What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Coriolis]

Guess you haven't been looking at the middle east enough.

. . . where most of the victims have been other Muslims.

 

[Lark]

Guess you haven't been looking at the middle east enough.

It probably is easier to deal with differences of opinion by imagining those opinions different from your own are a result of ignorance. So long as that works for you and you're satisfied with that I suppose you're unlikely to think any differently. Good luck with that.

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION], [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION], [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION], [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION], [MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION]

Please tell me what other gods you worship. Don't bore me by saying that you are an agnostic. Please accept my apologies if you have already mentioned this and I have missed it.

While I recognize agnosticism as the only logically defensible perspective, I have personal belief in deity. To me, deity is a unitary but infinitely multifaceted concept, such that humanity's various gods and pantheons are just representations of the same divine entity. People relate to different facets, and this can change over time as well, much as a man who is an instructor to you might be a brother to me; and much as your instructor might later become your colleague.

It probably is easier to deal with differences of opinion by imagining those opinions different from your own are a result of ignorance. So long as that works for you and you're satisfied with that I suppose you're unlikely to think any differently. Good luck with that.

I find quite often that those differences of opinion are in fact based on ignorance. This may be partly a result of the fact that I hesitate to form strong opinions on topics on which I have little knowledge. This seems to have little bearing on my luck, which is more a result of my own research and preparedness, but I can't say the same for the holders of the ignorant opinions.

 

[Lark]

I find quite often that those differences of opinion are in fact based on ignorance. This may be partly a result of the fact that I hesitate to form strong opinions on topics on which I have little knowledge. This seems to have little bearing on my luck, which is more a result of my own research and preparedness, but I can't say the same for the holders of the ignorant opinions.

I'm sorry that's been your experience, I wouldnt let it colour your opinion of everyone though.

If you are going to assume or attribute ignorance on the part of someone you are discussing a topic with why bother engaging in a discussion with them at all?

I'm never that sure about people I discuss things with until they demonstrate otherwise, given an opportunity they'll generally do so quickly, repeatedly, leave the evidence for most everyone to see.

 

[Xander]

Like most of my ilk I practice no recognisable religion, more I accept the world around me whilst waiting for the explanation to reveal itself.

I hold myself and myself alone accountable for my ethics, I blame no external authority corporeal or otherwise.

I believe in what I think unless I am given reason to doubt it but once given reason I will interrogate it rigorously.

Why I got to this point is a longer and more involved piece of thinking and one that may offend those who do feel belonging to a religion but hopefully not to those of a simpler faith. If you read on you do so of your own accord and I will hold you as accountable for your decision regarding this as I would myself.

I was raised in a family where religion played no great part. By and large the family could be described as church of England but only one I can think of goes to church or owns a bible they could lay their hand on in less than about 2 hours notice.

Of course in the school system we were taught almost exclusively the religion of the nation with a smattering of exposure to other religions.

Now as an INTP (I've been one for quite a while...even as a kid!), I'm not good with people telling me what to think so religion always had an uphill battle with me. I'm also no good with authority figures who assume authority for no decent reason.

Since that point I used to make it my mission in life to oppose religion for no other reason than it was accepted blindly by too many. This lead to my wondrous nom de guarre at school of "Antichrist" from my ,at the time partially christian, friend. Going forwards my rankling upset a fair few religious types and I didn't care or slow down. Having then met a few honestly faith filled souls and having injured them with my anger I tempered my ire. Slowly I learned that religious doesn't mean dumb or lacking in reasoning but rather a simple belief. Of course I still despise organised religion as in it's role as the central power in the faith but I'll tolerate it for such individuals to whom it forms guidance for their own personal experience.

Why do I so dislike organised religion?
It plays politics without thought to the damage that such narrow mindedness can bring.
They extol a line of thinking which is not subject to critical thinking or any such attempt gets diverted or sidelined as so aptly displayed by some of the faithful in this thread.
They try to capture the young like tobacco companies, figuring that if they hook them young then they can put the hook in real deep.
They actively avoid any kind of honesty (Catholic churches policy of moving priests accused of abuse...I'm looking at you).
They promote looking down on others as an offshoot of their preaching if not as the direct message.
They hoard money and yet claim to care for the poor.
They make up rules about things which aren't in their texts but they "interpret" them to allow their new ideas (personally I "interpret" anyone who prays on a bible to be committing idolatry, the same as those who bow before a cross, depictions of the crucifixion, the pope etc etc.
They lack conviction. If the pope were a real shepherd of god then he'd not need bullet proof glass. In fact he might shirk it to show his faith but instead his ass is more important than the message...shame Jesus kind of owned them on that score.
They claim to be humble and yet have ranks and robes and adornments a plenty.
They excuse any and all failings with a wave of the "well I'm not perfect" hand of a gambler.
They extol virtues that they don't abide by (the number of christians who don't love thy neighbour or forgive is an insult to their own faith and a rotten set of principles)
They claim non-violence but ignore violence committed by those they count in their congregation. The least they could do is excommunicate them and ban them from the places of worship.

