What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Nicodemus]

You poked my heart.

You shouldn't lend your heart to phonies.

 

[Totenkindly]

Just as abused children instinctively defend their abusing parents and blame themselves, so our first instinct is to defend God and defame man.

I could as easily rattle off something like, "Just as abused children instinctively defend their abusing parents and blame others who might accuse them, so our first instinct is to defame the character and beliefs of others so that we might knee before and service our own swollen ideals."

Does that make what I said true?

So much assumption parading as givens around here, and it makes it hard to find connection points so that actual dialogue might occur.

 

[Evee]

I am an agnostic not entirely an atheist.

I will start believing in god if he (who is all powerful and exsits here and everywhere) proves his existence to me. I am not going to believe in him because someone else believes in him or what has been said or proof given in a book.

Just do it god just do it!

Or your believers can come to your rescue and tell me what i expect is wrong.

Do you meditate, Riva?

 

[EJCC]

If you're a Christian, you're going to hell for not being something else, and if you're something else, you're going to hell for not being a Christian. So I don't see the point in bothering to get out of bed early to attend church or mosque or whatever. If I'm going to hell, I may as well do it with a good night's rest.

The fact that I DON'T believe this, and the fact that my church doesn't believe it either, is a big part of why I'm still a churchgoing Christian. If I'd been raised in a stricter denomination, I would have converted by now, either to Unitarian Universalism or to agnosticism. I don't think I could ever be an atheist, for the typical agnostic reason (i.e. how could I know either way?).

I question my faith most of the time. I generally view scripture as historical literature, more than a book of rules. My connection with the Episcopal church has more to do with culture and morals than it has to do with theology -- though I don't mind the theology either. So, more conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans would probably call me "culturally Episcopalian", much as people are "culturally Jewish" or "raised Catholic". But I try to go to church when I can, and I find myself moved and inspired by the texts and music when I go. I feel more motivated to be a good person and to treat people well. To live a good life. And in the end, isn't that what organized religion should be about?

 

[Lark]

The fact that I DON'T believe this, and the fact that my church doesn't believe it either, is a big part of why I'm still a churchgoing Christian. If I'd been raised in a stricter denomination, I would have converted by now, either to Unitarian Universalism or to agnosticism. I don't think I could ever be an atheist, for the typical agnostic reason (i.e. how could I know either way?).

I question my faith most of the time. I generally view scripture as historical literature, more than a book of rules. My connection with the Episcopal church has more to do with culture and morals than it has to do with theology -- though I don't mind the theology either. So, more conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans would probably call me "culturally Episcopalian", much as people are "culturally Jewish" or "raised Catholic". But I try to go to church when I can, and I find myself moved and inspired by the texts and music when I go. I feel more motivated to be a good person and to treat people well. To live a good life. And in the end, isn't that what organized religion should be about?

To be honest just as you get the political labelling of individuals as "in name only", such as R(epublican)INO or D(emocrat)INO, you get Christian in name only too, and there's a whole history of the the disputes associated with that label its not worth going into probably but ultimately labels and labelling is a human, all to human activity, I'm sure it does not determine anyones fate or life everlasting, although it can be useful to individuals themselves thinking about it or thinking about their own personal identity, that's all probably.

 

[Mole]

Meditation Without Religion

Do you meditate, Riva?

All the riches of meditation are now available to us without the trappings of religion, brought to us by Sam Harris in his book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

Many of us are drawn to spirituality in meditation or contemplation but we had to wade through religion to get there. But thankfully, no more.

You are drawn to contemplative walks through the woods, and I practice a daily walking meditation.

Sam Harris is a good example of the results of the practice of meditation. And I rather like it myself. As I slowly walk, my mind slows down, and the world of beauty opens for me - almost by magic, but actually by meditation.

 

[EJCC]

To be honest just as you get the political labelling of individuals as "in name only", such as R(epublican)INO or D(emocrat)INO, you get Christian in name only too, and there's a whole history of the the disputes associated with that label its not worth going into probably but ultimately labels and labelling is a human, all to human activity, I'm sure it does not determine anyones fate or life everlasting, although it can be useful to individuals themselves thinking about it or thinking about their own personal identity, that's all probably.

I completely agree.

 

[Qlip]

It takes some discipline, but I don't believe in anything, or maybe I believe everything within its own sphere of existence. I don't really see the need to affix truth in my mind to things that I haven't had first hand knowledge of, it seems a way to preserve your pet fancies within the safety of ignorance. Sure, it could be a way to avoid the pain of running into things like hell and bad karma head-on, but if the universe isn't fair enough to give some solid warning, fuck it.

