started on this path I was alone. People started joining me and now I am not alone. Are not with me?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:35 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Will you please elaborate on this term "Secular Humanist"?

What is it in which you don't believe?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:25 pm

Lon :-6

As a Christian Pluralist I experience the same thing. I just happen to believe they are wrong and tell them so. Boy do some ever get the knickers in a knot.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:17 pm

Lon wrote: Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

................

How these elements and principles defined by you in secular humanism are different from the elements and principles preached by the religions of the world? I fail to find any difference. How then you call yourself a non-believer, and in what?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:19 pm

Ted wrote: Lon :-6

As a Christian Pluralist I experience the same thing. I just happen to believe they are wrong and tell them so. Boy do some ever get the knickers in a knot.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted, you happen to believe they are wrong? Who are 'they'?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:53 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: How these elements and principles defined by you in secular humanism are different from the elements and principles preached by the religions of the world? I fail to find any difference. How then you call yourself a non-believer, and in what?

They are different Suresh, in that, we do not believe in a deity, god, gods, or supreme being of any kind

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:59 am

Lon wrote: They are different Suresh, in that, we do not believe in a deity, god, gods, or supreme being of any kind

It is interesting. I am yet to find a single person and a single religion which does not believe in a deity, god, gods, or supreme being of any kind.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:45 pm

Secular Humanism is not a religion, Suresh. There are many that do not believe in god or gods of any kind. You mean there are no Atheists in India? No Agnostics?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:20 pm

Lon, I am confused.

You posted that you are a Freemason and "it has served you well". You state, as I also understand it, you must believe in a Supreme Diety regardless of what that Diety is to you. So how are you an athiest and a Freemason?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:49 pm

koan wrote: Lon, I am confused.

You posted that you are a Freemason and "it has served you well". You state, as I also understand it, you must believe in a Supreme Diety regardless of what that Diety is to you. So how are you an athiest and a Freemason?

Good Question Koan-----I was 24 years old when I went into Masonry and could honestlly say at that time that I believed in a supreme being. The lessons of Masonry that have served me well, have nothing to do with religion. The various implements and tools like the square & compass, trowls etc. have been given particular meaning in how one can lead their life. Symbolism if you will. As I mentioned in my prior post, Masonry went from Operative to Speculative in the early 18th century. Memory training and oratory has been beneficial to me in my past business life. Frankly, I went into Masonry, trying to find a spiritual niche for myself that was comfortable. And though Masonry is not religion, I have been comfortable with it's teachings. I attended lodge somewhat regularly in my 20's

and became a minor officer in the lodge system. Into my 30's, as my career and family responsibilities increased, I became less active. In my 40's I joined the

Scottish Rite and received the degrees 4th to 32nd. One must be a Master Mason (3rd degree) to join either the Scottish Rite or York Rite. Once I obtained the 32nd degree I joined the Shrine and became a Shriner (the guys with the red fezzes that act crazy at parades). I joined the Shriners because they are the party arm of Free Masonry and I like to party. I also wanted to be active in the Crippled Children's Hospitals activities and fund raising. Today---------I am retired and do not attend any Masonic activities. Now, I have not divulged any secrets or demonstrated any handshakes and hope that I have shed a bit more light, on what, to many people is a super secret organization. The myths of Masonry are legend. Not every U.S. president was a Mason. I believe there were nine. Masonry is merely a Fraternity, and a good one.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:08 pm

Lon wrote: Secular Humanism is not a religion, Suresh. There are many that do not believe in god or gods of any kind. You mean there are no Atheists in India? No Agnostics?

I know that secular humanism can not be called a religion. Religion is a bigger concept. What you said secular humanism is about are some elements of religion.

I said in my earlier message that I am yet to find a single person and a single religion which does not believe in a deity, god, gods, or supreme being of any kind. But there have been and still are many people in India who claim that they do not believe in God. In Hinduism, rather than arguing with them, they have been given a name 'Nastik' and are recognised as Hindus as any other Hindu who claims to believe in God. But the time and energy they spent in proving that they do not believe in God is a clear indication that are the biggest believers in God. To claim that one does not believe in God one has to first believe that there is a God.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:29 pm

But Athiesm is a religion. Why not Secular Humanism?

Thank you for the well communicated answer, Lon. It does make sense but I wonder if you have thought of how symbolism works. How is it that something as simple as a geometric shape or the sun can carry such deep messages intuitively across the world on a universal level?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:33 pm

koan wrote: But Athiesm is a religion. Why not Secular Humanism?

Thank you for the well communicated answer, Lon. It does make sense but I wonder if you have thought of how symbolism works. How is it that something as simple as a geometric shape or the sun can carry such deep messages intuitively across the world on a universal level?

Will you like to elaborate on 'Athiesm is a religion'?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:03 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I know that secular humanism can not be called a religion. Religion is a bigger concept. What you said secular humanism is about are some elements of religion.

I said in my earlier message that I am yet to find a single person and a single religion which does not believe in a deity, god, gods, or supreme being of any kind. But there have been and still are many people in India who claim that they do not believe in God. In Hinduism, rather than arguing with them, they have been given a name 'Nastik' and are recognised as Hindus as any other Hindu who claims to believe in God. But the time and energy they spent in proving that they do not believe in God is a clear indication that are the biggest believers in God. To claim that one does not believe in God one has to first believe that there is a God.

With all due respect Suresh, I spend very little time and no energy at all in trying to prove my non-belief in deitys. In fact, these recent posts of mine are about the most time that I have even spent on the subject in the past 25 years. I know there are many non believers that like to argue and debate religion. I am not one of them..

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am

koan wrote: But Athiesm is a religion. Why not Secular Humanism?

Thank you for the well communicated answer, Lon. It does make sense but I wonder if you have thought of how symbolism works. How is it that something as simple as a geometric shape or the sun can carry such deep messages intuitively across the world on a universal level?

Without going into detail or revealing any SECRETS Doan, it's in the simplicity of it all.