God, religion, and other light topics
Oct. 18th, 2000 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petermarcusFeel free to exercise your free will: skip this entry if I get pedantic. It's a doozy.
From The Religion Selector, which Nikki had on her page. Here's my breakdown:
Sikhism (score=100)
Mahayana Buddhist (score=93)
Hindu (score=89)
Neo-Pagan (score=86)
Unitarian Universalist (score=75)
Theravada Buddhist (score=71)
Liberal Quaker (score=69)
New Age (score=65)
Mainline to Liberal Protestant (score=60)
Reform Judaism (score=58)
New Thought (score=57)
Scientology (score=57)
Orthodox Quaker (score=53)
Jainism (score=46)
Baháí (score=42)
Christian Science (score=42)
Humanist (score=42)
Latter Day Saints (score=42)
Seventh Day Adventist (score=40)
Orthodox Judaism (score=39)
Mainline to Conservative Protestant (score=38)
Atheist/Agnostic (score=32)
Eastern Orthodox (score=32)
Islam (score=32)
Jehovahs Witness (score=32)
Roman Catholic (score=32)
A friend in college was a sikh, but we never talked religion. But, then, I was a crystal-toting, solstace-observing, new age neo-pagan in college (though I've mellowed in my old age). I was raised Roman Catholic -- heck, I was even an altar boy. I agree with many of the mysteries and core philosophies of Catholicism, especially the theory of spiritualism through personal sacrifice, but I disagree with much of the dogma. Philosophy was one of my hobbies/undeclared minors in college, and I chuckle at the list above. Like me and catholicism, I agree with some of the philosophies high on my list, but I disagree with the base 'facts' of the religion. I shudder to see Scientology so high on my list.
This is an interesting time we live in. Historically, of course, there was no real choice of religion. You followed whichever religion or philosophy was the most politically powerful, or kept your beliefs to yourself (though one could always became a martyr if so inclined). Has the freedom of religious choice actually harmed mankind, instead of making it stronger? One could argue that the choice is a good thing, that most religions or philosophies are pacific and good, and through more exposure to different beliefs one may find a message that resonates personally and enables one to become a better person.
On the other hand, part of me chuckles that this is the ultimate arrogance of mankind. Choosing a g-d/religion/philosophy based on what 'sounds good' to a lowly human, who by definition is probably a sinner/unenlightened/lost soul, may be the ultimate concession to egotism. "Gee, ya know, I'd like to follow Roman Catholicism, but I don't buy the whole 'fetus is a human' routine, so I think I'll go sit on a mountaintop during the autumnal equinox instead." Not to pick any one particular dogma, but there are things in life that just aren't the way we want them to be. Relatives die, people get sick when they can't afford to be, I'd like to be able to find the cure for cancer but I'll never be able to, and wishing otherwise is just another form of escape, not a facing of reality. Is spiritualism any different, even though it may be a different reality? Can we pick a philosophy based on what sounds good to us, or are there realities beyond what we would like to believe?
I can't stop without dropping my two philosophies of good living (and I'll even cop out and say you don't have to agree with me -- it's your soul, do what you feel you have to do):
1. Spiritual growth only occurs when one thinks they are worth it. Treat others with respect and treat yourself with respect, because respect is the best way for one to know s/he has worth.
2. Much evil in the world is due to rationalization. Sacrifice creates discipline, and discipline assists impartial thinking, allowing one to defeat rationalization. Sacrifice may be simple and relatively meaningless (ie. don't eat pork), or it may be a lifestyle (ie. renounce all worldly goods). It's the sacrifice itself that aids discipline, not the loss of the object(s) of sacrifice.
From The Religion Selector, which Nikki had on her page. Here's my breakdown:
Sikhism (score=100)
Mahayana Buddhist (score=93)
Hindu (score=89)
Neo-Pagan (score=86)
Unitarian Universalist (score=75)
Theravada Buddhist (score=71)
Liberal Quaker (score=69)
New Age (score=65)
Mainline to Liberal Protestant (score=60)
Reform Judaism (score=58)
New Thought (score=57)
Scientology (score=57)
Orthodox Quaker (score=53)
Jainism (score=46)
Baháí (score=42)
Christian Science (score=42)
Humanist (score=42)
Latter Day Saints (score=42)
Seventh Day Adventist (score=40)
Orthodox Judaism (score=39)
Mainline to Conservative Protestant (score=38)
Atheist/Agnostic (score=32)
Eastern Orthodox (score=32)
Islam (score=32)
Jehovahs Witness (score=32)
Roman Catholic (score=32)
A friend in college was a sikh, but we never talked religion. But, then, I was a crystal-toting, solstace-observing, new age neo-pagan in college (though I've mellowed in my old age). I was raised Roman Catholic -- heck, I was even an altar boy. I agree with many of the mysteries and core philosophies of Catholicism, especially the theory of spiritualism through personal sacrifice, but I disagree with much of the dogma. Philosophy was one of my hobbies/undeclared minors in college, and I chuckle at the list above. Like me and catholicism, I agree with some of the philosophies high on my list, but I disagree with the base 'facts' of the religion. I shudder to see Scientology so high on my list.
