sensitivity to public church services

[Ste11aeres]

i go to the traditional roman catholic mass

What do you mean by "traditional"?

I do feel sorry for men, because in many settings men are required to wear such warm clothes.

 

[AsheSkyler]

This is a big and important difference between Catholic and protestant beliefs. There are other key differences that need to be recognized, too, but this is an easy one for people to see and understand. I'm only vaguely familiar with Catholic beliefs. I know what I've been told by Catholic friends.

Same here. Most exposure I've had was an elderly neighbor who was Catholic. She gave my son this beautiful coin/pendant that had been blessed by her priest. I'm afraid I've lost it, we've moved so many times that even something I tried to be as careful about as that little thing might have been lost. I'm not sure I have much belief in spiritual powers endowed to mundane items, but it definitely had a lot of sentimental value to me.

Sometimes I go to a Church that has the "Tridentine Rite" also called the traditional latin Mass, which is the older version of the liturgy in latin. Very beautiful, although it takes time to understand and appreciate it.
I go for religious reasons, but this particular form of the liturgy is cool also from a historical/cultural/aesthetic perspective.
Also more Aspie friendly imho.

Cool! I can pick out a few words. Brings back good memories of taking Latin in high school. We often had songs to sing in Latin, although they were short ones.

I do feel sorry for men, because in many settings men are required to wear such warm clothes.

I know, it's completely backwards! Men are hot natured, they get stuck in pants. Women are cold natured, we get the freezy dresses. I nominate we start a church where the women wear pants and men wear dresses! (Along with George Carlin's "Hats Optional" church.)

 

[photoaddict]

I know, it's completely backwards! Men are hot natured, they get stuck in pants. Women are cold natured, we get the freezy dresses. I nominate we start a church where the women wear pants and men wear dresses! (Along with George Carlin's "Hats Optional" church.)

Now THAT I'd love to see! Though I do actually wear skirts most of the time, leggings under if it's chilly. Pants are too restrictive.

 

[radasp]

I hope you can just say no and become an atheist. You'll be doing the world a great service by rejecting superstition.

 

[Brent]

I hope you can just say no and become an atheist. You'll be doing the world a great service by rejecting superstition.

This isn't the place to debate religion, nor is this on topic with the original posters intent.

 

[The Penguin]

I hope you can just say no and become an atheist. You'll be doing the world a great service by rejecting superstition.

despite I'm an atheist, I never advise a person what they should be. It a personal decision that the person needs to do a lot of research and thought. I also have strict rules for me to respect all religions as long it not the ones that promotes hate and other negative things in society.

 

[AsheSkyler]

Now THAT I'd love to see! Though I do actually wear skirts most of the time, leggings under if it's chilly. Pants are too restrictive.

I remember reading in my history books that the Ancient Greeks found dresses masculine and often criticized some enemy for wearing pants because it was "feminine" to do so. I can't for the life of me remember who, I want to say it was either a Turk or Byzantine or Assyrian or something along those lines. So now I wait to see when we reverse back to the Greek model of fashion.

I hope you can just say no and become an atheist. You'll be doing the world a great service by rejecting superstition.

Dude... Chill.

 

[Nadador]

I remember reading in my history books that the Ancient Greeks found dresses masculine and often criticized some enemy for wearing pants because it was "feminine" to do so. I can't for the life of me remember who, I want to say it was either a Turk or Byzantine or Assyrian or something along those lines.

Scythians, I think, with Herodotus as the source of the anecdote. He wrote about Scythian women soldiers wearing trousers, in a time when Greeks wouldn't dream of wearing such a thing, so that would make sense. Those were the "Amazon" women you may have seen wearing trousers on Greek vases.

I hope you can just say no and become an atheist. You'll be doing the world a great service by rejecting superstition.

The lad is distressed because he wants to go to church but doesn't tolerate it well. Not a good target for proselytism.

 

[Randomperson]

despite I'm an atheist, I never advise a person what they should be. It a personal decision that the person needs to do a lot of research and thought. I also have strict rules for me to respect all religions as long it not the ones that promotes hate and other negative things in society.

Finding a religion that does not promote hate and negativity is a trick in and of itself, almost every religious cult out there has its mortal enemies, calling a war holy does not change it from being war.

Getting everyone to just respect that everyone has their own right to choose what they believe is a good place to start. As for the OP televised church should suffice as an option, since the church you follow supports it.

 

[AsheSkyler]

Finding a religion that does not promote hate and negativity is a trick in and of itself, almost every religious cult out there has its mortal enemies, calling a war holy does not change it from being war.

True that. I still can't wrap my head around India and China getting into a tussle. The Hindus and the Buddhists? Fighting?? Stranger thing than this have happened, I suppose... Maybe it was only the backslid ones that participated.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Finding a religion that does not promote hate and negativity is a trick in and of itself, almost every religious cult out there has its mortal enemies, calling a war holy does not change it from being war.