 

[Lark]

It takes some discipline, but I don't believe in anything, or maybe I believe everything within its own sphere of existence. I don't really see the need to affix truth in my mind to things that I haven't had first hand knowledge of, it seems a way to preserve your pet fancies within the safety of ignorance. Sure, it could be a way to avoid the pain of running into things like hell and bad karma head-on, but if the universe isn't fair enough to give some solid warning, fuck it.

So long as you find that satisfactory, there's still other ways of looking at things though if that changes.

 

[Qlip]

So long as you find that satisfactory, there's still other ways of looking at things though if that changes.

I doubt it would be more enriching. Direct experience reveals a lot more than people give credit for.

 

[Lark]

I doubt it would be more enriching. Direct experience reveals a lot more than people give credit for.

I dont know, I've heard that said but we only have one life to live its better to benefit from the wisdom of the ages, which includes indirect experience and others experience, because time is limited.

 

[Qlip]

I dont know, I've heard that said but we only have one life to live its better to benefit from the wisdom of the ages, which includes indirect experience and others experience, because time is limited.

It's not that I'm not informed at all by others' experience, that's a ridiculous notion. I just prefer to convert knowledge to wisdom and I am the sole arbiter of what adds value to my existence.

 

[Mole]

We can now have AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) without religion with Share! click on SHARE!

And we can now have meditation without religion with Sam Harris' book Waking up: Spirituality Without Religion. To hear chapter one read by Sam Harris himself click on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP20eBfp2oM

So we are starting to realize the riches of religion without the trappings of theology.

 

[Studmuffin23]

Christian pacifist.

Over time, I've come to realize that unconditional love is the only thing worth living for.

 

[Nicodemus]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION], what does it say about our time that among the opinions in this thread there are two associated with the realm of atheism but not even one for Judaism?

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION], what does it say about our time that among the opinions in this thread there are two associated with the realm of atheism but not even one for Judaism?

See below:

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.

I don't like to talk too much about it, for fear of sounding preachy, but since I was asked....

I do Judaism. My mother raised our family in some traditions during my childhood, then these faded away in my late teen and university years, as I lost interest in the spiritual side of things. After graduating, I slowly decided to re-investigate, so now I am solidly in the Jewish fold again.

<usw>

So we are starting to realize the riches of religion without the trappings of theology.

In contrast with groups like the Nazis, who realized the trappings of religion without the riches of theology.

 

[Riva]

Do you meditate, Riva?

I do something called kayanupassana.

 

[Lark]

It's not that I'm not informed at all by others' experience, that's a ridiculous notion. I just prefer to convert knowledge to wisdom and I am the sole arbiter of what adds value to my existence.

I know its ridiculous to suppose that, although its what you'd posted sort of implies, people dont give credit to the unspoken influence or weight of history much, whether its personal history or the world.

Very true point about being the final arbiter, that's inescapable.

 

[Rambling]

Actually Stalin was committed to International Communism which is a totalitarian ideology based on absolute power.

That is indeed what he said or claimed, but part of this ideology in action was a definite and persistent attempt to remove and eradicate all religion; he closed churches and murdered church leaders with that deliberate aim. Looking at his actions, historically recorded, you are fudging the issue to deny the truth of his persecution and attempt to eradicate religion. It was part of his ideology in practice. What he *called* it is less important than what he *did* in my view. And your calling it something else certainly does not alter what happened, which is what I correctly referenced.

And how terrifying it is to think that God is the abuser. It turns our world on its head. Far better to believe the doctrine of Victimology. Rather than confront the abuser, we like to fool ourselves that being a victim will save us.

This is the psychology of children of abusive parents. The abused child is unable to face the fact that the person they depend on is their abuser.

And in exactly the same way we are unable to face the fact that the God who we believe created us, sustains us, and has the power of life and death over us, is also our abuser.

There is no doubt that some things in life are not to one's liking or that some things cause one to suffer. I think you and I agree on that.

Either there is a God or there isn't. That's a fact which has a particular truth value, regardless of what either of us decides to think about it or how each of us acts.