Basically to my mind any member of the clergy of any religion should be trying to be beyond reproach. If they fail they should be ejected from the ranks who hold power and back into the "flock".

Don't get me wrong, I'm slightly jealous of those with faith as they have something simple and powerful that I neither feel nor understand. That does not however mean I'll sit by whilst an elitist organisation with poor morals and worst reasoning tries to dominate the landscape. I'd rather see every centre of worship razed to the ground and all the faithful left with simple gatherings.

The other thing which bugs me is people who think that having a religion makes them a nice person. Not true. The most kind and caring individuals I know neither have faith nor good manners but they are there for you when you need them. I do not chastise a dog for having less reasoning than me or no religion and in return I have the most solid of companions.

Wait for the righteous fervour of "but we're not animals" to build....

You'd like to think that. We're made in God's image and so forth...so how come there are girls? I mean you can't even grow the epic beard nevermind the booming voice...I hope (a female Brian Blessed would be terrifying!!!).

I read some of the stories of Socrates and that man had incredible reasoning...right up until he went all God's army and started to make assumptions because he was facing death. Perhaps that's the root of religion...a way to calm the nerves when facing the bleak beyond? Anyone who's seen "The Man Who Invented Lying" will know what I mean.

I watched Dogma (film by Kevin Smith) and a lot of the thinking in there made more sense than any religious text I've ever read. Okay so it's a comedy but it's written by a Catholic pointing out the ridiculous nature of the bible and it's treatment of women and the editing process applied to the texts. Wasn't there a big thing at one point that Jesus was more likely to be black (no I don't care if there's a new PC word for it, take offence if you hang your ego on words used by others)?

Dave Allen (another catholic comic) made a perfect observation when he described being taken to a convent run school when he was a boy. The nun asked if he was going to be a good boy, he looked behind the nun and saw the crucifixion. He thought "Shit...and they like this guy!!" and so answered yes.

A question to anyone who's read this far and is of a particularly dogmatic mindset, what do you think of those who believe in something other than your one true faith? Do you look down on them? Pity them? What if they are right and you just misheard...maybe didn't catch all the information in your revelation? What happens if that's the part of you that is imperfect?

Anyhow, I believe an idea is far superior to a religion. It can be discussed, changed and ridiculed without any wars being started. It can be updated without causing people to panic. It can be told to others as a suggestion of sense instead of applied like some hard sell.

That reminds me, some guy in Vegas trying to sell me time shares assured me he was a good christian. I wonder what he'd feel if he knew that went against him instead of for him? It's kind of like someone telling you they are popular. If they were they wouldn't need to say it.

I'm reminded of another christian having said that...She claimed that she was faultless. She never needed to apologise for anything because Jesus had died for her sins and she wasn't to blame because of that. She wasn't responsible. Sure it's a stupid take on it but it's an easy mistake for the sheep to make.

I have another friend who wants to study to become a proper accredited Buddhist something or other and they speak about as much sense as the other religions.
"You reincarnate"
"Why?"
"Because you do"

Where the hell do these people get off thinking that they are so superior to all other people that they can espouse some special knowledge that no one else can check or obtain but everyone must follow? If I walked up to you and tried to get you to follow me as a messiah you'd quite rightly tell me to go forth and multiply. These idiots did it before you even got here and just because the next few people you talk to say it's so you follow the same thinking!! Madness.

Of all the religions I've ever looked at Sikh seems the most "holy". At least they try to ensure, as a church and a private faith, that they achieve something worthwhile. Help make the world a little more just.

At it's most basic level, I can read a packet of biscuits and tell you that I've seen the word of god in these terms. I'm lying, of course, but there's no external way for you to establish the voracity of my claim and yet you will judge me, the church will judge me and the whole damn faith will judge me. No word of "let those without sin cast the first stone", nothing about "well we had a burning bush...this seems more sane than one of those talking to people", no mention of "well at least he's not claiming to be on his second or later incarnation...I'll take it". The faith accepts what it chooses to just like everyone else.