This is an interesting time we live in. Historically, of course, there was no real choice of religion. You followed whichever religion or philosophy was the most politically powerful, or kept your beliefs to yourself (though one could always became a martyr if so inclined). Has the freedom of religious choice actually harmed mankind, instead of making it stronger? One could argue that the choice is a good thing, that most religions or philosophies are pacific and good, and through more exposure to different beliefs one may find a message that resonates personally and enables one to become a better person.
On the other hand, part of me chuckles that this is the ultimate arrogance of mankind. Choosing a g-d/religion/philosophy based on what 'sounds good' to a lowly human, who by definition is probably a sinner/unenlightened/lost soul, may be the ultimate concession to egotism. "Gee, ya know, I'd like to follow Roman Catholicism, but I don't buy the whole 'fetus is a human' routine, so I think I'll go sit on a mountaintop during the autumnal equinox instead." Not to pick any one particular dogma, but there are things in life that just aren't the way we want them to be. Relatives die, people get sick when they can't afford to be, I'd like to be able to find the cure for cancer but I'll never be able to, and wishing otherwise is just another form of escape, not a facing of reality. Is spiritualism any different, even though it may be a different reality? Can we pick a philosophy based on what sounds good to us, or are there realities beyond what we would like to believe?
I can't stop without dropping my two philosophies of good living (and I'll even cop out and say you don't have to agree with me -- it's your soul, do what you feel you have to do):
1. Spiritual growth only occurs when one thinks they are worth it. Treat others with respect and treat yourself with respect, because respect is the best way for one to know s/he has worth.
2. Much evil in the world is due to rationalization. Sacrifice creates discipline, and discipline assists impartial thinking, allowing one to defeat rationalization. Sacrifice may be simple and relatively meaningless (ie. don't eat pork), or it may be a lifestyle (ie. renounce all worldly goods). It's the sacrifice itself that aids discipline, not the loss of the object(s) of sacrifice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-18 03:10 pm (UTC)Curious, though. I can buy the "I don't like this part" being flippant, egotistical. But what if certain things (like, say, believing that homosexuality is wrong, or that this powerful diety is so judgemental that you'll be cast into a fiery pit to burn eternally, or that it's sinful to seek medical attention) just *don't* make sense to someone? But they see a religion that does believe the same doctrines as they do. Is that egotistical? What if they believe that following certain rites--be them baptism, meditation, fasting, whatever--is the only way to heaven/enlightenment/salvation, but they were brought up in, say, a Catholic family? Is it right for them to learn the catachisms (eek, spelling there!) and observe communion and participate in confessional, even though in their heart of hearts they really don't believe that? Should they practice the rites and rituals of what does make sense to them in hiding, or even not at all? Or should they follow what feels true to them and convert faiths?
Re: on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-18 04:05 pm (UTC)When we get right down to it, none of us really know and we do have to trust our spiritual instincts. But, we also have to realize that we don't know for sure, and that just because we want something to be a certain way, doesn't mean it really is. However, I think it is within human possibility to make good guesses about spirituality, if one isn't too swayed by rationalization (for instance, my own view of homosexuality is that morally it's probably no different than heterosexuality -- those that are in long-term relationships are probably more moral than those who are in the 'lover-of-the-night club', but it's also something that's very situation-specific).
All MHO, of course ;-) Whew, didn't mean to type so much....
Re: on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-18 04:12 pm (UTC)Re: on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-19 04:20 am (UTC)Weird how you can "know" someone for forever, and only see them as a bungee-jumping writer on a forum... only to find out that they not only are an individual, but someone with whom you could actually calmly relate, even in this day and age.
;)
Re: on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-19 06:07 am (UTC)Re: on religion (dangerous subject?)
Date: 2000-10-19 06:30 am (UTC):)