Atheists as members?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by blkwebman1919

Ironic, since the Protestant Reformation (led by Martin Luther) references those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church, which until then was considered the universal church.

I have a feeling that our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters might disagree with the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church was the universal church prior to the Reformation.

[AlphaFrog]

What's with all the religious debate today?? Did someone take an extra shot of Holy Spirit last night?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

What's with all the religious debate today?? Did someone take an extra shot of Holy Spirit last night?

DUDE, that would be Jesus' blood, not Holy Spirit.. you have to inhale the Holy Spirit...


Seriously people....

/not serious

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

I have a feeling that our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters might disagree with the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church was the universal church prior to the Reformation.

Prior to that schism then? The RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church. They've gotten along and fought at different times throughout the years. But as far as what most people consider "Western Civ." goes, the RCC was it.

/Took a Byzantine history class, am well aware that "western" doesn't always mean what we think it means.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Prior to that schism then? The RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church. They've gotten along and fought at different times throughout the years. But as far as what most people consider "Western Civ." goes, the RCC was it.

/Took a Byzantine history class, am well aware that "western" doesn't always mean what we think it means.

The point is, if the "RCC was the only real Western Church, just as the Orthodox were the only real Eastern Church," then it is rather inaccurate to say that the RCC "was considered the universal church" prior to the Reformation, don't you think? I'm sure that after the Great Schism, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the universal church prior to the Reformation, anymore than he considers it so now. Universal chuch in the West, okay, but not simply the universal church. (And prior to the Great Schism, I think one would have to say that the universal church consisted of both the Roman Church and the Byzantine churches. But then the Copts, the Syriacs and others might have a beef with that statement. )

Originally Posted by Drolefille

DUDE, that would be Jesus' blood, not Holy Spirit.. you have to inhale the Holy Spirit....

Unless she meant the Holy Sprite.

[blkwebman1919]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

I have a feeling that our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters might disagree with the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church was the universal church prior to the Reformation.

You're absolutely right, considering the schism that led to the establishment of the alternate papal seat at Constantinople.

[Stef the Pef]

Hmmm...I have to wonder about the original topic of this thread...

I have friends in Christian GLOs like Sigma Phi Lambda, Beta Upsilon Chi, Phi Kappa Chi, and Kappa Chi Alpha--for the most part, they're pretty accepting of whoever is interested in joining. Anyone know if specifically Christian organizations have a religion requirement or not? (Not that an atheist would be comfortable with the weekly chapter Bible study so much, but I have to wonder...?)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Buddha is not a "Supreme Being," Tom. Traditional Buddhism is nontheistic -- either not believing in the existence of a creator God (maybe not necessarily denying it either) or finding the concept irrelevant.

A Buddha in Buddhism is any person who has reached full enlightenment.

Or donated money like Stevan Segal.

-Rudey

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by DSTRen13
This isn't a theology board, so I apologize in advance to everyone for this major hijack,

My apologies as well.

but I was raised in a Christian church where many of the members (including myself) did not accept trinitarian doctrine. (Today, I am Unitarian Universalist, if anyone cares.) For most of my life, I've been surrounded by people who only consider very select Protestant denominations to be "real" Christians - Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and my own church (since we rejected the Protestant label) were not allowed in the club. So I am very sensitive about both of these issues. If someone believes themselves to be Christian by their own standards, what do you really care? I mean, do you really know what Christianity was truly intended to be - does anyone today, for that matter?

Yes, people can disagree on what Christianity was intended to be, or is now. But that was not my point.

My point was that words have meaning -- generally ascribed meaning. Otherwise, they are a useless form of communication. Since at least the Fourth Century (if not earlier), the generally-agreed upon "definition" of what makes one "Christian" has included trinitarian belief.

Many people (and faith traditions) do not share this belief and still call themselves Christian. That's their prerogative, and my point is not that I have a problem with that. My point is only that just because one describes one's self as Christian doesn't mean that the majority of Christians in the world would recognize the person as a Christian.

Some may say that's intolerance or exclusivity. I don't think it is, necessarily at least.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

My apologies as well. [B]Yes, people can disagree on what Christianity was intended to be, or is now. But that was not my point.

My point was that words have meaning -- generally ascribed meaning. Otherwise, they are a useless form of communication. Since at least the Fourth Century (if not earlier), the generally-agreed upon "definition" of what makes one "Christian" has included trinitarian belief.

Many people (and faith traditions) do not share this belief and still call themselves Christian. That's their prerogative, and my point is not that I have a problem with that. My point is only that just because one describes one's self as Christian doesn't mean that the majority of Christians in the world would recognize the person as a Christian.

Some may say that's intolerance or exclusivity. I don't think it is, necessarily at least.

Nicea/Chal whatever councils were designed to gain political control for Constitine and his Bishops.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Rudey
Or donated money like Stevan Segal.

LOL.

[SUTriD86]

Tri Delta is based in the Christian tradition and bears several Christian references, but that didn't stop our Jewish girls from joining and professing their love and loyalty to Tri Delta. I just think it's a matter of personal feelings. If you're comfortable joining a group with Christian traditions without being Christian, then it shouldn't be a problem!

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by Senusret I
I would feel very uncomfortable if Alpha had a Christian message such as the one on the Omega site. I believe that having Christian values is fine, but I don't want anyone in my fraternity to evangelize to me.

I understand your perspective but one joins a Greek organization as a voluntary decision. It's not the govt. or a civil authority. I have been in situations in which men were pressurred to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. I disagreed with that. I've not seen active persecution of non-Christian brothers but one has to know that Omega Psi Phi does have a strong Christian ethos and tradition, among other things, and you will meet this in the Fraternity. Omega is not for everybody!

[enigma_AKA]

Originally posted by Lady of Pearl
IMHO I don't see how an atheist would feel comfortable in my organization as we are Christian based-we have prayer in just about all of our functions. I did know a Soror who was Muslim who was initiated with me but she soon went inactive for whatever reasons.

Soror,

As Alpha Kappa Alpha is NOT a Christian Organization, members are therefore not required to participate in services/activities that exclude them due to their personal faith/beliefs/non-beliefs etc. Also, while prayer is being given, anyone present can choose to meditate, do their own prayer, leave the room, etc.

To answer the OP: As a non-Christian in an organization dominated by Christians, it is more important to my chapter (two of us are non-Christian) to recognize all faiths, but most importantly maintain those Christian-like ideals of serving all mankind, loving and recognizing another as your own self, abiding by the golden rule, etc. My argument is and always has been as long as someone is doing what they are supposed to do (remembering their obligation to serve all mankind and the universal spirit of love of all), then I would have no problem with that.

It's not as if an athiest can't have all of these attributes; the only issue is whether or not she recognizes Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior (to be a Christian) or praying to Allah as her God, etc, etc. I think people oftentimes confuse not believing with being a bad person/not possessing high moral standards. This is not true. Does she need to pray to MY God, or any God to be a good soror? No. There are some so-called Christians who aren't doing what they are supposed to do and some atheists who are on top of things. How they lead their spiritual life is of no relevance to me. All she needs to do is remember and uphold the purpose of Alpha Kappa Alpha...with a smile!

enigma_AKA

[sbelle223]

Originally Posted by enigma_AKA

How they lead their spiritual life is of no relevance to me. All she needs to do is remember and uphold the purpose of Alpha Kappa Alpha...with a smile!

enigma_AKA

Very well said and very much appreciated! Your whole post was very well put and it is so nice to see someone respect other people so greatly, no matter their race, religion, or creed! Thank you!