What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Rambling]

The last part there is interesting, maybe it reflects an alienation with tradition which has spread even to those who depend upon tradition or who ought to have the greatest appreciation for it.

Jesus was a traditional Jew you know, he practiced many of the precepts, as he understood them, which is important as he had a greater understanding than many but there are Jews who have indicated that Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers, such as the Essenes or, laterly, hasidics, even some contemporaneous agnostic jewish schools of thought.

Its all there in the sayings of Jesus himself, directly.

Jesus was born a Jew, true. However he was directly opposed to the hypocrisy he saw in the Jewish leaders of the religion of his day, describing them as vipers, for example in Matt 12:34. He managed to offend them in Luke 4 to the point that they tried to throw him off a cliff. He intensified the situation by driving out the street traders in the Temple, the most sacred place of their religion, see Matthew 12:21 onwards and he claimed to be God Himself frequently enough (the many I am sayings in the gospel of John, for example) that the religious Jewish leaders of his day demanded his death andr the common Jewish crowd of the time said that they were happy for his blood to be upon their heads. Hardly a standard or traditional adherent of Judaism, and certainly not accepted by the Jewish religious leaders...in fact he died underneath a rather sarcastic sign labelling him as their king.

I actually think that the practice of mindless ritual is
1) far from Christ himself
2) something he explicitly rejected in all its forms (try Matthew 6:7 "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again" - but this theme repeats through many variations...
3) something which causes its adherents to think that they are safe when they are in fact not safe at all.
4) dangerous since it leads people to avoid thinking for themselves

However Jesus did accept, practise and indeed fulfil the old law, in the process breaking open a new way of living for those who accept him and put his words into practice. Since he is risen, it follows that it is possible to know him and live life out of his Holy Spirit. This is very different in practice from following a list of rules, since nobody can *ever* fully keep every rule. Consider Romans 7 for a fuller discussion of this point.

There were others who claimed to be messiahs around the time of Jesus; it is perhaps noteworthy that no others succeeded in rusing from the dead.

Much of what passes for Christianity in church buildings today is from pagan rituals introduced into Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD. There have always been Christian groups who have stayed completely out of the religious format, for example, the Moravians.

 

[Mole]

Apatheist

I don't put any value in the idea of belief.

You Fluffywolf - you don't put any value in the idea of belief yet you suspend your disbelief anytime you turn on the TV, or go to the movies, or open a book, or even engage in a conversation.

And your suspension of disbelief is practised and supple. You suspend your disbelief for an appropriate time, then you appropriately enter your disbelief. You move seamlessly between the suspension of disbelief and disbelief.

Another way of putting it is you move seamlessly between your imagination and reality.

You have achieved a major life goal.

What a piece of work is Fluffywolf, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.

[MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION]

 

[Lark]

Jesus was born a Jew, true. However he was directly opposed to the hypocrisy he saw in the Jewish leaders of the religion of his day, describing them as vipers, for example in Matt 12:34. He managed to offend them in Luke 4 to the point that they tried to throw him off a cliff. He intensified the situation by driving out the street traders in the Temple, the most sacred place of their religion, see Matthew 12:21 onwards and he claimed to be God Himself frequently enough (the many I am sayings in the gospel of John, for example) that the religious Jewish leaders of his day demanded his death andr the common Jewish crowd of the time said that they were happy for his blood to be upon their heads. Hardly a standard or traditional adherent of Judaism, and certainly not accepted by the Jewish religious leaders...in fact he died underneath a rather sarcastic sign labelling him as their king.

I actually think that the practice of mindless ritual is
1) far from Christ himself
2) something he explicitly rejected in all its forms (try Matthew 6:7 "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again" - but this theme repeats through many variations...
3) something which causes its adherents to think that they are safe when they are in fact not safe at all.
4) dangerous since it leads people to avoid thinking for themselves

However Jesus did accept, practise and indeed fulfil the old law, in the process breaking open a new way of living for those who accept him and put his words into practice. Since he is risen, it follows that it is possible to know him and live life out of his Holy Spirit. This is very different in practice from following a list of rules, since nobody can *ever* fully keep every rule. Consider Romans 7 for a fuller discussion of this point.

There were others who claimed to be messiahs around the time of Jesus; it is perhaps noteworthy that no others succeeded in rusing from the dead.