If there is no God, then it becomes impossible to *logically* defend right as better than wrong, good as better than bad, patience as better than anger, peace as better than war, self control as better than rape, because each to his own selfishness and the strongest will win. There is no *moral* argument to prevent the man who says he judges that he enjoys killing and torturing people to death for his own pleasure, if morals are absent, and the presence of morals implies a common morality or common moral depth across many or all people; such *common* depth is where God is found, since it is not part of the physical world alone to assume that all people have by instinct or intuition the same moral standards.

The presence of such intuition indicates a knowledge or access to knowledge by a different method than the physical intake of knowledge, this is moral knowledge and its commonality is at the least as the beginnings of folk religion. This kind of knowledge and seeking for what this might be is seeking for God and trying to find out what God might be like in practical and pragmatic terms.

Now I happen to believe (by which I mean I act on the belief in my life on a day to day basis, not that I merely attend church or repeat meaningless prayers; I have integrity in these matters) that Jesus is the best human representative of the transcendent God. I don't have time here to itemise what led me to that conclusion, but it is my conclusion.

With reference to your point about God being the abuser, you immediately reference an abusive *parent*. Ignoring the potential for the parent to carry their own guilt (this is the only recourse in a universe without God, as I have explained above) then the question arises that 'how can God allow this to happen (allow the child to suffer) and God must ultimately be to blame since He is the First Cause of the universe?'

I have a personal admiration for a person who can maintain their character under pressure, keep their integrity when suffering or desth await. I think such situations test the true mettle and integrity of a person. Proud words about how one might act are usually proved wrong by the pressure of a real life situation. Heroes and heroines become apparent only when they actually face a dangerous situation.

Therefore to test the morals, mettle, faith, integrity, what-you-like-to-call-it of a person, real life testing *has* to come along into their life. I admire Bonhoeffer not least for his bravery in his real life up against the Nazis. Had God not allowed that testing, I would not admire him, and i would value his teaching and words less than I do. The two work together. Suffering and testing show ones character to the world. There is a value and a character development that only comes through hard times. Thus I would allow that The transcendent God has a purpose for me in my own small experiences of suffering, because they develop my character and allow me to see and grieve over my moral flaws and failings. And think about how to improve.

Now I argue that God is transcendent so He does not know the size of the test He gives us; this is answered in Jesus who without any extra help or knowledge beyond that which is available to any man or woman (see note below) succeeds in keeping his integrity under the most extreme fire from all areas and through a nasty persecution, an abusive and unfair trial and a shameful naked death. I admire that man. And by a strange quirk, I note further that this man in particular, this Jesus, that He endows His followers with the inner strength, inner fire, inner conviction and inner joy to replicate this feat; not to live strong powerful lives fearing every challenge and fighting to maintain the fearful supremacy of the innerly weak abuser, but radiant and joyful in affliction, faithful in hope and fervent in true prayer and relationship with the transcendent God of the universe: true peace innerly. Stronger than the strength of man.

I say, available to all men and women...this was not available before Jesus came, but is promised now to all who believe.

In answer then - to the abuser in a situation where I am feeling abused - I would say something like this - 'your ab-use of me has caused me to seek God, but surprisingly I found that He was Himself abused and that He was also a Victim, He was One with me in my abuse, which makes me feel a oneness with God which I did not previously know, and so despite your intentions your abuse of me has blessed me. However you, the abuser, need to question why you need to hurt others in order to prove yourself better than them...that action shows moral weakness psychologically'.

I simplify, of course, since there are times in my life when I have been in some small way on each side of that equation.

And exactly the same way, for 70 years, it was impossible for the police, for prosecutors, for politicians, for journalists, to believe that Priests and Brothers of God were raping children holus bolus across the globe and were protected by their institution and getting away with it.

The expression of total power, of God-like power, was being able to rape vulnerable children in their care and be protected by their institution. It was the expression of absolute, God-like power.

I have answered this in generic terms. The people involved in the cases you cite may have known about it and still not done their bit to stop it. But I think I have pulled out the deeper spiritual implications, which is more in line with the intention of this thread.

Good to talk to you. You made me think it through afresh and it has taken me some time to respond to you as a result.

 

[Lark]

Christian pacifist.

Over time, I've come to realize that unconditional love is the only thing worth living for.

This is interesting to me, would you elaborate?

I am a Christian humanist, in part because I realise that we are all human, all to human, even when Christ was incarnate, unascended etc. he was capable of actions which were human, all to human (which can lead to some good discussions of what is sin and is it just a matter of ethical culture and conduct and personal morality), which involves violence too.

What do you think about unconditional love? I have considered this at some length and still do, its very interesting.