Not quite. Agnosticism is based on uncertainty, in that you're uncertain whether or not a god exists but you're pretty sure you can't prove it either way. Deism is where you're pretty sure that some sort of god exists but don't believe in any specific religion.
Guess I'm an agnostic leaning towards Deism.
@xan:
He is just considered to be yet another human being who shouldn't dictate what Christians should do in the name of God. It is because he is considered to not have received any official authority by God himself to judge or set rules on what is right and wrong.
Nonentity. Protestants do accept the canonized bible, but tend to disavow almost everything that happened after the events described therein. The modern Catholic concept of the Papacy is based on a single line in Matthew 16:18
We don't actually know the historical background of the Papacy, and others dispute Peter's position as the first Pope. James the Just has been put forward as another possible first Pope.
Thanks for the explanations! #themoreyouknow
I do agree that Jesus was a great man, and he is much honoured in Islam as well. I haven't been doing it here cuz it'd be annoying, but whenever muslims mention the name of any of the messengers or prophets, it is taught to respect them by saying "peace be upon him" afterwards, including Jesus. But personally I don't believe he was more important than Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc, the belief is that they are all equal, and that doesn't dishonour him in any way.
The reason I believe Jesus (or Isa) is more important (or more pure) than the others prophets is because he didn't sin.
Also, on a side note, I want to say that I am sorry for yesterday for being triggered about the comparison between Karl Marx and Jesus , it was not because of Jesus, but it was because of the person that he was compared to.
Anyway, just wanted to make things clearer.
What is diffrence in christan sects is it mostly historical like shia and sunni in islam ?
It's complicated.
Originally there was a bunch of important centers of Christendom around the Mediterranean jostling for influence based out of major cities, like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and somewhere in the Levant (Acre? Tyre? I forget). And they had some differences in practice and ritual on top of also competing for influence.
Rome and Constantinople in particular were really powerful so those were the main two competing.
1. Oriental Orthodox Christians: The earliest major break that really kinda turned into sects was over some shit that is complicated even for a guy raised in a largely Christian culture like me let alone for a dude from Iran but uh… basically people started arguing over exactly what the heck Jesus was.
Like….was he a human being? A divine being? Was he a different person than God? God in human flesh? Both at once (???? confusing yes????)?
And the first split was over whether Jesus was like one being, or two beings in one.
The main areas of the Christian world agreed that Jesus was both a human being and a divine being at once. So he had "two natures". The ones who didn't agree, and thought he was basically a divine being with "one nature" (that could still have a human side anyway????) split from the others.
FIRST SPLIT results in what are now called the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Which are the Armenians, Egyptian Copts, Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians.
Catholics: There is one dude straight up in charge at the top, this is the pope I'm sure you know of. The pope is the boss of the Catholic church. All hierarchy in this church leads to him in the end.
Here's an idea of how the priests sometimes dress, their nuns, typical church architecture inside and outside.
Orthodox: There is a top guy, but he isn't all that important and doesn't hold anywhere near as much power as the pope. The Orthodox Church is much less hierarchal, with the relative power smoothed out among a variety of different sub-groups rather than one big superstructure like the Catholics have. The Orthodox church is basically divided up into a bunch of different national churches that still recognize one another as the same sect, and still all see Istanbul's church as the center point. So you have a Russian Orthodox chruch, a Greek Orthodox church, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Ukrainian, even a Cypriot one separate from the main Greek one.
The clothing and architecture can be pretty different from sub-group to sub-group but there are general themes. Namely beards, and domed churches.
Russian priest, Greek priest. Russian nun, Greek nun. Russian architecture, Greek architecture.
I can't post pictures because it varies so much. The older Protestant groups can have styles that stay relatively consistent, again like the Anglicans have churches that look a lot (and WERE) Catholic churches. The younger ones (mostly in the US) have very un-flashy churches and plainness in general.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So basically, the former wants to spread love for Jesus' mom and buddies too. (Isn't the actual name Joshua? Jesus never sounded right on the tongue to me when you look at the other biblical names)
It's a real hair splitter in practice.
Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants both think Mary and the saints are cool as heck.
The difference is Protestants (well some sects) are uncomfortable with the level of focus and devotion that Catholics/Orthodox give them. They think its goes too close to levels that should be reserved for Jesus/God. The more extreme ones will straight up call it idolatry and condemn it.
