Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was nominally raised as vaguely Christian, as my dad is vaguely Protestant and my mom is vaguely Catholic. By vaguely I mean that neither attend church/mass regularly, nor pray regularly, nor really did anything to impart religion on my sister and me than some curt answers about the universe when we would ask about where things come from. "Oh, God did it. And he has a son Jesus. Etc."
By the time I was 13, I had basically reasoned my way out of any belief. For me it was like accepting Santa was not real, only a few years later. There wasn't a big revelation or anything. I just one day heard about a friend going to church, possibly, and said to myself "you know, I don't really think this is true."
As I hit high school, a good portion of my friend group was in the same position I was. Or, if not outright atheist, only nominally their religion. Cultural Christians and Cultural Jews, pretty much. But a few were more devout, so it was interesting having debates and discussions with them. All civil and cordial, of course. I even wound up going to a weekly "Teen Talk" held at a local Methodist church. A friend had invited me, as he enjoyed our civil debates. I rather enjoyed those talks, as I got to see more about the Christian perspective on things, albeit a very progressive-leaning version of Christianity.
Despite those meetings, I never seriously considered Christianity as anything other than mythology - the same way I view all religion, to this day. There are two religions, however, that do speak to me. Admiration for both came after reading specific books about them: VALIS and Cat's Cradle.
VALIS is a trippy sci-fi book by Philip K. Dick, which he wrote to try to understand certain peculiar occurrences in his life. He might even have called them miracles. He orients these miracles in the framework of Gnostic Christianity, which is a radically different interpretation of Biblical events than mainstream Christian thought.
Upon further research after finishing the novel, I did learn that there wasn't one Gnostic Branch per se, but rather a loose movement in early Christendom with several overlapping ideas. Some of these groups were more closely aligned in theology than others. But the theology presented by these groups hew more closely to what I would consider a just and moral universe, in that the universe is inherently made unjust, and that through certain teachings from Jesus, one can escape the prison that is this broken world. I like that idea. It doesn't lay blame of sin on mankind, and it actually addresses the problem of evil. It's a nifty little worldview. The only problem with me believing it is that it isn't true; or rather, the same lack of evidence and factual issues that won't permit me from taking any other religion as fact also apply to the Gnostics.
This brings me to my other favorite religion: Bokononism. This is a wholly invented religion by Kurt Vonnegut in his book Cat's Cradle. The beauty of this religion is that it is very upfront about its authenticity from the start. The first lines of the Book of Bokonon (the holy book described within Cat's Cradle) tell the reader that the religion is full of lies. It isn't true. Emphatically. And yet, the small island nation where the novel mostly takes place is full of devout Bokononists. Why? Because even though the tenets and principles are lies, the outcomes are good. The religion teaches you to be kind, to be curious, and to cherish what you can now. That, to me, is the purest distillation of when religions can be useful. When the outcomes are good, as well.
So there we go. While I remain atheist, I have an affinity for Gnostic Christianity and Bokononism.
Are you saying if a religious texts say everything is a lie, be kind, be curious, and follow Jesus's teachings, and escape the prison that the world is, you would follow that religion? What would following the religion mean to you? Would you pray to Jesus to guide you? What is stopping you from just following him now?
MIghty Queen Beautiful picture I love that type of architecture. When I was attending the Methodist church, the service consisted of responsive readings confessions prayers etc The monotone lack of any semblance of real emotion was similar to what I encountered in the Episcopal Low church that was closest to where we used to live. There seemed to be an almost "say it and get it over with" BUT sometimes, they deviated from the Eucharist rite 1 or II altogether....for part or most of the service, Most people there disliked the high mass and could not understand why others liked it.
When I was in college, the Episcopal church in our college town was a high church. And it was full of various professors from the college. The Dean of one of the colleges was even the teacher of the Sunday class before the service. It had the biggest gathering of intellectuals at any of the local churches I ever attended. I enjoyed it from the beginning
I did do ash Wednesday, but Lent never appealed to me like advent did. I had already had too many negative experiences centered around Easter by that point in my life that I was generally shying away from church that day.
