Frankly, nobody cares if you enjoyed your little church activities or not. It's not about you - the Church isn't there to cater to your interests. They were cheesy to you because the realities behind them never meant anything to you. You were never a Christian - you were just a person filling a pew. You wouldn't find the chasm diagram so cheesy if you understood the weight of your sinfulness and the greatness of God and the vast expanse that develops. You wouldn't be upset that people sang off-key if you felt that God was worthy to be praised. You wouldn't find those bracelets so cheesy if you had any desire to be reminded of God throughout the day. You see, all this is foolishness to you because you were always on the outside looking in.

Wow. 

Yes.

Would an atheist/agnostic/non-christian audience care about his gripes about internal Church activities? Are they fascinated with the Church and its tone-deaf bracelet-makers? Are they interested in changing the Church to fit this fellow's needs? Would the Church care to change it's religious activities because some atheist finds them cheesy? Since it's safe to assume that he no longer goes to Church, is there really any point to this?

...no.

Yea, it is really Christian of me to say that.

God's greatest love is for Himself and He made us to love and enjoy Himself. Why? Because he is the most satisfying thing in the universe. He is worthy of unbridled love. All other sources may fail us but He is the one true source of life; He is the one and only thing that can satisfy. To be consumed with a passion for God is to live out our purpose. And praise God that the thing we were made for is the very same thing we can find the greatest joy in.

First off, I'd venture to say your assessment of the audience at RRS seems to be askew. Do you believe you are the only Christian who visits the forums here?

Again, you would seem to have an uncanny knack for delving into the minds of the audience here....or perhaps by using the word 'they', you meant some other group.

I doubt that any particular church would want to change, but I suppose once they had to answer to 'the Church", as you put it, they probably wouldn't be allowed to anyway. Funny, but I don't recall him requesting or hoping any particular church or denomination might change the way they do things. He seemed to be relating his observations and his feeling of annoyance. I, for one, found it of great interest for several reasons.

I feel pity for you in that you are trapped on the inside. Literally.

i think we're bypassing a basic element of these functions - which is that they make people feel like they belong.  the ceremonies and crap are yet another reason why it's hard to tear away even when you know it's a load of crap.   this is particularly emphasized when you're the center of the function.

   fischer 1121 you realy know how to turn a phrase,  you are so lucky there are no laws against asault and battery on the English language.   Further you claim to be freed from this mechanical, deterministic universe.....  

   Every theisim I've heard of is Mechanical, determind, (i.e.) ritualistic and dogmatic, read Orwells 1984  for the same circular reasoning "Freedom is slavery, choice is dictatorship,  obidience is godly..."

Hahaha! That is a good one. I would suggest a "recline-a-thon" next time. I bet that would get TONS of donations.

You are right on the money with this point and actually it had crossed my mind to post something similar but I was busy trying to determine Fischer. When you read back through this thread, it is not abundantly clear that he is, in fact, a Christian. Intent and phrasing is a funny thing sometimes but I figured I'd play along in any case.

You have peaked my often overly observant curiousity. I apologize if you feel offended but.... Have you ever been  the "main attraction" at any religious function(s)?

If so, I'd love to hear the story if you feel it worth telling.

Sounds like your parents were both open-minded and caring to allow you the denominational choice. My parents were moderately liberal in some areas and overbearing in others. I didn't get to choose my religion. Then again, not every child had a great-grandfather that preached fire,brimstone,hell and damnation behind the pulpit and proselytized everywhere else he walked.. He died before my birth but was a heavy influence on my mother.

Thanks for sharing the story. My very best friend in high school was Catholic and so on several occasions I had a taste.

And yes, one of my co-workers entire family of nine spends two hours getting ready and he sometimes brags about being the first to arrive and last to leave. I make a solid effort not to roll my eyes when he begins his boasting.

not really but i can see how it might look that way - my apologies... i may have gotten off-track a little with my previous point - i was trying to illustrate the power of the desire to fit in.

i can't imagine how an 8 year old could make that kind of choice.  when i first realized all this god shit was a load of crap i used to blame myself for having imposed the choice to believe on myself. 

the only experience i had with other religions (at the time i got to "choose"   ) consisted of knowing a kid belonging to some other christian denomination attending my catholic school who was picked on everyday.  (they made fun of him for being fat but there were much larger kids in the class that weren't subjected to the same fate... even at that age we all 'knew' not being catholic was bad.)

There is something to be said for large groups of people coming together to enjoy shared time and experiences with each other.   It fills a vital, I think, confirming role that we are part of something and as human beings we are, genereally, uplifted by company.   My friends and I do this farily regularly.   We normally find a nice little spot in the forest or hire a club, get in a big sound system, a bunch of lights, some beer and a few 'rugs and have a kick ass party.

..to distinguish between true religious ceremony/rutual and social function. A' rock-a-thon ' (see above) clearly falls in to the latter category. Almost all social communities, religious or otherwise, have functions that are designed to strengthen the community and tighten the bonds of fraternity within that group. Humans are, after all, social beings (no man is an island, and all that).

I would agree that many religionists often confuse the two. I would suggest this happens for a couple of reasons:

• over-zealousness (having a too fundamental, rigid view of what their religion is)
• not understanding the meaning conveyed within the rites, hence leaving them open to abuse and distortion

Zealousness or fundamentalism is a trait of mental frailty, IMHO. A weak mind crippled by xenophobia builds walls of fundamentalism to defend its fragile "reality". However, surely none can deny that many atheists are equally fundamentalist in their views (Richard Dawkins perhaps being the most prominent example). So, this is more a commentary on the feebleness of human nature. We instinctively fear the unknown and unfamiliar. But let's not pin this one on religion. It's hard to make the distinction because religions are systems to define worldviews. We ALL have them. One may even categorise atheism as a religion. Again, even Dawkins admits he has to have faith in certain things (like the origin of life without divine assistance).

