Religious Conversion

[RedGlitter]

I was just reading at CNN.com that Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism.

I don't remember ever having this discussion before so I thought I'd toss it out.

What's your feeling on conversion? Specifically, conversion brought on by marriage or a reason other than a personal change of heart?]

My feeling is that it's a crock. No offense intended but that's the best way I can put it. While I think there's room for growth and change in a faith, I just don't see how a person can "be" of one faith and then completely cash in those values and beliefs for something new. I especially have a problem with it when it's required or brought on by marriage. A cousin of mine who grew up Lutheran converted to Mormonism so she could marry her husband. They had a wedding at the Temple in Utah and she is very happy so I have an easier time accepting it now, but we truly thought she sold out her own beliefs and were upset about it for a long time especially after she had said she'd never do such a thing. To go from "I believe this" to "Oh I believe this other thing now" and to embrace that new faith as your own newly found personal identity smacks of fraud to me. That's my 50 cents. What is yours?

[gmc]

RedGlitter;744653 wrote: I was just reading at CNN.com that Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism.

I don't remember ever having this discussion before so I thought I'd toss it out.

What's your feeling on conversion? Specifically, conversion brought on by marriage or a reason other than a personal change of heart?]

My feeling is that it's a crock. No offense intended but that's the best way I can put it. While I think there's room for growth and change in a faith, I just don't see how a person can "be" of one faith and then completely cash in those values and beliefs for something new. I especially have a problem with it when it's required or brought on by marriage. A cousin of mine who grew up Lutheran converted to Mormonism so she could marry her husband. They had a wedding at the Temple in Utah and she is very happy so I have an easier time accepting it now, but we truly thought she sold out her own beliefs and were upset about it for a long time especially after she had said she'd never do such a thing. To go from "I believe this" to "Oh I believe this other thing now" and to embrace that new faith as your own newly found personal identity smacks of fraud to me. That's my 50 cents. What is yours?


I notice he waited till he was no longer prime minister though there were rumours he would convert. If he'd come out with that nonsense about god will judge if he did he right thing in Iraq or even hinted his religion influenced his decision in any way at the beginning of it all there would have (IMO) been outrage. Never mind he was appointing anglican bishops or dealing with Northern ireland where it would have been a major issue.Maybe some of the labour MP's would have had the guts to do the right thing and stand up to the new labour machine. I'm not religious but if I was I like to think there is a special hell for lying hypocrites like him. Too many use religion as a sop for acts they know are wrong or simply so they don't have to think for themselves and take responsibility.

Kind of shows in the way he acted-do something dishonest, tell lies to get your own way, apologise when caught and that will be OK then and people will forgive you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm

And earlier this year, he told the BBC that he had avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled "a nutter". Most people think that anyway. If he hadn't been craft and said he was going to go the labour MP's would have turfed him out rather than the dead certainty of losing the next election.

As to religious conversion generally I think it's up to each to follow their conscience. My wife and I are different religions-well neither of us are believers any more-but I wouldn't have expected her to convert nor she me which is one reason we had a civil service. Bothered my mother but she changed her mind when told she didn't have to come.

I just don't see how a person can "be" of one faith and then completely cash in those values and beliefs for something new.


Why not? if they switch from one monotheistic religion to another it's not as though they are not worshipping a different god is it?:sneaky:

many can walk away from religion when they learn to think for themselves, By the same token just as Many can discover a religion that works for them. (or a political philosophy come to that)

Just looked over that-sorry but I can't stand Tony Blair. This being the Uk I can call the former prime minister a lying two faced hypocritical bastard without being called unpatriotic.

[Sheryl]

Why can't a person change? It's not a crock! He was Christian before, he's still a Christian now. A person's religion is a personal thing, that other's should not judge.

[RedGlitter]

Sheryl;744716 wrote: Why can't a person change? It's not a crock! He was Christian before, he's still a Christian now. A person's religion is a personal thing, that other's should not judge.


Wait Sheryl, I'm not talking specifically about Blair- I only mentioned him because his story put the thought into my head. I'm talking in general.

