Religious Beliefs/Affiliation?

[Yip]

But, the basis for your assertation that organized religion = bad is erroneous.

While organized religion isn't inherently bad, it goes that way -very- easily. The biggest reason for this, in my opinion, is that organized religion allows the religion to become it's own entity, and it's an entity that only really cares about itself, not the people in it.

[Sigurd Volsung]

As far as organized religions go one can NEVER ignore the wars, butchery, and other evils done in the name of "The Church" (Many different sects have done this so I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular). The men who led the slaughter of people are often considered holy men. Let's consider one of the worst I can think of without even having to think, St. Patrick who led the slaughter of the druids at was granted Sainthood for genocide. And don't give me any excuse that he removed the snakes from Ireland, the snakes were the Celts and his way of removing them was through murder. To many organized religions kill because people believe differently than they do.

[J. March OHare]

Sigurd Volsung: "As far as organized religions go one can NEVER ignore the wars, butchery, and other evils done in the name of 'The Church'..."

<sigh>

In Reply #36 on the previous page, in my response to the OP's Question #11, I wrote, I don't fit into any major Western religious group (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They're too hidebound and dogmatic for me. In fact, I could easily be convinced that the Big Western Three are evil. "Ye shall know them by their fruits"? Well, they've borne some pretty rotten fruits.

However, it seems to me y'all are tarring religion with a very broad brush. I'm hard pressed to come up with examples of Buddhists or Taoists behaving like that. Eastern people slaughter each other over ambition, empire and resources same as any human tribe, but I don't see as much over religion. But, maybe I only think that because I don't know Asian history as well as I know European and Middle Eastern history.

So I'm askin'. You tell me.

Anyway, I do know that neither Buddhism nor Taoism contains anything like the concept of "God's Chosen People." Judaism and its two retarded offspring, Christianity and Islam, do. Eastern spiritualism is more a matter of philosophy than of exclusivity or dogma. If it tells you anything it's that We Are One... and that includes your enemy.

Jesus tried to get that idea across too, but it didn't take. Instead, the noisiest Christians run around quoting Leviticus, Deuteronomy and other hateful Old Testament garbage. Uh, hello! Last time I was a Christian (about 40 years ago), I was taught that Jesus was a whole new deal. He's like the ambassadorial avatar of God, representing a radical revision of the Supreme Being's foreign policy, so tear that rotten OT off the Bible and throw it in a bonfire. Only keep it around for historians, who can presumably tell the difference between the myths of ancient tribes and the literal Word of GOD.

Ironically, if Jesus existed, it's likely that he was an enlightened master of the Eastern kind. Much of the stuff he said is consistent with that, but somehow it got lost in translation. He must've facepalmed a lot.

[Mooshi]

Regarding Buddism and the like. They are the only sorts of 'religion' that I approve of as far as organization goes. It's more a philosophy and about seeking enlightment. A religion that can legitimate claim to be a peaceful one. Unlike Islam... There is no slaugther in a gods name or judgemental threats such as "you're going to hell!!!"

[Dusty]

Buddhists certainly have the capacity to be as intolerant as any other religious folk, y'know. Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions.

[J. March OHare]

Mooshi: "Unlike Islam... There is no slaugther in a gods name or judgemental threats such as 'you're going to hell!!!'"

Unlike any of the Big Western Three, you mean: all three great Abrahamic religions. In a sense, Muslims and Christians are brothers, parented by Jews. All three faiths contain the Torah: the five books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Read them sometime. They'll tell you all you need to know about why the Abrahamic religions are as violent and punitive as they are.

Sometimes I think the Torah should be considered a profane work. It certainly contains enough sex, murder, justification of immoral acts and profanity. I can't even describe everything it depicts in plain language here. If you really believe everything in it is to be taken literally, you have no choice but to accept that God is a sadistic, stupid bureaucrat.