Now to the point of morals.
Religion may have codified morals but it doesn't own them. Dogs have morals. Fish have damn morals and no book tells them what to think. We don't kill each other at random because we are social creatures and such behaviour undermines cooperation. If you look at any religions set of rules you could basically sum them up by telling people to put the team first. You don't steal because it will piss your fellow tribesman off (not sure about coveting his cattle...think that's just under "unsuccessful reproduction experiments" and looked down upon). If you kill one of your tribe then it's one person less. It's weaker and by extension your position on this rock is similarly weaker. It's simple instinct codified and formalised.

On the point about the meaning of life...

Let me ask you this, who in the hell told you for indisputable fact, that there is a point? Why are we here? Why do you continue to ask such stupid questions get on with killing first born or something useful.

I'll end this multi rant expulsion of a part of my ire at religious organisations...I could go on for ages but I have a life which is not enriched by any god, faith or book of secrets...cept maybe the TV guide.

Something which made sense to me and took me further from organised religion

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

A quote for those who believe they have the "truth"..
(Yes it's from a TV series but the idea holds weight beyond the medium I first found it in)

G'Kar: If I take a lamp and shine it toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume that the light on the wall is God. But the light is not the goal of the search; it is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the sense of revelation upon seeing it! Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing. What we perceive as God, is the byproduct of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished, not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes we stand in front of the light and assume that we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do! Or we turn to look at our shadow, and assume that all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose; which is to use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty - and in all its flaws. And in so doing better understand the world around us.

The piece from Babylon 5 probably best sums up my position on faith and what I practice. I try to shine the light and look for information whilst constantly checking that I'm not getting in the way.

 

[Passacaglia]

Wasn't there a big thing at one point that Jesus was more likely to be black?

I think it was Jesus being Middle Eastern, due to he and Jerusalem being in well...the Middle East.

Also yes, Dogma is such a fun movie! George Carlin as a priest and Chris Rock as a disciple...

The piece from Babylon 5 probably best sums up my position on faith and what I practice. I try to shine the light and look for information whilst constantly checking that I'm not getting in the way.

I like that quote, and I feel like it could be used in an even wider metaphor to illustrate the distinction between...hm, atheism and agnosticism? Or spirituality and I'm-not-even-spiritual?

Anyhow, one -ism is actively searching for something with their lamp, while the other -ism is happy to be in the dark, confident that any grand Truth will surely make itself known with or without a search. (Also, we have cat-vision. )

 

[á´…eparted]

It probably is easier to deal with differences of opinion by imagining those opinions different from your own are a result of ignorance. So long as that works for you and you're satisfied with that I suppose you're unlikely to think any differently. Good luck with that.

Though it might appear that I am implying your ignorant on this, that's not the case. I'm fairly certain you're aware of the strife in the middle east. Pretty everyone does and you'd have to be living under a rock not to notice it. Thus, I made the assumption that you're aware. I just found the statement to be completely silly which is why I said what I said in a sarcastic like manner.

The fact of the matter is, if you announce your disagreement or rejection of Islam in parts of the middle east, you are indeed putting your life at risk. In some areas this is belief is punishable by death.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm sorry that's been your experience, I wouldnt let it colour your opinion of everyone though.

If you are going to assume or attribute ignorance on the part of someone you are discussing a topic with why bother engaging in a discussion with them at all?

I'm never that sure about people I discuss things with until they demonstrate otherwise, given an opportunity they'll generally do so quickly, repeatedly, leave the evidence for most everyone to see.

I don't consider someone ignorant of a topic until they do in fact demonstrate it. Why discuss something with an ignorant person? Everything I know, at some point I did not know. I learned it somehow, often through discourse with someone more knowledgeable than I. If the other person is ignorant, I can share what I know with them. If it turns out I am ignorant on the topic, I can learn from them. Not bothering to discuss is a recipe for perpetuating our collective ignorance.

[MENTION=70]Xander[/MENTION]: I agree with most of what you wrote, and have long avoided organized religion for similar reasons. It is interesting how your quote uses light as a metaphor. As I read it, light is not the result of your search either, but rather a tool you use in conducting it. You could use other tools instead or in addition. What the light shows you is the result, but of course you will find only what is available in the area of your search.

I have never envied people of simple faith. To me, that was just one small step away from blissful ignorance. I don't look down on people just for not sharing my faith, though. If I look down on anyone, it is on people who don't understand their own faith, who can't explain it in any rational or coherent manner, and who don't even bother to think about it and question it.

