Welcome to Gaia! ::


**DISCLAIMER** - This topic is a difficult one to engage in, simply because nobody can simply cite a source and disprove another person's post/opinion. This thread is based on opinion and personal observation, and I would love to hear feedback on this, because it is something I've been thinking about for a long time. But please, do not post in here merely with the intent of bashing someone's beliefs. That will not be tolerated at all. Thank you in advance.

Before I even start:

No. When I say "True Faith," I do not mean Christianity. Nor do I mean my own religious/spiritual beliefs. That argument can be thrown out the window right now.

When referring to "True Faith" in the title, I am implying this; a solid and indestructible belief in a God/Goddess/Deity/Deities/Spirits/etc. I do not necessarily mean an organised religion, either, but some of my points are based loosely around that concept.

I find that, in today's modern society, where we strive to find information on everything and anything we can to satisfy our thirst for knowledge, that religion is becoming more and more scrutinised. There are even classes in high schools and universities based on learning the histories, ceremonies, and bases behind the time-honoured concept of religion, and the religions themselves.

But what can these classes really teach? Sure, they let you know what people who follow the faith believe in, and the ceremonies/rituals that you'd find in said following, but what about actually believing? Some people would walk out of those classes thinking that they'd "found" a new religion to believe in. Some would take this as a learning experience, and have a better understanding of other people's religions. Some would just take it at face value and never look at it again.

But how can you do that? How does one simply "pick" a religion, like a ballot from a hat? It seems demeaning and....well, to put it bluntly, bastardizing and insulting to the belief at hand.

In order to try and help clarify, I present five common concepts of religion:

Quote:
I - A belief in a deity or higher spiritual force which governs/affects humanity
II - Scriptures/Texts/Stories which provide a basis for moral behaviours.
III - Ceremonies/Festivals and some form of holy calendar
IV - Some kind of hierarchy
V - A spiritual guide/leader
**Note that these are common to many religions, but not all. These 5 things do not have to be present in order to classify something as a religion.

My stand;

One should not just "pick" a religion with no basic understanding of its concepts/ideals. A religion is something that you must discover within yourself, and not just follow because A) your parents made you or B) it's something you think is cool. A religious or spiritual belief must have more substance and sway in someone's life than just the opinions its followers hold. If one so happens to hold a firm belief in something that they were raised to believe, then so be it.

I leave this open to your thoughts and opinions. And please, though you may disagree, I ask that you're not harsh. I'll do the same in my responses. Many thanks.
I believe that a lot of people find, arguably, more comfort in the people aspect of organized religion than they do in the religion itself. It's all well and good to believe that there is an omnibenevolent deity floating around in the sky that loves you but will punish you if you're bad, but when there are other people believing (or at least saying) the same thing, you feel comforted. There's a saying, "misery loves company." Well, so does happiness and anger and, well, religiosity. That is why people seem readier to conform to others' beliefs than to formulate their own, in my opinion.
I can't speak for any religions except Christianity (I don't know nearly enough about them), but I can say I know this is an issue in the Christian community. For example, the Baptist Church believes in adult baptism so it won't be something a baby was born into. Many other Christian Churches have condemned this practice, because they say being in the church should be something you do your whole life. Personally I'm Anglican, but I agree very much with the idea that baptizing a baby is unfair to the child. And far from harming the Church as some are afraid of, I think having more people enter the Church by choice would make it much stronger. Look at how many people have turned against organized religion because they were forced into it, either because they genuinely disagree with it (and having those people in the church is bad for the church and for those people) or because they're rebelling against their parents (and those people might not hate the church if they weren't forced into it).

Anyway, I agree about there being a social aspect to religion, but when it comes to spirituality, nobody should be forced into anything. I happen to agree with the religion I was born into. My brother doesn't, and my parents have never tried to make him a Christian. But I have a friend who spent years in a Catholic school, and now rebels against the religion just because she hated being told what to believe. That kills the "true faith" in anyone, and brings "false faith" (whatever the opposite of true faith is) into the church.

Sparkly Explorer

I'd liketo just converse on the point of your post that a person shouldn't just follow a religion because it's something you agree with. In my opinion, if you agree with the religion, then you are already agreeing to do everything that's necessary to follow the religion. If you agree with it, then your agreement to it's doctrines, practices, etc. would already make it have more substance and sway in your life than just the opinions. I'd say that if you actually do agree with the religion, you're not only agreeing to it on a shallow basis, but you're agreeing to it in it's entirety. If you agree to a religion in it's entirety, then why is that not good enough to follow it?