You seem offended? Is it because I said I thought it was a crock? That's my own view, not something that I said to make anyone mad. I agree religion is personal and for the most part we shouldn't judge but how about for the sake of conversation?

You ask why can't a person change, obviously they can but all I'm saying is that as a fairly religious person, I tend to see one's religious beliefs sort of like a marriage- as an institution you don't give up on without very good reason. I don't understand how say, one can be of a certain faith and then decide they believe something else.

If I can use my cousin again as an example, she had very specific and firm beliefs as a Lutheran. She grew up as one and even in adulthood she held to it so it must have had something to offer her. Then she met Jack and he said "I can't marry you unless you convert" so she did. She took on everything the LDS holds sacred; their God, their tenets, their teachings, all of it and claimed it for her own just so she could "be" a Mormon too. So Jack would/could marry her. I thought it was absolutely fake and that's why I think it's wrong. A person's faith is (or should be) deeply personal, something between them and their God. Something real and sacred. How real and sacred can it be when you renounce it and take on another one?

That's what I'm trying to say.

I know it's easy to get up in arms over religious talks, but I'm sorry I seem to have offended you.

[Sheryl]

No you didn't offend me. Your cousin for example, you do not know if she prayed over her dilemma, or if she went into the Mormon religion with out thinking it through. So you judged by what you saw at the time.

I grew up Assembly of God, as I grew older certain aspects of the church I didn't agree with. So I changed to Baptist. I don't always agree with their teachings, but I've come to realize that it's up to me and my relationship with God, not me, the Church and God. That make sense?

But the point I was trying to make is folks may change churches, but doesn't mean they changed faiths. Or at least not in Christianity. That's how I see it anyhow.

[Galbally]

Yes it seems Tony has joined the club now, well first I will say welcome, second get down to confession, and third you will probably need to go to confession more than once Tony.

I don't really see what the big deal is to be honest, so what if he has converted to Catholicism? I think its interesting that even in the 21st century its very difficult for a senior public servant in Britain to admit to being a catholic, I think the media coverage kinda speaks volumes about the anti-Catholic thing that still goes on in Britain, even though the vast majority of people are basically secular. Its being treated like some big deal that the ex-Prime-Minister has converted to the religion that everyone knows he has come to believe in over the last 10 years, shock horror. God I wonder what would happen if Prince Charles converted, then there would really be a bit of a storm wouldn't there? It just goes to show that religion is not a dead issue at all, we all just ignore it in this part of the world nowadays.

I do understand though why people would think it odd that the person who sent Britain into Iraq now promotes himself as a man of peace and now a Catholic convert, but people are complicated and Blair is a complex individual. But he is entitled to freedom of religion so really, I don't see there being much of an issue, and their shouldn't be a issue about a Prime Minister being a Catholic, why should it matter to the Church of England or the Democratic Unionist Party whether the Prime Minister of the U.K. is a Catholic unless they think that senior positions in the British State are only for protestants as they are the only people that are trustworthy? A very strange state of affairs indeed.

[RedGlitter]

Sheryl;744828 wrote: No you didn't offend me. Your cousin for example, you do not know if she prayed over her dilemma, or if she went into the Mormon religion with out thinking it through. So you judged by what you saw at the time.

That may be partially true as you can't know what is in someone's head but with my cousin, she was in her early 20s and starry eyed about getting married and she admitted she was doing it to get Jack. At the time I lost some respect for her over it because I thought she was a fake. As she got older though, she seemed to have warmed up to the LDS ways and her life seems to be good now so I'm cool with her once again.

I grew up Assembly of God, as I grew older certain aspects of the church I didn't agree with. So I changed to Baptist. I don't always agree with their teachings, but I've come to realize that it's up to me and my relationship with God, not me, the Church and God. That make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.

But the point I was trying to make is folks may change churches, but doesn't mean they changed faiths. Or at least not in Christianity. That's how I see it anyhow.


Thanks for explaining that; it's something I can appreciate. Thanks for taking the time to reply too. And I'm glad you weren't offended earlier.

[Snooze]

Kind of off topic, but I think Tony Blair is very attractive.

[Galbally]

Snooze;744842 wrote: Kind of off topic, but I think Tony Blair is very attractive.