In my darker moments, I sometimes think YHWH was a demon... or more properly a dæmon: a non-corporeal entity including angels and demons, without any implication of "good" or "evil" attached to the name. I'm half convinced that such non-corporeal entities exist and have been called various things in different places, including angels, demons, elves, fairies, djinn and perhaps even "alien grays." Not all of them are nice. Calling them is about as advisable as standing on a busy street corner in a bad neighborhood and yelling, "Hey, come be my best friend! I don't care who you are or what you've done! Here, I'll take you up to my apartment and show you where I keep all my stuff!"

I don't believe they're "supernatural." It's all natural. If it helps, think of them in terms of quantum physics, as extradimensional or extrauniversal visitors. Maybe YHWH was one of them. Or, more likely, maybe a handful of power-hungry pathological nutcases driven mad by the desert heat made Him up.

However, the more I dig into ontology the more I suspect that there isn't any difference. Thoughtforms are real enough. Just look at what they do.

Dusty: "Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions."

Show me one good pogrom though, one good auto de fé. Give me something on par with the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, because "perceive to be a threat" implies defense, not offense.

The Abrahamic religions have all, at one time or another and in more than one epoch each, become as offensive as they could possibly get.

[Sigurd Volsung]

I'm taking Ohare's side on this.

In one series of stories I am working on there is a bar called the Mystic Wolf where gods from all pantheons come to have a good time. There is only one god who would never enter out of fear and that is "that second rate, punk, patron god of self promoters, Jehovah" because if he did his mother, yes Jehovah had a mother by means of creative editing and rewrites to the Bible she went from being Jehovah's mother, then to his wife, then to his first created human cast out of Eden for refusing to submit to Adam, where she went to Hell laid down with Lucifer (which chronologically makes no sense since Lucifer was cast out of Heaven because he was jealous of man so he shouldn't have been in Hell yet) where she gave birth to all demons. The point being is that in the story Lilith is more the happy to wait for Jehovah to show his head so she can rip it off.

As I'm sure you can tell by this opinion I truly hate Judaism and it's two hate filled children Islam and Christianity. I feel that while many of the practitioners of these faiths may be good people, the faiths themselves are almost entirely evil. Even the sects that claim to be totally non-violent, such as the Amish, often hide dirty secrets including sexual violence as the gold standard. Friend of mine to a college sociology paper on the Amish and found that rape and child abuse are the norm, so much for them being nice people.

The original Western, Pagan, religions were a bit more peaceful and did not hide behind the idea that theirs was the only true church. The Viking Gods may have all been Gods of War but at least they didn't send their followers out to kill people because of their religion. Even the Romans weren't that bad considering the fact they kept adopting gods from different cultures. What happens the Catholic Church causes the fall of Rome not directly but it was the cause, and then starts stealing holidays of other religions to make their downfall all the easier. I pray that I live long enough for the Vatican and Jerusalem burn.

As I said the followers are not necessarily bad people, in fact I'm sure most are good hard working individuals but well see above

[Dusty]

Dusty: "Take for example the Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka who regularly protest and discriminate against other religious groups they perceive to be a threat to their religion and traditions."

Show me one good pogrom though, one good auto de fé. Give me something on par with the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, because "perceive to be a threat" implies defense, not offense.

Well there's the killing and detainment of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians (who are predominately Hindu and Christian) over the last few years alone by the ultra nationalistic, Sinhalese Buddhist population and government.

[Drake Blackpaw]

Far be it for me to be a defender of organized religion, but I think there is too much generalization going on about the sins of the major religions.  Yes, certain sects of all major religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.. have done atrocities in the name of their religion.  However, there are other sects of these same religions that haven't.  I guess if you want to say all Christianity is descended from the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches would challenge this argument, then you can say their sins apply to all.  But at some point you need to focus on today and not the past.  Today we have groups in each major religion that are violent and groups in each major religion that work on helping others and uniting people.  