Much of what passes for Christianity in church buildings today is from pagan rituals introduced into Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD. There have always been Christian groups who have stayed completely out of the religious format, for example, the Moravians.

I dont think its possible to keep completely out of the religious format, as you call it, like I've said before I see religion as either conscious or unconscious but as a constant, now that's both in the broadest possible sense of a kind of leitmotif, incorporating an object of devotion and frame of orientation, and specifically as a tradition such as with Christianity.

A lot of what you describe here smacks of reformation era concerns, without wishing to give insult I tend to believe that sort of thinking is stuck in a moment, that moment being the reformation, and generally does not appreciate that that moment was not ahistorical and also needs to be understood contextually.

There are reasons why then and since a variety of movements would have choosen to present a specific version of events as facts, including the presentation of a dichotomy between religious tradition and the vagaries of a personal relationship with Christ, and also deliberately employ exaggeration where it is politic to do so.

Although that said I would understand that there is an equal and opposite tendency which has asserted order, tradition, consistency and authority when it has been politic for it to do so.

I cant think of anyone ever defending "mindless" ritual or traditions some how, although I am sure that what one would assert are "meaningful" rituals and traditions, which any culture or subculture will employ (consider the example I gave of comic con and geek culture), another would assert is "mindless" by their understanding.

The Jewish authorities of Jesus day found the sign about his being the king of the jews to be insulting and objected to it, the recorded differences between Jesus and various Jewish factions illustrate pretty diverse opinion within a single religious community, the pharisees, sadducees and scribes all had their own individual differences with one another, aswell as with Jesus as an independent tendency, and also John the Baptist before him.

I've read about this being a feature of Jewry, the opinions between the first and second temple differ for instance upon the existence of an afterlife or eternal punishment or reward and personal survival of the deceased consciousness. Pretty fundamental questions. Its something I've seen portrayed well in literature and other media and mediums too, in fact it is something I like about Jewish culture as it is portrayed in those mediums.

However, I would assert that until Pauline Christianity, the stage just before most of the reformed churches would assert the church was Romanised, that there were different factions within the church, some of which were more traditionally judiac, such as James and Matthew (ironically Matthew is considered the source of the blood libel and to actually be anti-semitic, I would suggest strongly that the fault lay with those making the interpretation).

While asserting that tradition is anathema, the "irreligious", if that would could be used in this context, congregations do maintain their own tradiitons, such as solo scripture, which to my mind are absurd but then I dont hope to persuade anyone on that point, better individuals than I have discoursed upon the point.

 

[Mole]

Mindless ritual is mindless in that it puts to sleep the critical mind and wakens the imaginative mind.

The imaginative mind has great depth. And as we go deeper, we discover more and more. We discover rooms within rooms, within rooms, within rooms, until at the deepest level, imagination becomes reality.

And when imagination becomes reality, we enter a space that must be protected, so we call it sacred.

And sacred space is protected by sacraments.

[MENTION=21859]Rambling[/MENTION]

 

[Coriolis]

That's why a lot of atheistic scientists strike me better than a lot of agnostics, because they came to their disbelief in a creator out of LOGIC, not this "ethos" bullshit.

Atheism is not disbelief in a creator. It is belief in the absence of a creator.

As a scientist myself, I have yet to see an attempt to prove the existence of a creator pass the test of logic.

I'm a Christian.

Trying to explain it or justify it just lends credence to the premise that it should be (or needs to be) explained or justified (which is ridiculous).

There is more intellectual honesty in this simple assertion than in any attempts at justification, though sometimes there is beauty in the explanation.

The idea of organizing rituals and stuff. When you introduce a structure into someone else's life, if they accept it, everything they do(/believe) within that structure becomes routine, something that it's there and is a constant, and this leads them to never question it.

I actually think that the practice of mindless ritual is
1) far from Christ himself
2) something he explicitly rejected in all its forms (try Matthew 6:7 "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again" - but this theme repeats through many variations...
3) something which causes its adherents to think that they are safe when they are in fact not safe at all.
4) dangerous since it leads people to avoid thinking for themselves

You are both correct about mindless, unquestioned ritual, but ritual need not be so. If this is your experience of ritual, then you are doing the wrong rituals, for the wrong reasons. Ritual can be full of sensory experiences with direct and significant personal meaning, but not if it is some one-size-fits-all generic ritual imposed or dictated by some external authority.