Getting everyone to just respect that everyone has their own right to choose what they believe is a good place to start. As for the OP televised church should suffice as an option, since the church you follow supports it.

It brings one back to a very fundamental question that all human beings (I think must struggle with) which is, when you believe (or don't believe) in something, and that thing is important, how must you act towards the people who don't (or do) believe that thing?
Every person faces that question, not just in regards to religion itself, but in regards to all the various important things we think are or aren't true.
How does one balance fidelity to the truth (at least to what one thinks is true) with the need for peace and harmony among persons?

 

[photoaddict]

That balance is sooo hard to find. I tend to stay on the side of gentle and accepting, as much as possible. If I absolutely, 100% can't agree with someone on a topic, I just avoid that topic in their presence and everyone is generally happy. Better to have a friend with a mutual agreement not to fight than to have an enemy.

 

[Nadador]

Finding a religion that does not promote hate and negativity is a trick in and of itself, almost every religious cult out there has its mortal enemies, calling a war holy does not change it from being war.

Getting everyone to just respect that everyone has their own right to choose what they believe is a good place to start. As for the OP televised church should suffice as an option, since the church you follow supports it.

I don't think any of the major religions, anyway, promote "hate and negativity" as a rule. The problem, as I see it, is the human tendency to want to think what you believe is superior to the beliefs of others. When you put yourself at the top of a hierarchy and decide everyone else is misguided, prejudice ensues. Then bigotry and oppression. Then war.

There's also the problem of human fragility and insecurity. The fact that others believe differently than you implies the suggestion that you might be wrong. In my experience, hateful "believers" are the least secure in themselves. I suppose human insecurity is what makes us need religions to start with, but the religions themselves can't be blamed for the few practitioners who turn their personal insecurities into aggressive, distorted, even lethal adherence/dogma/practise.

True that. I still can't wrap my head around India and China getting into a tussle. The Hindus and the Buddhists? Fighting?? Stranger thing than this have happened, I suppose... Maybe it was only the backslid ones that participated.

If we could keep our religions out of our politics, we'd have no trouble. It's not Hinduism vs. Buddhism that is in play, there, I don't think. It's governments. That's why the American trend toward evangelical politics frightens me. For us smaller allies of the world's one great military [and formerly economic] superpower, watching this unfold is truly disturbing.

It brings one back to a very fundamental question that all human beings (I think must struggle with) which is, when you believe (or don't believe) in something, and that thing is important, how must you act towards the people who don't (or do) believe that thing? ...(edit) How does one balance fidelity to the truth (at least to what one thinks is true) with the need for peace and harmony among persons?

You see, that's where I'm confused. If you spend even a small amount of time reading about the major religions, they all have the same basic tenets, and some form of the Golden Rule. This should make knowing how to find common ground and how to treat others very simple.

This will be controversial, but sometimes I think freedom of religion has a serious downside in that it gives us license to start our own derivative sects that distort or abandon the peaceful common teachings of the parent religions. I don't have a solution to the problem, but I think it's a problem.

That balance is sooo hard to find. I tend to stay on the side of gentle and accepting, as much as possible. If I absolutely, 100% can't agree with someone on a topic, I just avoid that topic in their presence and everyone is generally happy. Better to have a friend with a mutual agreement not to fight than to have an enemy.

Hear, hear! That's my preferred course, as well. I grew up in a religious household that only showed me the best of what faith can do. I can honestly say that all of my experiences were roundly positive. I try to bring what I learned from that experience into my dealings with other people...the gentler messages central to all faiths that my parents raised me with. But in adulthood, I find myself frustrated with the too-many people who use their religions in support of their own prejudiced opinions and anti-social behaviour. It's like when a person makes a complaint about something, and backs it up by saying, "and so-and-so agrees with me". It gets into much nastier territory when the "so-and-so" the person is referring to is a mute but allegedly all-powerful God.

 

[AsheSkyler]

If we could keep our religions out of our politics, we'd have no trouble. It's not Hinduism vs. Buddhism that is in play, there, I don't think. It's governments. That's why the American trend toward evangelical politics frightens me. For us smaller allies of the world's one great military [and formerly economic] superpower, watching this unfold is truly disturbing.

Heehee, that's why I wondered if it was the backslid ones that went to war.
Or at least, I'm assuming those are supposed to be the two most peaceful faiths on the planet.

America definitely needs to be more neutral and relaxed. I know quite well from both history and personal experience that evangelism gets violent. Some days I wish we could just reset the government and start over, but sure enough if we do, it'll be one big bloody fight because nobody can set a pecking order calmly.