Perhaps it's best to say that organized religion is a powerful tool.  One that can be used for both good and bad. Unfortunately, when it is used for bad, the results can be devastating.  That doesn't mean all organized religion is tainted with a bad brush.

I'm certainly not a fan of organized religion, but since I left the area I grew up in, I got exposed to groups that have much more moderate views and at least in my mind, do much more good than harm to the world.  Twenty years ago I'd be right in the thick of things saying organized religion (and Christianity) were the worst things that happened to the world.  I guessed I've mellowed out on this topic.  You still won't see me attending a church, but my animosity towards religion has toned down a lot.

[J. March OHare]

Dusty: "...there's the killing and detainment of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians (who are predominately Hindu and Christian) over the last few years alone by the ultra nationalistic, Sinhalese Buddhist population and government."

That's not a religious conflict though. Read up on it. It's a post-colonial thing that got rolling, really, the moment the British granted Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) independence in 1948. There were already ethnic tensions and some nasty politics over the national language (sound familiar, Arizona?) but in the end it came down to the Tamil (Tamils, Tamilians, whatever) wanting to secede from Sri Lanka.

Governments always go for that, right? They say, "Sure, go ahead and secede! Here, take this big chunk of land you didn't ask for, too!" Yeah, that's the ticket, just like the U.S. said to the South in 1861. </sarcasm>

If putting down a secession is "ultra nationalistic," just call the U.S. (and Israel, etc.) ultra nationalistic. Of course, I'd agree that they are, but that in no way concedes that the Sri Lankan Civil War was religious. The Sinhalese majority did what any party in power would do. Surely you're not defending the Tamil Tigers, are you? It would seem they started it. They practically pioneered suicide bombing. There's blood all over their hands.

Anyway, my point is, that's not a religious conflict. Religious tension is probably part of it for some people (how much on each side I cannot say, although I can make an educated guess), but there's also ethnic tension, political tension, economic tension, nationalistic tension... in short, all those things that go into any civil war.

It is not a religious conflict. It's a civil war. In the final analysis, colonialism did it again.

[Rift]

1.) I'm a philosophistic Christian (a christian who believes slighlty different, like I don't believe being gay is a sin. though I'm not)

2.) I believe in the trinity, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. Basically wat anyother Chrisian believes in

3.) I think that when we die we r judge by our heart, not our actions (as stated in the bible, but people take SIN to literally)

4.) I don't think a person who sins for the good of others has done anything wrong. God sees and knows y we do wat we do

5.) The philosophistuc side is my side that blends religions, like I follow Buddist beliefs that if u live everyday the best u can then u will have a good afterlife

6.) Yes, though its confusing (even for me lol) that 3 things make one person (Jesus, God, and the holy spirit = Lord an savior)

7.) No, I only have one God

8.) No

9.) The Christian God

10.) No

11.) Kind of, I beleive in Christianity, but I have my own set beliefs that switch around from other religious origion. I still stride to make my Lord proud though

12.) No, I believe when it comes to politics you do anything for the good of the people. Not for your own religious input

13.) lol long story but i believe god has always been and started something which lead to another thing. I mixed science and religion into one with my explenation

14.) Not really, there was a small time i didn't believe in God, but then I became a believer and now here i am today

[J. March OHare]

Rift: "...its confusing (even for me lol) that 3 things make one person (Jesus, God, and the holy spirit = Lord an savior)"

Read up on First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and all will become clear: just more political mumbo-jumbo.* A bunch of powerful guys got together and said "This is how it will be." You can stop being confused. It was all about control.


*Added in Edit: Alexandre edited this post. I have re-edited it to something that more closely approximates my original meaning.

Alexandre, I have sent you a P.M. It is intended for all the board administrators, not only for you, so please share it with your peers.

[Alexandre]

As Kobuk said:

Since this thread was actually started as a "survey" by having people answer 14 different questions, Perhaps it would be better if we continued as such. Therefore, please continue all debates via PM. Thanks.