And now he is a Catholic, and everyone knows that Catholics do it better.

[Ted]

Tony Blair hasn't changed his faith. He has simply gone from one Christian church to another.

He rightly refused to talk religion while in office. Who would want it otherwise?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

Galbally;744834 wrote: Yes it seems Tony has joined the club now, well first I will say welcome, second get down to confession, and third you will probably need to go to confession more than once Tony.

I don't really see what the big deal is to be honest, so what if he has converted to Catholicism? I think its interesting that even in the 21st century its very difficult for a senior public servant in Britain to admit to being a catholic, I think the media coverage kinda speaks volumes about the anti-Catholic thing that still goes on in Britain, even though the vast majority of people are basically secular. Its being treated like some big deal that the ex-Prime-Minister has converted to the religion that everyone knows he has come to believe in over the last 10 years, shock horror. God I wonder what would happen if Prince Charles converted, then there would really be a bit of a storm wouldn't there? It just goes to show that religion is not a dead issue at all, we all just ignore it in this part of the world nowadays.

I do understand though why people would think it odd that the person who sent Britain into Iraq now promotes himself as a man of peace and now a Catholic convert, but people are complicated and Blair is a complex individual. But he is entitled to freedom of religion so really, I don't see there being much of an issue, and their shouldn't be a issue about a Prime Minister being a Catholic, why should it matter to the Church of England or the Democratic Unionist Party whether the Prime Minister of the U.K. is a Catholic unless they think that senior positions in the British State are only for protestants as they are the only people that are trustworthy? A very strange state of affairs indeed.


It's a big issue to some people.

I don't see there being much of an issue, and their shouldn't be a issue about a Prime Minister being a Catholic, why should it matter to the Church of England or the Democratic Unionist Party whether the Prime Minister of the U.K. is a Catholic unless they think that senior positions in the British State are only for protestants as they are the only people that are trustworthy? A very strange state of affairs indeed.


Goes right to the hear of the sectarian issue does it not. Who rules supreme, the king and his government with people free to worship as they wish or the pope in rome and the catholic church forcing everyone to worship as they do. More to the point do you want a politician making decisions based on faith, particularly when it comes to declaring war on muslims?

I don't think it should be an issue but there are always those on both sides that want to make it one and drag up old conflicts. Look at the stooshie about the anglican church having woman priests with many switching to Catholicism in protest. It's an obsession with having things just so that almost borders on insanity. It's a conflict that should be left in the past. IMO.

On the other hand he was appointing anglican bishops not to mention the religious supremacy so for that reason alone him being a catholic would have been a major issue. There are also the religious overtones in the oath of allegiance to the queen as head of the anglican church-that gerry adams and martin mcguinness objected to. Maybe he should have been more honest but it should not be a surprise he was not.

I have seen it suggested that the civil war and the ensuing religious rule by the puritans and later religious wars have burned a deep suspicion of those who profess a deep religious belief in to the british psyche. Certainly had he done this while in office I think it would have been a major issue. Would the Northern Ireland talks have been as successful? Who knows.

posted by galbally

And now he is a Catholic, and everyone knows that Catholics do it better.


Perhaps but they're not allowed to enjoy it-or is that the wee frees

[Galbally]

gmc;744982 wrote: It's a big issue to some people.



Goes right to the hear of the sectarian issue does it not. Who rules supreme, the king and his government with people free to worship as they wish or the pope in rome and the catholic church forcing everyone to worship as they do. More to the point do you want a politician making decisions based on faith, particularly when it comes to declaring war on muslims?

I don't think it should be an issue but there are always those on both sides that want to make it one and drag up old conflicts. Look at the stooshie about the anglican church having woman priests with many switching to Catholicism in protest. It's an obsession with having things just so that almost borders on insanity. It's a conflict that should be left in the past. IMO.

On the other hand he was appointing anglican bishops not to mention the religious supremacy so for that reason alone him being a catholic would have been a major issue. There are also the religious overtones in the oath of allegiance to the queen as head of the anglican church-that gerry adams and martin mcguinness objected to. Maybe he should have been more honest but it should not be a surprise he was not.