The Episcopal church we visit now is farther away, but worth the 45 minute drive to get to it. Which in some cities, is nothing at all as far as commuting time However, aside from the priest who acts like he recognizes us, I doubt he knows my name, nor does it matter. I know no one who goes there either. But they sure do a great job with the Advent season
exploring other faiths means we list them and discuss them.
deity types
living universe types
non living types
past lives types
I don't have to have to say anything but you are wrong
What ones match what we see better? offer explanations, mechanisms, and make predictions?
I know, I know, I repeat the same thing. I should just repeat "bad religion" and "There is no convincing evidence for any deity" over and over and over and over and over ... The latter just makes so much more sense in helping people be the best they can be.
exploring other faiths means we list them and discuss them.
deity types
living universe types
non living types
past lives types
I don't have to have to say anything but you are wrong
What ones match what we see better? offer explanations, mechanisms, and make predictions?
I know, I know, I repeat the same thing. I should just repeat "bad religion" and "There is no convincing evidence for any deity" over and over and over and over and over ... The latter just makes so much more sense in helping people be the best they can be.
You repeat what you do about a tenth as much as:
**God Can Only Be The Deity Characters In Ancient Writings
**Problem of Evil/Suffering issues
**Most Badness In The World Comes from Religion...so, FFR
**Cheer Any Downturn In Theological Interest.
Keep on keepin' on...until your logical and reasonable points are addressed and sorted out here.
I'm new here, this is my first thread, and I'm asking a question that always comes throw my mind, do you try to explore other religions? maybe you find a truth in a path that not yours, or you just decide to follow your parents and community's religion or you took the easier way to reject them all ?
It seems you left the premises. Too bad because this was beginning to read like a better-than-average thread about a topic that has always been of interest to me for a variety of reasons...
However, I'm not too sure about your OP, because what you describe has been a process very long in the making for me. A good many decades in fact, and I don't think that coming to a conclusion about a religion or religion in general is taking the "easier way." No matter whether it is to embrace a religion or religion generally speaking, or whether to "reject them all." As I have come to do.
If the effort is as long, sincere and as considered as mine has been, I don't think the result is any kind of "easier way" in any case.
I'm also not sure that "reject" is the best choice of words here. My efforts have simply caused me to feel that all religions fall short one way or another. Enough that I am not able to become a follower like so many other religious people have become. "Easier way" is the sort of "loaded term" that suggests a bias in the mix that doesn't do much to promote an honest, objective, above-board discussion about the subject of religion.
You repeat what you do about a tenth as much as:
**God Can Only Be The Deity Characters In Ancient Writings
**Problem of Evil/Suffering issues
**Most Badness In The World Comes from Religion...so, FFR
**Cheer Any Downturn In Theological Interest.
Keep on keepin' on...until your logical and reasonable points are addressed and sorted out here.
yup ...
We say:
"lets see if the belief comports with what we see."
they say:
"You can't reason with god think".
lmao ... yeah, one is in a bubble of a statement of belief about god and one is outside of that bubble.
I bet they won't discuss who is who.
I bet they will not want to see who is cemented in a belief.
It seems you left the premises. Too bad because this was beginning to read like a better-than-average thread about a topic that has always been of interest to me for a variety of reasons...
However, I'm not too sure about your OP, because what you describe has been a process very long in the making for me. A good many decades in fact, and I don't think that coming to a conclusion about a religion or religion in general is taking the "easier way." No matter whether it is to embrace a religion or religion generally speaking, or whether to "reject them all." As I have come to do.
If the effort is as long, sincere and as considered as mine has been, I don't think the result is any kind of "easier way" in any case.