If this thread continues to go along those routes, we will need to close it.  I'm okay with discussing beliefs in an understanding manner, but attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated.

[J. March OHare]

Alexandre: "...attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated."

Attacking beliefs is not attacking the person. Attacking beliefs is what debate is all about. If this thread is to be held down to a dull list of survey results, perhaps it would be best if Administration moved it, locked it or deleted it, because it is not appropriate for the Debate Forum.

[Kobuk]

All right, I've sent a PM to the OP asking for clarification on whether this topic stays here or gets moved elsewhere. Until I get a reply back, KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL, and members can continue to answer the original 14 questions as the OP had originally posted.

[Shim]

1.) What do you consider your religion to be?
Judaism
2.) What beliefs do you hold that are consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")

3.) What beliefs do you hold that are NOT consistent within that religious group? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Homosexuality, of course.

4.) Do you disagree with any of the beliefs or practices that your religion is based off of? (If you don't follow any particular religion, put "N/A")
Obviously, homosexuality.  Also, not using electricity during holidays.  Its considered making fire, which is associated with work.  Back then, people did not seem to know that fire and electricity are separate things, so it has been integrated into the religion.  Along with that, The laws of נגיעה (Pronounced "Negiah").  To sum up, after bar/bat-mitzvah, at the age of 12 or 13, you are not allowed to touch a member of the opposite gender.  Let me repeat.  Not allowed to TOUCH, or have any physical intereaction with whatsoever.  There are sexual exceptions, but I'm not going into that here (and only the mega-orthodox follow that particular law anyway.)

5.) Do you not follow any particular religion? If so, what are your beliefs?
N/A I suppose.  Not sure I understand..

6.) Would you consider yourself monotheistic? (Believe in one God) Why?
Following Judaism, yes, I believe in one.  Why?  I'm not entirely sure.

7.) Would you consider yourself Polytheistic? (Belief in more than one God) Why?
Nope.  Again, said above.

8.) Would you consider your beliefs more akin to monolatry? (Belief in a God that is one and many. In other words, many Gods that come from the same one force. Examples: Hinduism, Kemetic Orthodoxy) Why?
Again, no.  Monotheistic here.

9.) Which God/Gods do you worship?
Yaweh, is the English pronunciation

10.) Do you consider yourself Pagan, or not Pagan?
Not Pagan.

11.) Do you find you do NOT fit into any particular religious group? If so, why?
Any religion that is not Judaism, I suppose.

12.) What is your political standpoint? Is it influenced by your religious beliefs in any way?
It only affects my opinion on Israel as a whole, but I'm not in the mood to get into that here.

13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?
This is an interesting one for me.  I hate to think that I'm not allowed to believe in science and religion at the same time.  What if science and creationism happened together?  Let me explain:

1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

^^This could be the big bang?^^

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)

Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.

Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things

Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.

14.) Did you convert, or were you born into this religion? If you converted, what were you originally?
Born Jewish, still am.

[Kobuk]

As to my Post # 65 further above, I have recieved word back from the OP of this thread. This thread can remain in this forum for members to debate if they choose. If you choose not to debate with anyone, then you can simply answer the original 14 questions as normal. You don't have to take part in any discussions if you don't want to. All rules and guidelines for debating in this forum will continued to be followed as mentioned here:
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php/topic,36687.0.html

[Spirit]

13.) Do you have a particular belief about how creation began?[/color]
This is an interesting one for me.  I hate to think that I'm not allowed to believe in science and religion at the same time.  What if science and creationism happened together?  Let me explain:

1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

^^This could be the big bang?^^

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)

Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.

Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things

Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.

14.)

I didn't really answer that question fully, but that's exactly my thoughts.

[Yip]

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness. - (Already explained)

Day 2: Heaven - The atmosphere came into place, and the sky as we know it was now visible.