I have seen it suggested that the civil war and the ensuing religious rule by the puritans and later religious wars have burned a deep suspicion of those who profess a deep religious belief in to the british psyche. Certainly had he done this while in office I think it would have been a major issue. Would the Northern Ireland talks have been as successful? Who knows.

posted by galbally



Perhaps but they're not allowed to enjoy it-or is that the wee frees


I think you should think long and hard about this continuing anti-Catholic thing in the British state, seeing as a large part of the population of England and Wales are Catholic, (not to mention British Muslims and Hindus) its absurd that in the 21st century there should still be an government endorsed established, protestant Church of England that creates a situation that bars Catholics particularly from the Monarchy and it seems still positions of power such as Prime Minister, its purely sectarian, plain and simple. The message is, even 400 years after the civil war that British Catholics are somehow not fully British and can't be trusted with high office.

[gmc]

Galbally;745226 wrote: I think you should think long and hard about this continuing anti-Catholic thing in the British state, seeing as a large part of the population of England and Wales are Catholic, (not to mention British Muslims and Hindus) its absurd that in the 21st century there should still be an government endorsed established, protestant Church of England that creates a situation that bars Catholics particularly from the Monarchy and it seems still positions of power such as Prime Minister, its purely sectarian, plain and simple. The message is, even 400 years after the civil war that British Catholics are somehow not fully British and can't be trusted with high office.


Speaking as a former free church of scotland draftee now living in the heart of sectarian country I couldn't agree with you more. Although ever since sonmebody threw a stool at a bishop up here we have had nothing to do with the church of england as a state church.

I know bigots from both sides of the divide-on many levels will educated thinking, likeable, liberal minded individuals then it's as if a switch goes. On an intellectual level I can understand the reasons for the animosity and the importance of sectarian conflict to the way the UK developed. it's one of those perennial questions-had you been alive at the time what would you have done? whose side would you have been on- that you can't really answer from a 21st century perspective as you be standing there saying hang on this is silly let's talk about it.

We need to keep our society secular. It's the only way to keep the peace. Any religious political parties here would very rapidly become sectarian. In fact there was a christian party standing but it wasn't for all Christians if you get my drift. Religious leaders also need to keep out of politics and not try and tell parishioners how to vote. Can't stop them I suppose but religion of any kind (as opposed to faith) can be immensely destructive when they start believing and acting as if they and only they have the moral right of things.

Every now and then sectarianism is brought home. Last time our local football team played rangers the place was invaded with hordes of supporters. I saw one family parents with a little three year old boy who was wandering along singing the sash, proud parents smiling fondly. From their perspective they're teaching him his heritage and part of his history he needs to know about but at that age it's also teaching a blind bigotry that's going to take some going to change.

My apologies to RG for going off topic again!:o

[lemon_and_mint]

I am going to go a little off topic here but i would be interested in your - polite views.

As a white middle class protestant British woman I have never really been interested in religion.However I have foudn myself by coincidence coming frequently into prolonged contact with muslims, with whom i have had discussions.

I believe that they all are entitled to their opinions although some may be offensive to other people.

Some of these have been "radical" and have heldd views on 9/11 which most people would not subscribe to.Some of these have been of the opinion that Islam is a peaceloving religion and that the actions of the few radicals do not reflect reality.

Those who observe all the religious rituals, I admire for their faith - I have had all the prayers explained to me and have even taken part in some parts of the rituals.I say rituals, that may be the wrong word, i mean some actions which are routinely part of that religion.

I continue to learn more and have seriously thought about converting to islam, although this would be extremely unpopular within my social circle in the current british terror climate.However putting aside the terror aspect, the fundamental beliefs and way in which muslims are meant to behave according to their beliefs attracts me as a way of life i could subscribe to.Although I seriously doubt that I would ever have the amount of faith required to follow every day those prayers times for the rest of my life.Although i wouldnt know, maybe someone faith becomes more, the more they practice?

Does anyone have any views on this?

[Patrick]

I almost became a Mormon to marry a young lady once.

It was right after high school. When we started our relationship she was Catholic like me. The best school that she applied to and accepted her with a scholarship was BYU. Our plan was for me to join the Air Force Reserve and work it out to have my duty station as close as possible to Provo as possible.