But really its kind of dumb imo, because even in the super saint/Mary focused rituals of the most old world style Catholic and Orthodox churches, if you asked those people if they thought Mary and the saints were equal to God they'd laugh you out of town.
@Monkey:
I can't post pictures because it varies so much. The older Protestant groups can have styles that stay relatively consistent, again like the Anglicans have churches that look a lot (and WERE) Catholic churches. The younger ones (mostly in the US) have very un-flashy churches and plainness in general.
The church i grew up in. This little hole in the wall leading down into a large basement like area.
Crowded as fuck every sunday and stuff happening on weekdays.
[hide] 
[/hide]
[hide] 
[/hide]
The beautiful old fashioned church from the 1800's down the street that nobody went to.
Unless it was like a mandatory attendance cermony before summer break i don't recall this place ever being full.
[hide] 
[/hide]
[hide] 
[/hide]
who do you think that came up with the concept of love towards others ?
The Jews I guess, by your logic. Or Zorostrians.
That was an excellent summary, Zephos. Thanks for that.
Wouldn't the concept of love be the same in all three Abrahamic religions? That it was a concept God gave to Adam and Eve when He created them?
Just so much death and war throughout the ages all based on who's imaginary god is better.
To be fair, most of those wars were really just based on other things like greed or xenophobia. Many, many clever and manipulative rulers have used religion to accomplish unrelated goals motivated by other factors.
The reason I believe Jesus (or Isa) is more important (or more pure) than the others prophets is because he didn't sin.
I've heard that said, but one of the things that really makes Jesus stand out to me is his ability to admit a mistake and learn from it.
Take this passage for instance:
Matthew 15:21-28New International Version (NIV)
The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus was initially openly racist (a standard belief and behavior of the time), but learned from his mistake and used the experience to improve his teachings.
Also, on a side note, I want to say that I am sorry for yesterday for being triggered about the comparison between Karl Marx and Jesus , it was not because of Jesus, but it was because of the person that he was compared to.
Anyway, just wanted to make things clearer.
That's alright, religion is a sensitive subject for many people. There was no harm done.
@Monkey:
Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants both think Mary and the saints are cool as heck.
The difference is Protestants (well some sects) are uncomfortable with the level of focus and devotion that Catholics/Orthodox give them. They think its goes too close to levels that should be reserved for Jesus/God. The more extreme ones will straight up call it idolatry and condemn it.
But really its kind of dumb imo, because even in the super saint/Mary focused rituals of the most old world style Catholic and Orthodox churches, if you asked those people if they thought Mary and the saints were equal to God they'd laugh you out of town.
I've heard that the focus on Mary comes from her importance as a direct descendant of King David, giving Jesus a proper legal claim as King of the Jews. In this day and age the royal lineage of Israel is a moot point (with the country having been invaded and split apart multiple times), which is probably why newer sects don't give her as much attention.
I suspect the pre-canonization reason for a focus on her was to show that Jesus had a greater respect for women than his predecessors and contemporaries. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was refused entry into the canonized Bible, which does lead me to wonder if the early church sought to downplay his more radical views.
Mary is the coolest.
Sometimes when people ask me why I wear the hijab I like to throw them this little tidbit:
"I'm following in the footsteps of Mary, the mother of Jesus. 
"
The momentary hesitation and look of confusion they have is the best lol, but it's a great way to start a friendly discussion.
And yeah, that's definitely a scary thought, your consciousness just ending and going into dark nothingness. But, of course, the alternative is that your consciousness goes on forever. I mean, that's it. Those are the only two possibilities and, frankly, both are scary to me. But the strange part is I think the idea of eternity is scarier.
We're not ultimately masters of our fate, whatever that is going to be, all we can do is to struggle, if you accept this you can overcome many fears on which many religions feeds.
That's something i can understand and i can agree with.
There's only one thing about my religious views that is permanent,and that is i will form my own view as time goes on,seeing,thinking,understanding and finding new thoughts,beliefs and perspectives.i take my views as very malleable,and not something unchangable.
I'm curious to ask you, do you think is it possible you will ever reach in the future a permanent view and belief which will not change anymore, or do you think that's impossible and your views will always remain in constant changing/improvement?
@Dr.:
I'm curious to ask you, do you think is it possible you will ever reach in the future a permanent view and belief which will not change anymore, or do you think that's impossible and your views will always remain in constant changing/improvement?
