Personal Religious Practices

[Carlos Thin]

Jewish, but raised in a agnostic family (Jewish on the mother's side), and living in Ireland you're always somewhat Catholic (going to school and generally by the people around you.) We informally celebrated things like Passover, Hanukkah and Yom Kippur (which usually consisted of fancy dinner and a phonecall to the relatives in the States.) We didn't live by a Jewish community so there wasn't much of a point of following up on practicing. My mother soon converted to Quakerism, but on my own I've met others and we make an effort to make the trip to celebrate the high holidays.

tl;dr I'm not a full Jew, I'm merely Jewish

 

[klystron]

This is exactly why I dislike Richard Dawkins. He's a great scientist and I loved reading The Greatest Show on Earth, because it was mostly about evolution, but I just hate when he tries to claim that evolution disproves the existence of a god. Specific gods, sure, but only if you're going by a pretty strict interpretation of the holy text. If you think that the Earth was created in 7 days, Adam and Eve were real people, and there really was a talking snake, then evolution disproves that. If you think the story of Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for how sin entered the world, then evolution disproves jack shit about that.

Agreed. As a Christian I am open to the possibility that the story of Genesis is just that. Yes I might offend other Christians where I live by saying that, but I feel that if we close our mind to things we'll never find the truth. I am sure God wants us to find the truth just as much as He wants us to believe. It's not a sin to try and prove He is there by any and all means, after all.

Oh, and Genesis can certainly be a metaphor for how God viewed the eventual creation of human beings as well. After all for an infinite being surely the supposed billions of years it took for creation to evolve from nothing to Chris-chan (kind of like going full circle) are as but a day.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Agreed. As a Christian I am open to the possibility that the story of Genesis is just that. Yes I might offend other Christians where I live by saying that, but I feel that if we close our mind to things we'll never find the truth. I am sure God wants us to find the truth just as much as He wants us to believe. It's not a sin to try and prove He is there by any and all means, after all.

Oh, and Genesis can certainly be a metaphor for how God viewed the eventual creation of human beings as well. After all for an infinite being surely the supposed billions of years it took for creation to evolve from nothing to Our Pet Lolcow (kind of like going full circle) are as but a day.

A moderately religious person is pretty much kryptonite to scientific arguments against god. As long as you're not overly dogmatic, it's easy to fit god into a scientific world view. That's why I've always found Hitchens' arguments more compelling. Occam's Razor also makes an excellent point: if the universe could have come into being without the interference of a god, then why impose the god hypothesis at all? Still, that doesn't rule out the universe being ruled by a deist god or Sheogorath.

 

[Fredegunde]

My religion is Kemeticism, which is Ancient Egyptian paganism.

One thing about it that really appeals to me is the respect given to ancestors and the past. Something that makes me uncomfortable in normal society is I guess what I would call the ethnocentrism of the present. Once upon a time I wanted to be a medievalist, and I had such intense feelings of the humanity of all of these people who lived and died long ago. Their cultural norms were also things that the vast majority of people in the West today would find totally repulsive. But I feel like it's immensely disrespectful to write anything we disagree with off as, "Oh, they were just ignorant and foolish" or "They were just being hateful." To me it's an important part of spirituality to come to terms with the fact that, for instance, otherwise decent people who were sincerely committed to their beliefs could approve of burning heretics alive and believe that this was absolutely the morally right thing to do. I think there's something arrogant and short-sighted about responding to situations like that by saying, "Well, they just had a repressive culture, but we know better now." Someday you'll be one being looked back on and called ignorant.

 

[StallChaser]

My religion is Kemeticism, which is Ancient Egyptian paganism.

One thing about it that really appeals to me is the respect given to ancestors and the past. Something that makes me uncomfortable in normal society is I guess what I would call the ethnocentrism of the present. Once upon a time I wanted to be a medievalist, and I had such intense feelings of the humanity of all of these people who lived and died long ago. Their cultural norms were also things that the vast majority of people in the West today would find totally repulsive. But I feel like it's immensely disrespectful to write anything we disagree with off as, "Oh, they were just ignorant and foolish" or "They were just being hateful." To me it's an important part of spirituality to come to terms with the fact that, for instance, otherwise decent people who were sincerely committed to their beliefs could approve of burning heretics alive and believe that this was absolutely the morally right thing to do. I think there's something arrogant and short-sighted about responding to situations like that by saying, "Well, they just had a repressive culture, but we know better now." Someday you'll be one being looked back on and called ignorant.

There are some beliefs that don't deserve any respect. Burning heretics is one of those things. Slavery is another. Terrorism is another. When someone grows up in a world where they have no idea it's even possible to live a better way, there's a word for that. Ignorance. Ignorance isn't the fault of the ignorant person, unless it's deliberate. I don't think anyone's saying the past is full of bad people when they point out racism, extreme fundamentalism, or slavery. Just that the beliefs and principles behind it are bad. If we ignore history (or sugarcoat it), we're doomed to repeat it. If this means people from 1000 years in the future will see us as ignorant, then so be it. They'll be right.

 

[Fredegunde]

There are some beliefs that don't deserve any respect. Burning heretics is one of those things. Slavery is another. Terrorism is another. When someone grows up in a world where they have no idea it's even possible to live a better way, there's a word for that. Ignorance. Ignorance isn't the fault of the ignorant person, unless it's deliberate. I don't think anyone's saying the past is full of bad people when they point out racism, extreme fundamentalism, or slavery. Just that the beliefs and principles behind it are bad. If we ignore history (or sugarcoat it), we're doomed to repeat it. If this means people from 1000 years in the future will see us as ignorant, then so be it. They'll be right.

I think I may have phrased my original point poorly. I don't think calling a group of people ignorant is wrong if you mean the term in its literal sense of "Not having access to a certain kind of knowledge." And for instance as it relates to medieval people, you really are talking about a society in which decision-makers were usually very young and had significantly fewer resources to use in making their decisions, so you would be right. The problem, though, with deciding that any belief you don't like comes from a place of ignorance is that it seems like the "They didn't know what they were doing, but we know better now" people often seem to be the ones who become the most dogmatic and fanatical. When people start to either demonize or pity those they deem ignorant, it's a strong indication that they desire an easy way to dismiss dissent.

Europe used to be trapped in pagan darkness, but now we know better, and we know what the true religion is, so we should burn heretics whose presence threatens to undo all this good work and damn millions of souls. People used to have all sorts of superstitious and ignorant beliefs, but now, thanks to education and modern science, we're starting to understand how the world really works, and we have scientific proof that Jews and blacks are biologically inferior and must not be allowed to edge in on good white people. . . . Etc. etc. (I mean, as far as ignorance and hatefulness as primary reasons for evil go, it's worth noting that Germany prior to the world wars was one of the best-educated and least antisemitic countries in Europe.)

But also, I think there's really no point in trying to decide whether anyone else is right or wrong. I think the only thing you can do is settle on a principle you sincerely believe in and stick to it. You decide terrorism is wrong. Perhaps when you die, you will find out that the terrorists were right all along and you should have been slaughtering more infidels. But any God who would condemn you for not doing a thing you believed immoral is in my opinion no God at all.

 

[Marvin]

I think I may have phrased my original point poorly. I don't think calling a group of people ignorant is wrong if you mean the term in its literal sense of "Not having access to a certain kind of knowledge." And for instance as it relates to medieval people, you really are talking about a society in which decision-makers were usually very young and had significantly fewer resources to use in making their decisions, so you would be right. The problem, though, with deciding that any belief you don't like comes from a place of ignorance is that it seems like the "They didn't know what they were doing, but we know better now" people often seem to be the ones who become the most dogmatic and fanatical. When people start to either demonize or pity those they deem ignorant, it's a strong indication that they desire an easy way to dismiss dissent.

Europe used to be trapped in pagan darkness, but now we know better, and we know what the true religion is, so we should burn heretics whose presence threatens to undo all this good work and damn millions of souls. People used to have all sorts of superstitious and ignorant beliefs, but now, thanks to education and modern science, we're starting to understand how the world really works, and we have scientific proof that Jews and blacks are biologically inferior and must not be allowed to edge in on good white people. . . . Etc. etc. (I mean, as far as ignorance and hatefulness as primary reasons for evil go, it's worth noting that Germany prior to the world wars was one of the best-educated and least antisemitic countries in Europe.)

But also, I think there's really no point in trying to decide whether anyone else is right or wrong. I think the only thing you can do is settle on a principle you sincerely believe in and stick to it. You decide terrorism is wrong. Perhaps when you die, you will find out that the terrorists were right all along and you should have been slaughtering more infidels. But any God who would condemn you for not doing a thing you believed immoral is in my opinion no God at all.