After I got out of basic I called to tell her I'd be home for Christmas. She then told me I had to be become a Mormon for us to marry because she had converted. It was a close thing but I couldn't do it.

I still have the matching King James Bible and Book of Mormon set she sent me. I keep them as reminder to always be true to myself.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

An excellent post. Religion has no part in politics.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[cars]

Tony may have converted because he wants to go to heaven in the end.

And he had heard that the Catholics think they're the only ones going to be there !!! :rolleyes:



(So as not to derail this thread, that could be a topic for the religious forum! Will all religions go to heaven in the end? If not which ones will?:-2)

[Ted]

cars:-6

Why, mine of course. LOL

Shalom

Ted:wah:

[Ted]

I just couldn't pass that one up. LOL

Shalom

Ted:wah:

[RedGlitter]

cars;745505 wrote:



(So as not to derail this thread, that could be a topic for the religious forum! Will all religions go to heaven in the end? If not which ones will?:-2)


I think any religion that is not evil (ie: doesn't blow people up upon God's orders) will go to Heaven or whatever afterlife there is. I don't believe in a chosen few.

You guys are very nice, btw. But you don't have to apologize for or worry about going off topic in any of my threads, cause that's just how a good conversation goes!

[lemon_and_mint]

red,

please dont think i am being offensive here but you miss the point.

Our idea of heaven excludes people who deliberately do harm to others.

However those who follow a god who requests his followers to do harm, will ascend to the equivalent of heaven of that god's making.

Does that make sense?

Lemon

x

[RedGlitter]

lemon_and_mint;745551 wrote: red,

please dont think i am being offensive here but you miss the point.

Our idea of heaven excludes people who deliberately do harm to others.

However those who follow a god who requests his followers to do harm, will ascend to the equivalent of heaven of that god's making.

Does that make sense?

Lemon

x


Hi Lemon,

I'm not offended at all but where did I miss? Please tell me. I would never be so presumptuous as to say there's only one God or that we all basically believe in the same one, but I have to say that I definitely don't believe that a god who asks his followers to do harm is a god at all. I don't believe that followers of that entity will ascend to any kind of heaven or promising afterlife, even one of that "god's" making. I think that "god" would fall under false prophets. Is that what you're saying? If I understood (and it's possible I didn't) are you saying that's what you believe or are you just explaining that it's what those followers believe?? My reasoning for believing as I do is because I don't personally believe God has an evil streak. I think that God is one force but with many different paths to him/her/it/them and many faces, which is why I don't believe there can be only be one "true" religion or one "true" path to God. I do believe God encompasses all, including all the goodness in the world but not evil. I believe evil is its own force. Okay I've probably just gone off on a tangent and made a mess of things! :wah: Please help me out. Did I misunderstand again?

[lemon_and_mint]

RedGlitter;745623 wrote: Hi Lemon,

I'm not offended at all but where did I miss? Please tell me. I would never be so presumptuous as to say there's only one God or that we all basically believe in the same one, but I have to say that I definitely don't believe that a god who asks his followers to do harm is a god at all. I don't believe that followers of that entity will ascend to any kind of heaven or promising afterlife, even one of that "god's" making. I think that "god" would fall under false prophets. Is that what you're saying? If I understood (and it's possible I didn't) are you saying that's what you believe or are you just explaining that it's what those followers believe?? My reasoning for believing as I do is because I don't personally believe God has an evil streak. I think that God is one force but with many different paths to him/her/it/them and many faces, which is why I don't believe there can be only be one "true" religion or one "true" path to God. I do believe God encompasses all, including all the goodness in the world but not evil. I believe evil is its own force. Okay I've probably just gone off on a tangent and made a mess of things! :wah: Please help me out. Did I misunderstand again?


Ah hi red,

now i understnad - it wasnt clear from what you said befoe, i thought you were saying that you did beleive that what those people who wish other people harm worship are gods.Now i see you are saying that you dont believe a god would ask his followers to harm people.

I was just saying that those people who wish others harm, however misguided really do believe that they have been asked to do that by a god.