Though it might appear that I am implying your ignorant on this, that's not the case. I'm fairly certain you're aware of the strife in the middle east. Pretty everyone does and you'd have to be living under a rock not to notice it. Thus, I made the assumption that you're aware. I just found the statement to be completely silly which is why I said what I said in a sarcastic like manner.

One can be aware of an ongoing situation, but remain ignorant of its causes and precise nature. Many westerners who attempt to analyze the situation in the middle east fall into this category, though I am not specifying Lark among them.

 

[Xander]

I like that quote, and I feel like it could be used in an even wider metaphor to illustrate the distinction between...hm, atheism and agnosticism? Or spirituality and I'm-not-even-spiritual?

Anyhow, one -ism is actively searching for something with their lamp, while the other -ism is happy to be in the dark, confident that any grand Truth will surely make itself known with or without a search. (Also, we have cat-vision. )

I'm not sure about all these isms.. I tend to think of myself as neither an ism believer nor an ist. I'm kinda anti ist, well anti strong views which don't stem from a good set of principles.

Can we not have one of these groups that just "Oh you sit in the middle and wait to see who's got good points"? I could go for that one.

 

[Xander]

[MENTION=70]Xander[/MENTION]: I agree with most of what you wrote, and have long avoided organized religion for similar reasons.

Odd, most people at least give me a small kicking for being anti church.

It is interesting how your quote uses light as a metaphor. As I read it, light is not the result of your search either, but rather a tool you use in conducting it. You could use other tools instead or in addition. What the light shows you is the result, but of course you will find only what is available in the area of your search.

It also leads my mind to recall the idea that you should be careful when you set out to look for something that you don't just find exactly the way you expect because you're only looking for affirming data.

I have never envied people of simple faith. To me, that was just one small step away from blissful ignorance. I don't look down on people just for not sharing my faith, though. If I look down on anyone, it is on people who don't understand their own faith, who can't explain it in any rational or coherent manner, and who don't even bother to think about it and question it.

Whilst I see your point I liken it to one person trying to validate their choice of a bag which is totally unsuited to the task of carrying items without crippling the carrier as compared to someone who simply states "I just like it". There's a simple honesty to the latter whilst the former comes across as desperate grasping for validation.

One can be aware of an ongoing situation, but remain ignorant of its causes and precise nature. Many westerners who attempt to analyze the situation in the middle east fall into this category, though I am not specifying Lark among them.

A logical error in fact, to believe that the result can be easily tied to the cause.

Though I have to wonder if many of these "complicated issues" are not simple issues where the parties involved just want to keep disagreeing so they feel like they can score points.

Always seems to smack of a lack of an answer to the question "how much is enough?".

 

[ceecee]

I have never envied people of simple faith. To me, that was just one small step away from blissful ignorance. I don't look down on people just for not sharing my faith, though. If I look down on anyone, it is on people who don't understand their own faith, who can't explain it in any rational or coherent manner, and who don't even bother to think about it and question it.

I think this is what is so disconcerting about religion and faith to me. If a person can't talk to me without injecting their faith or their version of faith into a conversation (give it to god, it's in gods hands, god leads me), that's a problem. Not for me but for them because that level of ignorance is completely voluntary. It also seems like an acceptable crutch to avoid making difficult decisions or commanding their own life. It's much easier to let someone or something else do the work.

 

[Totenkindly]

Whilst I see your point I liken it to one person trying to validate their choice of a bag which is totally unsuited to the task of carrying items without crippling the carrier as compared to someone who simply states "I just like it". There's a simple honesty to the latter whilst the former comes across as desperate grasping for validation.

I've stated that on multiple occasions before. Choosing to believe something beyond what can be shown seems more fairly justifiable if you just admit a realistic personal basis for it (I want to believe, I see value in the beliefs themselves and so I choose to accept everything included, I personally like it, this is familiar to me and something I grew up with, etc.) I get more frustrated with all the distortions, like YEC or ID or whatever else, to try to support it.

 

[kyuuei]

Please tell me what other gods you worship. Don't bore me by saying that you are an agnostic. Please accept my apologies if you have already mentioned this and I have missed it.

Hahah. I pick and choose my gods. I find gods in the world to be created by images seen by man.. facets of the same source. So invoking a particular source and idea calls up a particular god.

I mostly stick to Norse gods and celtic pagan vague images of 'goddess' and 'god' because.. well.. I don't really pray that often and those are the ones I tend to know about the most. I don't find the need to in comparison to just meditating. But I do do it. I stay away from Greek gods, even though they interest me, because they seem so.. fickle and crazy.