Then again, we must be clear what we mean by "mindless". Ritual can occupy the physical, conscious body, freeing the subconcious to surface and share its treasures. We go "through" the ritual, to something beyond. Mole has the right idea:

Mindless ritual is mindless in that it puts to sleep the critical mind and wakens the imaginative mind.

The imaginative mind has great depth. And as we go deeper, we discover more and more. We discover rooms within rooms, within rooms, within rooms, until at the deepest level, imagination becomes reality.

And when imagination becomes reality, we enter a space that must be protected, so we call it sacred.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I absolutely believe in God, but I don't really practice any religion in the true sense of the word. I was raised Catholic, and while I don't buy a lot of the Catholic dogma, I've never felt any reason to turn on Catholicism or denounce it like so many of those raised with religion do. I don't think there is a "right" religion, but since I'm comfortable with it, on the rare occasion I go to a service it is a Catholic one. I think any number of religions are a path to God. I disagree with those who think religion is a net detriment to the world. I think a lot of the horrible things committed either in the name of God or in the professional capacity of clergy are simply things that are human nature; they are committed by humans, not institutions. Were there no religion, these things would find other avenues of expression. When we find a corrupt politician, we throw him in jail, we don't abandon democracy. I believe that the vast majority of priests, nuns and lay volunteers have honorable intentions, and the good, kind, charitable work they do is reason enough for me to hold a positive view of the Church.

What I actually believe probably makes me a Deist or an ignosticist. I believe in a creator God, and I believe in one because it's the best explanation my rational mind can come up with for why we're here. The Big Bang happened, the universe expanded, and here we are. But why? Science is very good at answering questions that begin with "how", but spirituality is better at answering questions that begin with "why". To me, answering the question of "Is there a God?" with science is like measuring the temperature with a ruler. I believe they're complementary systems of inquiry, not incompatible ones, and I can't have a productive debate with anyone who disputes that idea. I'm not interested in converting atheists; they have very good reasons to believe what they believe (or don't believe), and like my own, their conclusions won't change without a fundamental change in how they perceive the world.

 

[Mole]

I think a lot of the horrible things committed either in the name of God or in the professional capacity of clergy are simply things that are human nature; they are committed by humans, not institutions.

If only this were true, but the nine year Irish National Judicial Enquiry into child abuse found that the child abuse was committed, aided and abeted, and covered up by an international institution.

And as I write Australia is conducting a Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse, and listening to the public evidence it is highly likely the Royal Commission will also find the same international institution committed, aided and abeted, and covered up child abuse.

 

[Redbone]

I guess the best term that would fit would be pagan. And not so much a practice as a way of 'walking toward' or 'becoming'. It is my own and something that cannot be duplicated by another...a very personal thing.

 

[Riva]

i was raised jewish-ish and there are certain traditions I like, but I can't rly be bothered to keep
up with it. i like religions in theory but in practice my eyes glaze over.

Chana considering that you are an FP and from what i know of you I have complete faith in your ability to follow all 613 laws given by god especially for the jews.

Good luck.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

i have a sort syncretic religion/spirituality which was laid on a foundation of universality and does not discriminate or divide but rather unifies. It was constructed in a style of piecemeal whereby I ran holding up my belt-less pants, being impoverished and hungry and malnourished, and made it a goal of life and death to grab every good seed off the good ground lest I end up like Jonah or Odysseus over troubled waters.

Well, I ended up over troubled waters and learned the ways of Varuna's and Ingrid's net, and the pneumatic net of consciousness, but it was no easy task like Huck going down the river with Tom.

But I'll tell you something, I'm the better man for it. I'm the good man now you see, preaching the new wine, and every bead of sweat in every pile has it in.

So that's all...

Selah, Selah, Selah
Gabriel, Sachiel, and Michael
Cherubim and Seraphim,
Amen.

 

[five sounds]

i wasn't going to respond in here, but i was tagged, so i guess i will.

i have a really hard time with the concept of 'religion.'

i'm one of those people [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] talked about, who's all for the spiritual. spiritually, i identify as Christian. i believe in Jesus and the holy spirit and God the father. funnily enough, Jesus taught about abolishing 'the old way' aka, all the religious rituals and hard legalistic rules that were being practiced, and being led by the spirit of God which is Love. so that fact that it's even considered a religion seems contrary to me.