But let us not be too hasty to dismiss all religious ritual and rite as concocted jibberish designed to impress or control the masses. As a Christian, I can say that I have gained tremendous understanding of myself through the administration of rituals, and I believe that is their intended purpose. I won't deny that many rituals are man-made, and probably ARE intended to manipulate the crowds of believers, but that doesn't mean that ALL rituals are such.

Baptism was referred to above, with particular reference to the cleansing properties of water. This much is clear. The word 'baptism' derives from the original Greek baptiso, meaning to immerse. Baptism by immersion is suggested by the account of Jesus' own baptism. One suspects that baptism by sprinkling is a distortion of the original. But is that important? Yes, and I'll explain why.

The Hebrew culture is replete with symbolism. This is significant because humans think in symbols or abstract concepts. Symbolism has a power to impress itself upon the human mind more than mere talk or text (which are actually lesser forms of symbolism). In Hebrew rituals, in which covenants were made with God, the symbols used were designed (ordained, if you will) to impress upon the recipient the nature of the covenant and also the reward/blessing incumbent upon the honouring of the covenant. In the case of baptism (which was originally by immersion), the lowering and raising of the recipient into and out of the water was symbolic of resurrection, as one was laid in the grave, but would at a later date be raised from it. In the New Testament, we read of baptism by water and also of Spirit. With these were taught the concept of washing, which is already familiar to us. Another washing referred to in the scriptures is our being washed in the of Christ. To ears attuned to this doctrine, it hardly registers, but to the unbeliever, it may well sound like a very morbid thought! Yet, again there is symbolism involved. We have here three washings: water, spirit and . If we accept the existence of spirit, then these also have reference to our physical birth, in which all three "elements" are present. So baptism possesses clear connotations of birth, which again is attested in the teachings of Jesus, i.e. being "born again". Surely, none can deny the power of these symbols to impress upon the mind the significance of renewal and regeneration that are intended to accompany the administration of baptism. If administered appropriately, then the impact to the recipient is only positive. He/She is impressed to live after the example of Jesus - to show kindness to all, enemies especially, to go about doing good, to forgive all, to be humble. Will any atheist decry these teachings?

I hope this has been sufficient to put to rest any undue unease about religious rites. Yes, many are concocted and mumbo-jumbo, but not all. Yes, often rites are administered "inappropriately", but not always. Yes, many fail to grasp the true meaning behind the rites, but not everyone. But this is not news: for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth to eternal life, and few there be that find it.

Atheist and theist alike, we all need meaning in our lives. It's what drives us. And we all have rituals (even if it's the morning cup of coffee to kick-start our day). Let's not be too hasty to knock those that seem bizarre to us.

I'd like to address exactly why I think you might find those ceremonies cheesy:

Formerly I was an "Apathetic", I didn't really care too much about whether or not there was a God. And when I did go to church, I absolutely felt embarassed both for myself and for those incredibly idiotic people singing and (ugh) CRYING!?!?! WTF!?! Were they for real???

Fast-forward to today and back track to your original point. Not only am I a Christian (through a very different church than the one I grew up in), but certain songs and certain ceremonies continually bring me to tears both publicaly and privately, and this change usually happens when you begin to have a personal encounter with a ceremony that you've simply been an observer of your whole life, example:

Communion:

Communion back then - I used to look at communion and not understand it. I ate a piece of bread, often times when I was getting hungry, which only made me more hungry, and then chased it with a shot of grape juice. Uhh.... if nothing else I was confused. I often saw people crying, people thanking God, bowing there heads, repenting, confessing their sins, etc. I couldn't understand it, and I only did it because I was young and my parents wanted me to do it (Richard Dawkins would have been so proud ).

Communion today: There is an interesting passage in The Lord of the Rings in which Pippin is in this city, and he's besieged, and he's sure he's going to die, because there are all these monsters and armies coming to take the city and kill anyone left in it, and at the last minute, he hears a distant horn. The horns of Rohan (I think). And when he hears the horn, he realizes that in the distance, just over the hills, there are even bigger armies of these Knights that are riding to the rescue, and though many of them die, they break the siege, and save everyone inside the city including Pippin. And in the book, The Lord of the Rings book, not the movie, we're told that for the rest of his life, Pippin could never hear a horn off in the distance without breaking into tears. Why?

Because the horn was a physical and audible reminder of both his present salvation and coming rescue. So when he heard a horn, he Re-Lived his salvation. It connected him to the past. He remembered the sacrifices of the people who died to save him, and, no matter how grumpy he was, he couldn't stay grumpy, because it reminded him that every single moment of the rest of his life was a gift of grace.

Communion is a horn in the distance. It will connect you to your salvation, and remind you of the One that died to save your life. It will infuse you with the knowledge that every single second you live now is an act of grace. And as a result, it may reduce you to tears.

See, the ceremony itself is not particularly moving, and if you think about it - no ceremony in-and-of itself is this way or that, a ceremony is only as significant as and individual's relationship to it.

If you're an atheist, of course you're going to find Communion ridiculous at worst and slightly warm/fuzzy/community building at best, because you don't believe there is a debt to be paid, you don't believe in God, so you don't believe in sin, so it's stupid to think you'd believe in Rescue.

But try not to look down on those you see really connecting with these ceremonies, for many of us, the tears are evoked, not forced.

I hope that helps a little, if nothing else.