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation. - The earth started to take form

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars. Took form as we know it.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air. The first animals started moving around, and evolution as we know it started.

Day 6: Land animals and people. More evolutionary things

Day 7: God "rested". The world as we know it today started evolving and moving on its own.

And you don't have a problem with the fact that according to this, the earth was formed and and had plants BEFORE the sun was formed? Even if you try to say, "as we know them now", sorry, but there was no major change in how the sun was between when plants formed and now.  And that's just one problem, there are many. It seems obvious to me that this was just a tale made back when people didn't know any better. So you really have to twist it to get to even come close to what we now know actually happened thanks to science.

[Avan]

Alexandre: "...attacking someone's beliefs won't be tolerated."

Attacking beliefs is not attacking the person. Attacking beliefs is what debate is all about. If this thread is to be held down to a dull list of survey results, perhaps it would be best if Administration moved it, locked it or deleted it, because it is not appropriate for the Debate Forum.

Quite true!

But perhaps a little clarification is in order as to what 'attacking' means, so that people don't misinterpret this and go wild; attacking is /not/ going 'that's stupid' and leaving it at that, but rather using a logical, convincing and cohesive argument to undermine the basis of the other argument(s) by invalidating either the logic and/or premises used to generate the conclusions, and/or perhaps even the conclusions themselves, by bringing up evidence to the contrary.

[Mooshi]

Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment.  The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species!

[Avan]

Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment.  The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species!

That sure is one sadistic cosmic entity, if they had the power to do anything about it anyways. Anyways, yeah, not exactly the newest of thoughts, but perhaps the most creative way of putting it. 

[Alexandre]

Here is an alternative viewpoint. Ever think that religion itself is like some sort of trolling on a massive scale? Think about it seriouslly for a moment.  The vague threats, great promises for killing in your gods name, the "my god is better than your god" complex, the childish attitude of "I'm right and you're WRONG" stance some people have and all the contradictions listed in the "holy texts" themselves. If there is a cosmic entity out there in the universe, it's loling over mankind's collective ignorance towards their own species!

I think this way of thinking becomes problematic.  Some people honestly feel that way; however, others seem to be much more accepting of beliefs outside their religion.

Mind you, I used to be a Mormon missionary, and I can't tell you how many discussions I got into telling people I knew I was right.  That's what we were taught to do.  It was in the form of "bearing testimony," as we put it, but it was basically a way to say "I'm right and you're wrong."  Unfortunately, that in and of itself caused discussion between people to end.   It's annoying to look back on what I had done before and see that I was so closed minded... but, then again, that's what I had been taught to do.

Personally, even though I'm agnostic now, I see others' religions as beautiful things.  A lot can be learned and gained from these groups.  I just wish some of them were more tolerant of outside views.

(and also, sorry for the mass confusion I may have caused earlier in the thread; as Kobuk said, debate away )

[J. March OHare]

Alexandre: "...sorry for the mass confusion I may have caused earlier in the thread..."

You seem like a nice person, Alexandre. As with being a Mormon missionary, you were probably just doing what you were taught to do.

I think the anger comes in not because of differing beliefs, but because of the "God's Chosen" meme so prevalent in the Abrahamic religions. It was present in Judaism before Christianity or Islam were ever even a twinkle in anyone's eye, and it carried over. "I'm right and you're wrong because THIS BOOK SAYS SO and GOD IS ON MY SIDE!" is not a great way to win friends and influence people.

For anyone not intimidated by it, it's a great impetus to think, What a maroon! and walk away disgusted instead.

[Avan]

I think what Mooshi was saying was 'Don't take it seriously' (the 'trollish' aspect of religions that do that); there are more serious things to debate than the validity of wild claims, considering that wild, un-backed claims have no place in debating, and can simply be immediately discarded as invalid.
At least that's how I interpreted it.

What's a 'maroon' by the way? Maroon is a verb, not a noun, as far I know, so it's clearly either a term I've never heard of or a typo.