 

[Rambling]

H

Mindless ritual is mindless in that it puts to sleep the critical mind and wakens the imaginative mind.

The imaginative mind has great depth. And as we go deeper, we discover more and more. We discover rooms within rooms, within rooms, within rooms, until at the deepest level, imagination becomes reality.

And when imagination becomes reality, we enter a space that must be protected, so we call it sacred.

And sacred space is protected by sacraments.

[MENTION=21859]Rambling[/MENTION]

Indeed those may be very true statements about your experience of ritual, and I certainly do not deny the power of ritual - it is certainly at the least a scaffolding structure by which the soul of man can reach into spirituality...but I was discussing Christ from the gospels, which you do not quote, since the rooms verse is not quite what you say, since Jesus was talking about His Father's House, not ritual at that point in John 14.

I do not think ritual *is* ultimately the fire of Christ Himself. Of course it may have a purpose of being a diving board from which a connection is attempted. But Jesus taught that He in coming down gives life to the world, not that humans can ascend to the throne of God through their own efforts. The veil of the temple was torn top downwards...not bottom upwards...if you wish for an explanation which uses images.

The doctrine of the Eucharist was from Pope Innocent in AD 1215...before that time it was treated and discussed in a different way.

I have every intention of using every part of my mind in seeking to follow Christ...I do not think He has ever called me to put my mind to sleep in any way; but rather to wake up and use intentional and intelligent love to serve Him in the way He calls me to act. You sound like you are trusting the leader of your service - what if he or she is incorrect in their doctrine or in love? Would you not notice?

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not sure Mole ever attends a service.
Some of us are discussing this abstractly, not describing our own particular ways of doing or not doing things.

So how do you follow Christ? You're speaking of things as "givens" where in reality you're believing in a specific depiction of god that can't be shown to be true, in your own interpretation of what you think it means to follow that depiction of god, referencing doctrine that is just as arbitrary and handed to you as the truth.

So I think it's good that you are holding in your mind the sense of "keeping your mind awake" and trying not just to go through motions; at the same time, the fact you seem to be participating in a doctrinal set that was handed down to you by others and using it as the parameters of your life and behavior is in a sense "not using your mind" to filter the world around you and come up with your own intepretation. When you use the phrase "keeping your mind awake," it means something different to you than it does to those who start from scratch rather than taking a certain set of doctrines as a foundation for your beliefs.

I think it's important to keep that in mind, because it explains some of the disagreement. You might find value in that set of handed-down doctrines that you have decided to follow, which is fine; but if you don't acknowledge the nature of that being a choice versus something proven and self-obvious, then it's a different use of the mental faculty.

 

[Rambling]

I'm not sure Mole ever attends a service.
Some of us are discussing this abstractly, not describing our own particular ways of doing or not doing things.

So how do you follow Christ? You're speaking of things as "givens" where in reality you're believing in a specific depiction of god that can't be shown to be true, in your own interpretation of what you think it means to follow that depiction of god, referencing doctrine that is just as arbitrary and handed to you as the truth.

So I think it's good that you are holding in your mind the sense of "keeping your mind awake" and trying not just to go through motions; at the same time, the fact you seem to be participating in a doctrinal set that was handed down to you by others and using it as the parameters of your life and behavior is in a sense "not using your mind" to filter the world around you and come up with your own intepretation. When you use the phrase "keeping your mind awake," it means something different to you than it does to those who start from scratch rather than taking a certain set of doctrines as a foundation for your beliefs.

I think it's important to keep that in mind, because it explains some of the disagreement. You might find value in that set of handed-down doctrines that you have decided to follow, which is fine; but if you don't acknowledge the nature of that being a choice versus something proven and self-obvious, then it's a different use of the mental faculty.

If you are not describing what you actually do, but discussing abstractly, then you are not answering the thread question which was about what you *practise* and why.

Laying that aside, I took the bible as a guide to life when I was fifteen and attempted from scratch to discover which parts of it worked in practice in my own life and which parts did not. I won't bore everyone with the details but it was and *is* proved to be true in my lived experience.

I note that such evidence is personal to me; if another person were to attempt the experiment it would be personal evidence to them. However to me this evidence carries more weight than the lack of it would do.