 

[Lark]

I don't consider someone ignorant of a topic until they do in fact demonstrate it. Why discuss something with an ignorant person? Everything I know, at some point I did not know. I learned it somehow, often through discourse with someone more knowledgeable than I. If the other person is ignorant, I can share what I know with them. If it turns out I am ignorant on the topic, I can learn from them. Not bothering to discuss is a recipe for perpetuating our collective ignorance.

[MENTION=70]Xander[/MENTION]: I agree with most of what you wrote, and have long avoided organized religion for similar reasons. It is interesting how your quote uses light as a metaphor. As I read it, light is not the result of your search either, but rather a tool you use in conducting it. You could use other tools instead or in addition. What the light shows you is the result, but of course you will find only what is available in the area of your search.

I have never envied people of simple faith. To me, that was just one small step away from blissful ignorance. I don't look down on people just for not sharing my faith, though. If I look down on anyone, it is on people who don't understand their own faith, who can't explain it in any rational or coherent manner, and who don't even bother to think about it and question it.


One can be aware of an ongoing situation, but remain ignorant of its causes and precise nature. Many westerners who attempt to analyze the situation in the middle east fall into this category, though I am not specifying Lark among them.

I'm hesitant about the middle east for the same reasons I'm hesitant about Africa or even the Ukraine, in some ways, because I have heard some pretty silly but explicable given the main sources views expressed about northern ireland and the on going problems here.

In NI there's a clash of nationalisms, religious sectarianism and other political ideologies, like socialism and paramilitarism, combine that with a lot of revelations about organised sexual abuse on both sides of the border and both sides of the sectarian divide apparently organised and covered up by the establishment and its a perfect disaster and storm.

I'm sure that other contexts are as complex as that and the simplified accounts which make it through the media ringer are likely to be serving some all too obvious purpose.

 

[Lark]

I think this is what is so disconcerting about religion and faith to me. If a person can't talk to me without injecting their faith or their version of faith into a conversation (give it to god, it's in gods hands, god leads me), that's a problem. Not for me but for them because that level of ignorance is completely voluntary. It also seems like an acceptable crutch to avoid making difficult decisions or commanding their own life. It's much easier to let someone or something else do the work.

There's such thing as rational faith, I've read humanists and atheists talk about it but even people who are not naturalists or materialists or whatever can be pretty rational.

If you compare the scholars to the elements who subverted and, unfortunately, superseded them, in a supposedly progressive move, its not to difficult to discern a major difference in thinking.

Much of the discussion proceeds down blind alleys because repeatedly good secularism is compared with bad religion, which hopefully anyone religious or not would think the same way about.

 

[Lark]

I've stated that on multiple occasions before. Choosing to believe something beyond what can be shown seems more fairly justifiable if you just admit a realistic personal basis for it (I want to believe, I see value in the beliefs themselves and so I choose to accept everything included, I personally like it, this is familiar to me and something I grew up with, etc.) I get more frustrated with all the distortions, like YEC or ID or whatever else, to try to support it.

Those things are all legacies of the higher criticism and discoveries of victorian bible hunters, its only a big problem for any tradition which is solo scriptural and biblical literalist.

I read a good quote today, although it was in relation to Freud, about how if a theory hadnt changed in the years after its originator demise it wasnt a good theory but some sort of fossil remains and also not reflective of the theorising of its originator either. I'm sure the same could be said of the bible too.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure about all these isms.. I tend to think of myself as neither an ism believer nor an ist. I'm kinda anti ist, well anti strong views which don't stem from a good set of principles.

Can we not have one of these groups that just "Oh you sit in the middle and wait to see who's got good points"? I could go for that one.

Pragmatism.

Although you dont like isms.

I think you'd like GK Chesterton or benefit from giving him a read.

 

[Xander]

Pragmatism.

Although you dont like isms.

I think you'd like GK Chesterton or benefit from giving him a read.

Having read a short excerpt from Orthodoxy, I'd be inclined to agree.

Thanks.

 

[Passacaglia]

I'm not sure about all these isms.. I tend to think of myself as neither an ism believer nor an ist. I'm kinda anti ist, well anti strong views which don't stem from a good set of principles.

Alright alright, everyone's a special snowflake.

Can we not have one of these groups that just "Oh you sit in the middle and wait to see who's got good points"? I could go for that one.

I think there's a word for that, but it's an -ism.

 

[Lark]

Having read a short excerpt from Orthodoxy, I'd be inclined to agree.

Thanks.

I think his response to Nietzsche's idea of beyond good and evil is priceless.