I'd also like to understand better why you put the word "pick" with such a bad connotation. If you "pick" a religion, all you're doing is choosing to follow it. Some people need to look at religions to find which one they like. A person may already have their beliefs and such shaped within themselves, and then they may just need to find a name for their beliefs. Some people may look at a religion and say,"hey! That's what I've believed all my life! I'll actively follow X!" What's so wrong with "picking" a religion? How would you go about getting a religion if you don't "pick" one? Why is doing this bastardizing or insulting the religion?
SoundDoctrine
I'd liketo just converse on the point of your post that a person shouldn't just follow a religion because it's something you agree with. In my opinion, if you agree with the religion, then you are already agreeing to do everything that's necessary to follow the religion. If you agree with it, then your agreement to it's doctrines, practices, etc. would already make it have more substance and sway in your life than just the opinions. I'd say that if you actually do agree with the religion, you're not only agreeing to it on a shallow basis, but you're agreeing to it in it's entirety. If you agree to a religion in it's entirety, then why is that not good enough to follow it?
I am in no way disagreeing with what you've said, but from a personal standpoint, there's something else in a religion besides the doctrines and political (for lack of a better word) standings that should hold sway. I believe that there's a hidden force that unfortunately cannot be easily explained behind believing in something.

Example; When I realised that I was a Buddhist, I felt something inside, and it felt like a kind of epiphany that I hadn't found before. It left me with a kind of peace inside, letting me know that no matter how hard the times, everything would be alright. It's cheesy, I know, but that's pretty much how it happened.

Quote:
I'd also like to understand better why you put the word "pick" with such a bad connotation. If you "pick" a religion, all you're doing is choosing to follow it. Some people need to look at religions to find which one they like. A person may already have their beliefs and such shaped within themselves, and then they may just need to find a name for their beliefs. Some people may look at a religion and say,"hey! That's what I've believed all my life! I'll actively follow X!" What's so wrong with "picking" a religion? How would you go about getting a religion if you don't "pick" one? Why is doing this bastardizing or insulting the religion?
Again, I can't really explain this without a personal example, but here goes...

I wasn't directly referring to a specific anecdotal scenario, which is my fault. Anyway, from things I've encountered, there have been people who've claimed a religious faith, and know little or nothing about it. It's those kinds of scenarios which seem belittling to a faith-base, IMO. Sorry for not being clear. sweatdrop
I don't see much wrong with classes teaching what is often orthopraxic information. By comparison, given how little we understand about the basis of belief, and the tendency actually believing has to vary from person to person, I am strongly against any school that attempts to put that sort of thing into its curriculum.

Additionally, if any school wishes to inform students of 'good reasons to believe vs bad reasons to believe' and the like, I would hope that such proselytisation be kept to the religiously founded schools as opposed to those of the state. It is quite clearly a form of 'discrimination' towards students, given there will, in each case, be many to whom it doesn't apply.

As far as 'picking religions' go, so long as the individual in question is making an informed decision, that's better than nothing. Somehow - something I cannot understand - people seem to be able to distinguish how 'right' one religion feels as compared to another (say, a polytheistic nature based religion against a non-deistic methodism).

Sparkly Explorer

Poindextra
SoundDoctrine
I'd liketo just converse on the point of your post that a person shouldn't just follow a religion because it's something you agree with. In my opinion, if you agree with the religion, then you are already agreeing to do everything that's necessary to follow the religion. If you agree with it, then your agreement to it's doctrines, practices, etc. would already make it have more substance and sway in your life than just the opinions. I'd say that if you actually do agree with the religion, you're not only agreeing to it on a shallow basis, but you're agreeing to it in it's entirety. If you agree to a religion in it's entirety, then why is that not good enough to follow it?
I am in no way disagreeing with what you've said, but from a personal standpoint, there's something else in a religion besides the doctrines and political (for lack of a better word) standings that should hold sway. I believe that there's a hidden force that unfortunately cannot be easily explained behind believing in something.

Example; When I realised that I was a Buddhist, I felt something inside, and it felt like a kind of epiphany that I hadn't found before. It left me with a kind of peace inside, letting me know that no matter how hard the times, everything would be alright. It's cheesy, I know, but that's pretty much how it happened.