There is as I noted already plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It makes sense to me to follow someone who has solved the problem of death...even if that makes my life here more complicated or difficult at times. I prefer solid historical foundations to developing my own pick and mix spirituality...but I test it out, I have not swallowed a bunch of handed down traditions or beliefs or doctrines without thinking...

G.K. Chesterton — 'The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.'

 

[Totenkindly]

There is as I noted already plenty of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It makes sense to me to follow someone who has solved the problem of death...even if that makes my life here more complicated or difficult at times. I prefer solid historical foundations to developing my own pick and mix spirituality...but I test it out, I have not swallowed a bunch of handed down traditions or beliefs or doctrines without thinking...

G.K. Chesterton — 'The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.'

Quoting Chesterton is irrelevant here. I'm well aware of my own degree of sincerity and how much I sacrificed and invested in that exploration (which is still always ongoing even after four decades). I'm also well aware of why I stepped outside that fold: It was an act of courage based on preserving my own intellectual integrity, and by choosing to live honestly, I lost a community and life I had invested in for many many years. It cost me dearly.

There is not "historical evidence" for Jesus' resurrection, as much as we have no real record of the specifics of Jesus' life except the religious books themselves under scrutiny. Yes, MacArthur and Strobel and those guys always step in and make arguments from authority or use some twist of logic to suggest their beliefs are more reasonable; but in the end there's not the hard evidence you're claiming.

(I don't have nearly the issue if you just say the idea of God being willing to die for you so you can live, even if you don't deserve it, is hugely inspiring to you. There's nothing wrong to invest in a faith that inspires and motivates you and embodies your values. But as soon as people start suggesting "historical evidence" broadly, that then brings the argument to, "Well, if you just look at the evidence you'll believe like I do," and well, here we are.)

What do you mean by someone who has "solved the problem of death"? Again, that's just a doctrinal belief, and various religions would make that claim; you can't actually produce anything that adds any specificity to what the problem is or how it was solved. And there are various beliefs I could hold that allow me to resolve anxiety over death. Yet to me, believing something doesn't necessarily make it true. Death is a painful issue to deal with and necessarily ambiguous; I find Merton more comforting in that regard, in terms of being honest about the ambiguities. But everyone has to come to terms with death. It's not really a "problem to solve," it's a reality to be faced.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed argument over beliefs here, which is more than the thread was meant to handle, although at the same time it's hard to have a thread like this where there's not a bit of bumping heads. In the end, these are just basically my broad reflections on the matter.

 

[Mole]

I took the bible as a guide to life

The printing press was invented in 1440 and the first book printed and distributed was the Bible. So before the printed Bible we lived in a spoken culture, and even the Bible in manuscript was read out aloud in church. After the first printed Bible we started to develop a literate as opposed to a spoken culture.

And our new literate culture we valued what could be seen, we valued a rational rather than an metaphorical interpretation of the Bible. We read the Bible alone for the first time and came to value personal testimony.

So before 1440 we lived in a spoken culture called Catholicism, and after 1440 we started to live in a literate culture called Protestantism. And now we are all Protestants.

Except in 1840 the game changed again and we invented the electric telegraph, leading to the telephone, the wireless radio, the television, the computer and at the internet. And as I write we are moving from a literate culture to an electronic culture. And the literate culture is now the content of the electronic culture.

The new electronic culture is quite like the traditional spoken culture that we lived in for 200,000 years.

So for 200,000 years we lived in a spoken culture, then for about 400 years we lived in a literate culture, and now we are living in an electronic culture quite like the traditional spoken culture.

And the new electronic culture is metaphorical just like the old spoken culture.

 

[Mole]

I'm not sure Mole ever attends a service.

It was only last Sunday I attended a service at Saint Christopher's Cathedral, Manuka, Canberra.

The service still had the remnants of the age-old spoken culture overlaid with literate Protestantism.

I notice they are still reeling from the revelations before the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. And I notice they do not realise what a treasure trove they have remaining from the old spoken culture.

They have a treasure trove from the traditional spoken culture that is ideally suited for the electronic age. But they are still in thrall to literate Protestantism and it is going to take them a while to realise the cultural riches of millennia that will find their home in the new electronic culture.

 

[Totenkindly]

^^ I sit corrected.

Carry on.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

If only this were true, but the nine year Irish National Judicial Enquiry into child abuse found that the child abuse was committed, aided and abeted, and covered up by an international institution.

And as I write Australia is conducting a Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse, and listening to the public evidence it is highly likely the Royal Commission will also find the same international institution committed, aided and abeted, and covered up child abuse.

Well, pedantically you are correct. But my point was that there is nothing inherent in Catholicism that causes people to do wrong; rather, people choose to do wrong and happen to be Catholic. Any position of power or influence gives one the opportunity to do evil; but those positions don't cause people to do evil. When Stalin killed millions of his own people, was it because something about being the leader of Russia inevitably results in evil, or because he was an evil man? If you choose the former, as you have, it's a rather intractable problem. The world needs leaders, and there will always be positions of power and influence. If people are powerless to resist temptation, where does that leave us? I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Passacaglia]

My sister was told "no processed foods--no 'white' foods" which she took to mean 'wheat bread instead of white, no junk foods, no potatoes either' in her diet she was given by her doctor. I challenged her and said, "potatoes are not junk food nor are they processed at all... So why do potatoes rank up there with donuts? And isn't flour processed the same way regardless of if it's wheat or white?" and she had no answers to give me. Without any science laying the foundation, the rules that really seemed clear to her were suddenly arbitrary and .. well.. stupid.

A lot of debate, science and evidence based practice, and even more personal opinion based on personal experience all went into answering my question after that. And the personal experience was necessary.. She knew onions were a good-for-her food and don't require banning despite clearly falling under the 'white' umbrella and this diet saying she shouldn't eat them. Sugar was a bigger criminal in her diet than potatoes. She feels better when she gets to eat whatever she wants at least two times a week, and she knows her weakness is sweets and prepackaged foods. Even so, she can still follow the diet knowing those things aren't really true and see if the diet works for her or not and try to reason why as she goes.

If I were to replace such a simple thing with a more complex issue like killing a person... While society can account for debate (via court rulings and sentencing), and evidence based practice (with laws and what's generally acceptable and what studies are showing and if those studies are valid or not), only the person can fill the void of the last bit. Is there ever a time it's okay to kill another human truly and absolutely? It's a question only people can answer and the answer is subjective to whatever society agrees upon. Having society on the same page generally is beneficial to everyone.. and religion is a great unity tool. Even if the message is stupid in some sections (like women can't teach and should be silent) the bigger over-reaching messages (Jesus's story of the fish and bread shows he accepted EVERYONE who was there and fed them, regardless of if they were douchebags or nice people, and thus people should accept others and help without judgment) are not invalidated by the writings of humans in times long ago where saying those things was okay in society at the time.

That anecdote about your sister is a great analogy.

I guess I can accept as a fact of the human condition that some people need structure to be handed down to them, and don't want to think about the details. But at the same time, I find this fact terrifying. When it's just a diet -- okay, whatever, a person is only making her own life duller by following the letter of the law without question, so to speak. But when one is making decisions that affect others, this attitude is responsible for holding society back. For example, I know a generally wonderful religious woman who objected to virtually everything a particular politician stood for, except one particular thing. But because this one particular thing is a huge moral hangup for her congregation, she helped vote him into the office of the POTUS. And despite all the death and stupidity he caused, she did it again four years later!

It's infuriating, and awfully depressing.

Wicca has some... writings that are considered fairly standard. No big Bible-esque thing, the idea is to create your own (commonly called a book of shadows) masterpiece filled with your experiences, ideas, spells (what wiccans call prayer), and encounters. Sometimes people mooch off of other books because they have wiser words or they're just too young to have experience truly yet or.. simply want to experience things from another person's perspective. Nothing wrong with that.

Sounds great, thanks for the info!

I take issue with Buddhism because while zen is enlightenment and all of that is cool sounding or whatever... it seems like the way to get there is to lack spirit and zeal in things. I just can't vibe with a message that doesn't emphasize the richness one gets from competition, challenge, and feeling things intensely both good and bad. Taken slightly wrong, the message can quickly turn into 'be apathetic about everything and you won't care enough to suffer anymore.'

Fair enough. I wrote a paper on Buddhism about a couple years ago, and it is a...spartan philosophy/faith, in a way. I once heard a Buddhist monk comment on his love for playing soccer, and how this seemed to contradict Buddha's teachings. He said something like "As Jesus knows that Christians are not perfect, Buddha knows that I am not perfect, and accepts my pastime for what it is." But still, not for everyone.