It's definitely possible and something i don't discount,it's just something i am not very keen on and neither i can imagine happening currently.
I like to think that i'll always keep my mind open,learning and changing,but in the end that's only a dream.people tend to want to settle down and have a constant place,both physically,mentally and emotionally.so i reckon that i too will maybe just have a somewhat constant and permanent belief or opinion in the future
I subscribe to the idea that religion is obsolete and gives society way more problems than solutions, but that's just my two cents.
+1
I dislike the concept of religion itself.
And I consider it as the topic that shouldn't be discussed. Religion history okay, religion in terms of politics okay, but not the religion itself. I view it as a topic too personal and private.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
On a side note, I am super interested in information about Wicca and witchcraft in general, just for curiosity. I hope I'll read into it someday.
i am muslim and i was raised as such both in home and in school.
having spent my childhood in saudi arabia, i studied pretty much everything about the religion throughout all my school years. beginning from believing in allah up to how to have sex with your wife properly.
i do have alot of skepticism toward it now, do we really only exist just because of an omnipotent being's ego? what happens after we go to heaven? are we really going to spent an eternity in it? won't we grow tired of it?
i hope this is just a phase that i can grow out off. i want to believe in god, it keeps me from getting depressed and gives me hope in life.
i do however think that the religion did alot of good to my society. because of it poor people take charity and get feed, our relatively low STD rates and the general guidelines that islam forces on people that they would otherwise not really care to do, like good hygiene and other small things that we take for granted.
During the slavery period in Brazil, the slaves used to worship the orishas, but since it was a pagan religion and it was made illegal to worship by Portugal, the slaves syncretized their religion with the Roman Catholicism, thus creating the Umbanda, the Umbada is still practiced nowadays in northeast of Brazil.
Exemple:
Oxalá (Syncretized as Jesus)
Ogúm (Syncretized as Saint George)
I want to know if the slaves in the US also had a religion and if yes, does it still exist nowadays ?
When AP used to be good:
NEVER FORGET !!
I have no religious beliefs and consider myself an atheist.
I was raised in a Christian household/family. They would flip if they found out I don't believe what they do, although they're pretty lax. Anyway, when I was growing up, I held to my family's belief, but I later found out that belief was never mine, and I only ever had it because I believed my family, church, and community were seeing some reason to believe that had yet to have been revealed to me. I kept on waiting (subconsciously) for my reason to believe. It never came. I never 'felt' anything that they did.
Eventually I was acquainted with the concept of atheism. The first individual I knew that was an atheist was a jerk, and I believed he was so because he was an atheist (it probably didn't help that he was an ex-member of my church, and I couldn't comprehend that fact). However, not much later I met an atheist who…wasn't a jerk, and that's when I really came to see the viewpoint of atheism as one that is valid, when I was able to step outside of the "Christians are good, atheists are bad" bubble that I honestly can no longer even believe I ever was in, but I was.
I will admit that while my belief in God wasn't my own, I came into atheism more through emotional reasons. Of course, one can not throw the belief of God out the window just because one does not agree with the ethics and morality that God prescribes. However, I've always had it ingrained in me that sexism, racism, slavery, homophobia, etc. are all inherently wrong, evil. I'm very happy I think that way, but once the belief that "Christianity is good, atheism is bad" was broken and I began to see how much those evils are justified by the holy texts of Christianity (you may think it's crazy that I was seriously not aware of this before, but I was quite sheltered, and also never read the Bible for myself. I didn't even pay attention in church. Church was the most dreadful time of the week), I rejected the Bible. Hard. That rejection I still strongly hold to. Although, now, I am able to consciously realize I do not believe in God, because I never saw any reason to, and still see no reason to - Although, now, it's not just because I don't feel anything, but also because I look at life, the world, and the universe, and I see absolutely nothing pointing toward a God. Even if some deistic deity does exist, it's completely irrelevant to my life, and doesn't warrant any thought on until some sort of evidence is there.
…
Thanks for sharing so much of your experiences.i feel like reading your experience really enlightened me,and was quite uplifting.
anyway,this thread reminded me of The Flying Spaghetti Monster,and they are still around
they more or less have become a proper religion,although one very lax and free.