I don't think that's cheesy!
I guess my point was that if a person actually does agree to what the religion is, in it's entirety, that that force would come naturally. Like, for me, agreeing to my religion's doctrine on the Triune God just touches me. I don't just go,"That's so true. I agree with that.", I get this feeling that it's really true. Like, my God just has to be like that. Or, when I agree with my church's doctrine on the Lord's Supper, it's not just a regular statement of agreement, I also get a feeling that goes along with my agreement, and when I actually walk through my agreement (by that I mean it's not just lip-service, or word of mouth, I actually try and do what my religion says to do), I feel an euphoria. With agreement to the entire religion, I'm not talking about lip-service, I'm talking about agreeing to an extent where you read that a religion says to do X, then you say/think,"That sounds great! I want to do that!", and then you actually go and do X, because you agree with your religion.
Did that make sense, or did I ramble too much?
Quote:

Quote:
I'd also like to understand better why you put the word "pick" with such a bad connotation. If you "pick" a religion, all you're doing is choosing to follow it. Some people need to look at religions to find which one they like. A person may already have their beliefs and such shaped within themselves, and then they may just need to find a name for their beliefs. Some people may look at a religion and say,"hey! That's what I've believed all my life! I'll actively follow X!" What's so wrong with "picking" a religion? How would you go about getting a religion if you don't "pick" one? Why is doing this bastardizing or insulting the religion?
Again, I can't really explain this without a personal example, but here goes...

I wasn't directly referring to a specific anecdotal scenario, which is my fault. Anyway, from things I've encountered, there have been people who've claimed a religious faith, and know little or nothing about it. It's those kinds of scenarios which seem belittling to a faith-base, IMO. Sorry for not being clear. sweatdrop

Aha! Okay, thanks!
It makes more sense to me now.
I agree to that.
I usually just relate pick as a synonym of choose, so that's why I had a bit of trouble understanding your usuage of the word "pick". Thanks for your clarification.
SoundDoctrine

I don't think that's cheesy!
I guess my point was that if a person actually does agree to what the religion is, in it's entirety, that that force would come naturally. Like, for me, agreeing to my religion's doctrine on the Triune God just touches me. I don't just go,"That's so true. I agree with that.", I get this feeling that it's really true. Like, my God just has to be like that. Or, when I agree with my church's doctrine on the Lord's Supper, it's not just a regular statement of agreement, I also get a feeling that goes along with my agreement, and when I actually walk through my agreement (by that I mean it's not just lip-service, or word of mouth, I actually try and do what my religion says to do), I feel an euphoria. With agreement to the entire religion, I'm not talking about lip-service, I'm talking about agreeing to an extent where you read that a religion says to do X, then you say/think,"That sounds great! I want to do that!", and then you actually go and do X, because you agree with your religion.
Did that make sense, or did I ramble too much?
Not at all. Perfect sense.

And I can see what you mean by agreeing with a doctrine or practice, now.

Quote:

Aha! Okay, thanks!
It makes more sense to me now.
I agree to that.
I usually just relate pick as a synonym of choose, so that's why I had a bit of trouble understanding your usuage of the word "pick". Thanks for your clarification.
I was using pick in terms of the actual word itself, short and seemingly disconnected.
I don't believe in Faith.

In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.
Ursa Ecclesiae
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.


Who said anything about an afterlife being necessary for this? I said the root cause was a fear of death and ultimately, powerlessness and impotence in regards to the universe.
Ursa Ecclesiae
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.
Provide an example of one, as the ones I can think of have some form of explanation for what happens after death.
chikushou
Ursa Ecclesiae
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.
Provide an example of one, as the ones I can think of have some form of explanation for what happens after death.

Nihilism?
Xillania
chikushou
Ursa Ecclesiae
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.
Provide an example of one, as the ones I can think of have some form of explanation for what happens after death.

Nihilism?


Nihilism is a religion now?
Xillania
chikushou
Ursa Ecclesiae
ThePeerOrlando
In the 19 years I have been around, in all the places I have traveled and the things (good and bad) that I have seen, it seems to me that faith is nothing but another form of fear, that is created in accordance when one analyzes their eventual demise.


Ok, then commence to explaining the afterlifeless faiths.
Provide an example of one, as the ones I can think of have some form of explanation for what happens after death.

Nihilism?
Nihilism more or less claims that there is no 'truth', so even if it doesn't have a definite concept of afterlife, it provides some sort of closure.

As is, TPO's point still stands, as far as I can see.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum