I wouldn't expect anything else from bloody protestants 
Religion Thread
- 主题发起人 Catholic
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
I'm not sure there's a satisfying definition hat incorporates everything considered religion.
1. There must be gods - but that excludes Buddhism (although it accepts gods, but they're irrelevant) or Confucianism a.o.
2. Any religion accepted by the state - but that excludes forbidden religions (like Scientology in Germany)
3. A set of moral/ethical rules/guidelines - but that includes any moral philosophy (from Aristotle to Kant, Fromm and Nietzsche)
4. A mythology explaining the existence of most things - but sciences do that too.
5. An institution with an organisation upholding the traditions - but that includes some companies and other organisations (Greenpeace, Universities etc.)
The reasoning for Germany to ban Scientology is actually an interesting case where Scientology is seen as:
"an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution".
1. There must be gods - but that excludes Buddhism (although it accepts gods, but they're irrelevant) or Confucianism a.o.
2. Any religion accepted by the state - but that excludes forbidden religions (like Scientology in Germany)
3. A set of moral/ethical rules/guidelines - but that includes any moral philosophy (from Aristotle to Kant, Fromm and Nietzsche)
4. A mythology explaining the existence of most things - but sciences do that too.
5. An institution with an organisation upholding the traditions - but that includes some companies and other organisations (Greenpeace, Universities etc.)
The reasoning for Germany to ban Scientology is actually an interesting case where Scientology is seen as:
"an abusive business masquerading as a religion and believes that it pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in the German constitution".
I'd say belief in a higher power of some sort, rather than specifically gods. Why does the religions need to be accepted by the state? In Ancient Rome Chritianity was originally outlawed, did it suddenly become a religion when Constantine declared it legal?
I agree with the need for some sort of moral/ethical code and some form of mythology. I'd say the last one, an established order to keep the traditions, is the main difference between organized and unorganized religions, as some of the more... Some religions don't really have priests and such, and therefore have more... Open traditions.
I agree with the need for some sort of moral/ethical code and some form of mythology. I'd say the last one, an established order to keep the traditions, is the main difference between organized and unorganized religions, as some of the more... Some religions don't really have priests and such, and therefore have more... Open traditions.
I'd say religion is primarily an emotional issue. It's making sense of the seeming chaos, recognizing that there are some permanent, immutable rules, or rhythm, that existence is neither random, nor pointless, this then becomes "the sacred" and it is then your (mostly) joyful duty to submit yourself to the sacred.
rebelsquirrell
Grandmaster Knight
Yea verily after three days this thread shall rise again
I find it strange that this poll doesn't have the option to change our votes. People's religion do change often.
There's actually an option to enable vote changing when you create a poll.Feragorn 说:
The catch is, you can't enable it on an existing poll, you have to start a new one.
Did your religion recently change?
About that, I wanted to ask some things. The main idea is how and why anyone would change his/her faith system, in this day and age? I get how it could go earlier in history. No available religious texts, power of the educated clergy vs. an exceedingly large amount of illiteracy, tons of superstition(we still have that, but yeah), 'forced' change, either just for show or for real, under duress etc. The list is pretty much endless, concerning those less illuminated times.
But now, most of those things are non-existent, you can have every religious text you want in any format you find easier to read or even listen to, there's (in most cases) no force that compels you to change religion. I don't think there was ever another period with the amount of free will we have today. And most important of all, the peer pressure is lessened in religion, too. And since religion is based solely on faith, isnt' it strange for someone to change his entire belief system? And just to be clear, I know there are conversions still, but those are mostly of people previously indifferent to religion follwoing one. I am talking about some who was stongly following Religion A and then follows Religion B, which often is opposite Religion A. It's a bit strange to do a 180o turn on your beliefs, otherwise.
Just a question/rant to get the thread going a bit. And since we have Magorian around, I thought I should take advantage.
But now, most of those things are non-existent, you can have every religious text you want in any format you find easier to read or even listen to, there's (in most cases) no force that compels you to change religion. I don't think there was ever another period with the amount of free will we have today. And most important of all, the peer pressure is lessened in religion, too. And since religion is based solely on faith, isnt' it strange for someone to change his entire belief system? And just to be clear, I know there are conversions still, but those are mostly of people previously indifferent to religion follwoing one. I am talking about some who was stongly following Religion A and then follows Religion B, which often is opposite Religion A. It's a bit strange to do a 180o turn on your beliefs, otherwise.
Just a question/rant to get the thread going a bit. And since we have Magorian around, I thought I should take advantage.
Well, yeah. I think it is contrasting like this in my mind, too, that's why I asked. I mean, religion was always a matter of conviction, yes? What I meant was, earlier in history, even if you had no belief, you were forced to at least appear to believe. Now, noone's forcing you to choose anything. So, assuming you followerd Religion A, on your own free will, wouldn't that mean that you had formed a strong belief in something? Assuming you were an 'active' member of said religion(not fanatic, but more than indifferent). Then, how could this strong conviction be turn to something completely different, again based on conviction? Since we are talking about pure faith, I mean, not knowledge that you can store and change as you go. And if the answer is lack of conviction, or at least, not highly developed one, then do you truly 'believe'?
Oof, that is confusing.
Oof, that is confusing.
I see. Even if the modern world offers more freedom, I think most religious people are "born into it", from their parents. It's not so much a choice to begin with.
Now they just later in life - due to more information and critical thinking - realise there are many other options, and see the logical cracks in their faith.
Now they just later in life - due to more information and critical thinking - realise there are many other options, and see the logical cracks in their faith.
Most people are not deep thinkers and about any religion can give you the general, abstract assurance that the world is not a random, meaningless mess. What they care more about is "the community" so if they don't like it, they go to the next thing. If your priest is a boring and uninspiring dunce and the women in your church gossipy skanks, you can just change your parish or denomination if it's really bad. When people go from Episcopalian straight to Papuan shamanism, it's usually a byproduct of a mental breakdown.
Americans are very religious and Europeans are not. Which explanation do you think is the most supported by evidence?
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1208628232116944898
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1208628232116944898
Institutional irreligion in Europe is a byproduct of the long disappointment in and distrust of institutions that culminated after ww2. Institutions in America didn't fail as much as they did in Europe. It wasn't bombed and shelled to hell and back, didn't have tens of millions die violently in a span of 30 years and while it did have the Great Depression, it also had a lot of untapped potential due to its mass and relative under-population, so there were still new horizons and places to go, while Europe was just growing more crowded, angry and resentful.
I my case, I was born into a Sunni family. Although not very religious, it was important especially for elders in my family. Later when I was a teenager I became an atheist because of the amount of stupidity in this religion. Then I got very interested in languages and saw how people twisted sentences to change their meanings and became aware that Quran was not really telling what people thought it was. At that point I realized that Sunnis and atheists in Turkey were defending the same thing; what islam really is. It was according to them cravings of madmen vs prophets. But they were not using logic to reach their conclusion. Then I decided that I was neither a Sunni or an atheist. I was simply me and whatever I understood from everything only concerned me. So my religion is the ancalimon religion.
Well, that sums it up pretty nicely. And at the same time is the most ancalimon thing ever.
But seriously, thanks for sharing. I guess that a similar course happens for most people, but many are too "bound" by rules and names, either of a religion or peer pressure to declare that they follow their own ideas, intead labeling themselves atheists or belonging to a religion.
