To be honest, soemtimes I get the feeling I'm the only one alive which occupies this peculiar lonely position, that is, having embraced an unnamed faith not because I have historically refrained from religion, but rather because religion has refrained from me. It has become much more productive for me, to embrace the Name of God, by hearing His words, and seeking to be as obedient as I can to His teachings and thereby giving definition to my personal faith, than to have it placed in a denominational category where it would incumbent upon me to have my faith defined by others. At least this way, I am not tethered to institutional dogma, or to long held traditional positions which have little chance of future review or inspection. My past scriptural training has been influenced by both Jewish and Christian sources, and it is there, in that space between them that I currently find myself and it is at times a very lonely space. I don't see this faith as a combination of the two per se, but rather the logical progression of scriptural reason, when given an environment free from institutional doctrinal restraints. I have found it much easier and more beneficial to question God, than to question man. I do think the personage which walked this earth 2,000 years ago was, and is the Messiah, but I don't think either Christianity or Judaism has an accurate understanding of what was at the core of his ministry, or what he was about. In fact, I would go so far as stating, when the Messiah comes, it will be a Messiah in which Christianity and Judaism will not be familiar or expecting.
Hold your horses, eveoyrne.1. First, the map is not quite inaccurate, in that as far as we can gather, man has always been religious (eg by analysis of burial sites etc ) so the map should not begin with a neutral' colour as if people had been unspoiled' as yet by religion.2. Secondly, much of the spread of all faiths, including Islam, was peacefully spread. People often saw something good in the new religion (Buddhism and Christianity in particular) which they wished to adopt for themselves. Western culture and learning came from the rise of Christian monasticism, for example.I am not disputing, of course tensions that naturally arise as the borders (these are of course not consistent with national borders but between growing groups of believers) became more defined.This is, of course, precisely what is happening now with the so-called New Atheism, which is becomming particularly agressive 3. Thirdly, the attempt of both Hitler and Stalin to manipulate believers is (hopefully) not meant to be a proof that their atrocities were motivated by a pious Christianity! (I have already commented on these villains in other posts on this site, so will refrain here).4. Fourthly, to my knowledge it was a Palestinian politician who claimed that Bush had told him to invate Iraq. Regardless, it would surely be an overstatement to argue that Bush was attempting to convert Iraq to Christianity by the invasion which would apparently be the point of linking this with the article about the timeline. Indeed many Christian leaders (including, very prominently, Pope John Paul II) condemned the war.5. Lastly, atheism produced more Christian martyrs (those unwilling to deny their faith for political expediency) in the 20th century than were martyred in the other 19 centuries combined. This is particularly astounding given the very small percentage of atheists until the latter part of the century. Perhaps State Atheism should be added to the map? At least in this case the borders are real and the wars were real wars.
Because it is a tradition in
our family
I do not have a religion yet
somehow none does it in my
family, and i was grwon up
like that. i don't think
it's very important
because I don't believe in a
certain religion
only a day before Christmas
and Easter, because of my
personal belief