I'm also not sure that "reject" is the best choice of words here. My efforts have simply caused me to feel that all religions fall short one way or another. Enough that I am not able to become a follower like so many other religious people have become. "Easier way" is the sort of "loaded term" that suggests a bias in the mix that doesn't do much to promote an honest, objective, above-board discussion about the subject of religion.
Where'd you go I wonder...
Your response to my views here belies the bold big time, LearnMe. You seem to have taken the position of Phet that it is only "ONE person's far-out view" and it does NOT merit any serious or rigorous intellectual investigation because it refutes your atheism and does not adequately comport with the religious views you want to demean and denigrate.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 06-06-2022 at 09:50 AM..
Your response to my views here belies the bold big time, LearnMe. You seem to have taken the position of Phet that it is only "ONE person's far-out view" and it does NOT merit any serious or rigorous intellectual investigation because it refutes your atheism and does not adequately comport with the religious views you want to demean and denigrate.
I wasn't addressing you, and you are forever going off the rails one way or another, so mostly I just prefer to ignore you. This too, again, by you and yours about "demeaning and denigrating." In this comment of mine you quote I'm doing what I always do far as expressing my views and my reasons for them. Does this most recent comment of mine seem demeaning or denigrating to you? I don't think it is, yet...
There you go again. Please. In the name of agape love. Just please. I think some of you are always just itching for a fight. Have mercy.
Your response to my views here belies the bold big time, LearnMe. You seem to have taken the position of Phet that it is only "ONE person's far-out view" and it does NOT merit any serious or rigorous intellectual investigation because it refutes your atheism and does not adequately comport with the religious views you want to demean and denigrate.
When I began to seriously consider Buddhism, one of the first decisions I had to make was how wide to cast my net (so to speak) in the Buddhist world. It seems that I had two alternatives:
1. Stick with the Buddhism I had some actual experience with (Theravada), or
2. Study all the different forms of Buddhism
Since my travels focused on Thailand, I decided to focus my attention on Theravada Buddhism. That's where I had my conversations. That's where I did my reading. And I found that in order to remain focused at a manageable level in a maze of Buddhist traditions that it was best to focus on just Thai Theravada Buddhism (unless or until it didn't satisfy my needs). Little did I realize what a good decision that was since I discovered rather quickly how many different forms of Buddhism there are...and even how many different forms of Theravada Buddhism there are (over 30 forms of just Theravada Buddhism, alone, and then there's all the other cultural forms of Buddhism, with the most known versions Zen, Mahayanan, and Tibetan). And so the plan was to focus on Thai Theravada Buddhism until I find the need to branch out. I haven't felt that need. I am pretty much satisfied with Thai Theravadan Buddhism, particularly since -- in Buddhism -- one's journey is somewhat individualistic to begin with.
If I wanted to explore dozens of other forms of Buddhism, I could. If I wanted to go beyond Buddhism, I could. There are, literally, hundreds of religious sects out there. And then there are individuals -- like you -- who have their own homegrown religious beliefs based on their own personal experiences.
But having been a methodist as a child, having been a catholic as a young and middle-aged adult, I'm not going to keep branching out to look for more when I am already satisfied with what I have discovered. I can't verify all those individualistic spiritual beliefs, like yours. You're happy with yours, but I am not satisfied with a religious belief based on an individual confirmation basis. It's just like my belief in past-lives. You probably don't accept that because you cannot 'repeat my experiences'. That's fine with me.
I wasn't addressing you, and you are forever going off the rails one way or another, so mostly I just prefer to ignore you. This too, again, by you and yours about "demeaning and denigrating." In this comment of mine you quote I'm doing what I always do far as expressing my views and my reasons for them. Does this most recent comment of mine seem demeaning or denigrating to you? I don't think it is, yet...
There you go again. Please. In the name of agape love. Just please. I think some of you are always just itching for a fight. Have mercy.
To be honest with you, I have never found Mystic to be "itching for a fight". He is just very persistent in his own beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