Might makes right. And that's absolutely correct. People get self righteous a lot.

But that self righteousness isn't always unwarranted. Sometimes it's very warranted.

I'm kind of reminded of Lynyrd Skynyrd's song "Sweet Home Alabama". I love the song to death, but I really don't agree with the central argument of the song.

The song is basically saying "hey, every state has problems! alabama can be liberal sometimes too, get off our asses!"

And sure, I understand how they feel. People will be dicks to people about small problems. But the race issues in southern states back then weren't just small problems. Nowadays black people are a quarter of the population of Alabama. If a quarter of your population experiences serious discrimination, that's a hardcore problem. Worry less about defending yourself from criticism and worry about fixing the problem.

 

[Carlos Thin]

Might makes right. And that's absolutely correct. People get self righteous a lot.

But that self righteousness isn't always unwarranted. Sometimes it's very warranted.

I'm kind of reminded of Lynyrd Skynyrd's song "Sweet Home Alabama". I love the song to death, but I really don't agree with the central argument of the song.

The song is basically saying "hey, every state has problems! alabama can be liberal sometimes too, get off our asses!"

And sure, I understand how they feel. People will be dicks to people about small problems. But the race issues in southern states back then weren't just small problems. Nowadays black people are a quarter of the population of Alabama. If a quarter of your population experiences serious discrimination, that's a hardcore problem. Worry less about defending yourself from criticism and worry about fixing the problem.

I think Sweet Home Alabama was more a joke directed at Neil Young more than anything, the band was actually from Florida County. They wanted to see if they could write a rock song which painted the South in a positive light (this was Nixon-era America, where the youth embraced an us-versus-the-man attitude, and the conservative South embodied this feeling.) Randy Newman's Rednecks, which also deals with Lester Maddox, tackles the race issue in greater detail.

 

[Holdek]

I was raised Jewish and still practice the major (mainstream) holidays. I have a nontheistic/pantheistic/dystheistic/polytheistic/animistic worldview and sometimes pray to Ganesh.

My religion is Kemeticism, which is Ancient Egyptian paganism.

Are you people for real?

1- Agnostic, the lazy man's atheist.

2. Pantheist, the theistic man's atheist.

 

[Marvin]

I think Sweet Home Alabama was more a joke directed at Neil Young more than anything, the band was actually from Florida County. They wanted to see if they could write a rock song which painted the South in a positive light (this was Nixon-era America, where the youth embraced an us-versus-the-man attitude, and the conservative South embodied this feeling.) Randy Newman's Rednecks, which also deals with Lester Maddox, tackles the race issue in greater detail.

Interviews and things like that seem to suggest it was a bit more than a joke.

 

[Holdek]

Interviews and things like that seem to suggest it was a bit more than a joke.

Yeah. It was an insult in response to Young's "Southern Man." Kind of like a diss track but redneck classic rock style. What muddles things a bit is that he took it in stride and has sung "Alabama" with them in concert.

 

[Surtur]

Are you people for real?

I fail to see a problem with those particular belief sets.

 

[Niachu]

I fail to see a problem with those particular belief sets.

Reminder: Don't attack peoples' beliefs here. If you want to start a debate, take it to its own thread.

 

[Surtur]

Reminder: Don't attack peoples' beliefs here. If you want to start a debate, take it to its own thread.

Not sure how I am attacking anyone here.

 

[Niachu]

Not sure how I am attacking anyone here.

Was referring to Holdek's comment. Forgive my weak forum-fu, Bearded One.

 

[Holdek]

I fail to see a problem with those particular belief sets.

There's no problem, I just don't think they're very serious.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

There's no problem, I just don't think they're very serious.

Why not? All religions are basically equal (except Scientology, but I digress).

 

[Holdek]

Why not? All religions are basically equal (except Scientology, but I digress).

Because it makes no sense for a Jew to pray to a Hindu god, and there's no community that practices Egyptian paganism indigenously.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Because it makes no sense for a Jew to pray to a Hindu god, and there's no community that practices Egyptian paganism indigenously.

Being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean believing in the Old Testament God. It's both a race and a religion. Hell, a lot of Jews are atheist. I know a pagan Jew IRL.

Why does there have to be an indigenous community for a religion to be valid? I feel like you're not understanding the whole "belief" aspect of religion. Fucking Jedi is a religion.

 

[Holdek]

Fucking Jedi is a religion.

You're proving my point.