So when you say that those who do harm will not go to heaven, i am saying but if they believe that they have been asked to do this by a god, then thye beielve that they will ascend to that gods heaven.

My feeling is that in most religions, there is the idea of a god, a demon, and a heaven or afterlife.

I believe that all religions probably just look at these from different angles - there is a lot in Islam and Judaism which overlaps.

However, those who worship Islam who do harm in the name of their God - I believethey they are inadventently worshipping the evil.They dont know they are, they probably really believe they are worshipping a real god who wishses them to do this.

So now i think we do think the same thing red.

Phew it gets complicated to think about, doesnt it?:)

[RedGlitter]

:wah: Complicated indeed. I'm sorry for having been unclear before, I do have that problem sometimes. Thanks for letting me clarify.

[lemon_and_mint]

RedGlitter;746123 wrote: :wah: Complicated indeed. I'm sorry for having been unclear before, I do have that problem sometimes. Thanks for letting me clarify.


you know what i do go round in circles with though, red, and i dont know what your vies are on it, although i hope you will tell me, because i think it is a really interesting converstaion we are having here

(and the problem with it being in writing rather than spoke is the timelapse between answers, and the fact that one speaker cant hear the inflexions in what is said, so it is easy to misunderstand what someone means on a forum_,

anyway, i know the story of god casting out the archangel, who became the devil,

how did the devil become so powerful?If he is a minor angel who god was powerful enough to cast out?

Why doesnt god do something to make it clear?After all he has performed miracles before?He could say that the false gods are evil in some way.

When he realised that the archangel was behaving badly after he was cast away, why didnt he just take him back and keep an eye on him?

[RedGlitter]

lemon_and_mint;746127 wrote: you know what i do go round in circles with though, red, and i dont know what your vies are on it, although i hope you will tell me, because i think it is a really interesting converstaion we are having here

(and the problem with it being in writing rather than spoke is the timelapse between answers, and the fact that one speaker cant hear the inflexions in what is said, so it is easy to misunderstand what someone means on a forum_,

anyway, i know the story of god casting out the archangel, who became the devil,

how did the devil become so powerful?If he is a minor angel who god was powerful enough to cast out?

Why doesnt god do something to make it clear?After all he has performed miracles before?He could say that the false gods are evil in some way.

When he realised that the archangel was behaving badly after he was cast away, why didnt he just take him back and keep an eye on him?


That's a good one, Lemon. I can only give you my own opinion on it. I've never really believed that God cast out Lucifer or even that there was a fallen angel. A Christian might be better to answer your question, but I'll still try to tell you what I think....

I think there are two forces in the world, Good and Evil. I think it's always been this way, ever since life or time began. Equal forces. Good being obvious and that of God (if you are atheist there is still the Good force without God) and Evil should be self explanatory. Cold blooded murders, arsonists, rapists, child molesters, people like that. Other bad stuff like say, stealing a candy bar, falls in the space in between as it's not evil but it's wrong.

[lemon_and_mint]

ok i see what you believe now.I also do not believe that the bible was written as a history of god, and therefore the archangel was not a true story.However whoever wrote that may have written it as a representation of which he believed about the forces of good and evil.

And yes that is interesting.But I would still wonder where those forces of good and evil came from.

All babies are innocent when they are born, so makes them become evil?Would it be possible ever to be born and grow up absolutley pure(none of the grey area stuff wich encompases a lot more than stealing a candy bar)?

Very very deep conversation, this one isnt it?:)

As to my thoughts on the bible, i believe it was written by very many different and put together at various time,s each of them putting into it what they wanted the people to believe whom they came into contact with as perhaps travelling preachers or likewise (remeber that at the time the majority of people could not read and were not educated so they needed to have stories told to them, to entertain them if you like, in order for them to understand and remember what they were being taught).Hence all the little stories within the bible.

[Lon]

There seems to be many different kinds of conversions, death bed conversions, fox hole conversions, jail house conversions, monkey see monkey do conversions, fear conversions. Anything other than a deep seated change in one's personal belief system is merely grabbing at straws and is like wetting the bed, the relief is only temporary.

[Ted]

Lon:-6

I think you are right on.

Shalom

Ted:-6