It is interesting how they would grow and expand from here on,as i'm curious to see how they'll reconcile the satirical and anti-religion stance it was formed on to becoming a more normalised religion
People say that it would be better if there were no religions in the world as its regressive etc etc. I beg to differ providing some of my thoughts here
Humans like to form communities, race ethnic or religious, ever since known times. Unless there is an alternative to religious communities, it would not be feasible to stay away from such groups. Nationalism is a fast growing accepted form of living as a community and look how many wars it has gone through already. Humans surviving without being in a community is incredibly rare, if not nonexistent.
Religions teach people morals. Although it causes problems, it helps supplying the basic sense of morality to the developing brain of a kid. Trying to infuse absolute logic and practicality to young ones rarely succeed or takes time as compared to religious teachings which provides a reason, however illogical it may sound, for children to follow ethics and morals. You can argue that it happens to families without religious connections too which I agree but the effectiveness of morals provided in religion is more effective in many cases.
I just skimmed through the posts and I didn't find this combo member yet: has there been anyone who was brought up in an atheist family? I see only people who have been brought up as a theist who have become an agnostic or an atheist. Sorry if I missed any of the posts above mentioning the same
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
The church i grew up in. This little hole in the wall leading down into a large basement like area.
Crowded as fuck every sunday and stuff happening on weekdays.
[hide] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Pingstkyrkan_Sundsvall.jpg/256px-Pingstkyrkan_Sundsvall.jpg [/hide]
[hide] http://www.kyrktorget.se/files/64aa1afab01f4712c3d61dfdc70388be.png [/hide]
Psh, check out Pope Sweden and his cathedral over here, boy, you're not even touching on absurdly lo-fi protestant churches until you've been to the South.
@xan:
I just skimmed through the posts and I didn't find this combo member yet: has there been anyone who was brought up in an atheist family? I see only people who have been brought up as a theist who have become an agnostic or an atheist. Sorry if I missed any of the posts above mentioning the same
I was born and raised an atheist, yes. I asked my parents once if we had any religious people in the family, and after thinking on it for a while my mother said something like "…my grandmother? Well... She mostly liked the tradition of it."
When you speak of things like religious communities, I'm like "wtf is that?" And your second point. I guess my whole family, all my friends, and good chunk of my country; all lost souls. :ninja:
And your second point. I guess my whole family, all my friends, and good chunk of my country; all lost souls. :ninja:
Lol I didn't mean non-theists are lost souls but at least in developing countries, theism helps a bit more in tying communities together for helping each other out and not end up becoming easily frustrated with the failed workings of a state
All of my friends who have been to Sweden love the place! I will soon be visiting the country and be part of the lost souls myself 
@xan:
Lol I didn't mean non-theists are lost souls but at least in developing countries, theism helps a bit more in tying communities together for helping each other out and not end up becoming easily frustrated with the failed workings of a state
Hahaha, I figured. Was mostly messing with you. 
I'm actually not in the camp of "religions are a net negative". …more like "net zero"? Hahaha. :)
All of my friends who have been to Sweden love the place! I will soon be visiting the country and be part of the lost souls myself
Really? :) Hope you'll have a good time then. And you're welcome to hit me up if you need help with anything Sweden related!
@Monkey:
It's complicated.
Originally there was a bunch of important centers of Christendom around the Mediterranean jostling for influence based out of major cities, like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and somewhere in the Levant (Acre? Tyre? I forget). And they had some differences in practice and ritual on top of also competing for influence.
Rome and Constantinople in particular were really powerful so those were the main two competing.1. Oriental Orthodox Christians: The earliest major break that really kinda turned into sects was over some shit that is complicated even for a guy raised in a largely Christian culture like me let alone for a dude from Iran but uh… basically people started arguing over exactly what the heck Jesus was.
Like….was he a human being? A divine being? Was he a different person than God? God in human flesh? Both at once (???? confusing yes????)?
And the first split was over whether Jesus was like one being, or two beings in one.
The main areas of the Christian world agreed that Jesus was both a human being and a divine being at once. So he had "two natures". The ones who didn't agree, and thought he was basically a divine being with "one nature" (that could still have a human side anyway????) split from the others.FIRST SPLIT results in what are now called the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Which are the Armenians, Egyptian Copts, Ethiopian and Eritrean Christians.
- Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians: So the competition keeps up in the other two major cities. With again rituals and doctrines developing differently on top of political power competition. And basically over a long period the church based in Rome and the one based in Constantinople grow further and further apart. And eventually that split gets made official in 1054. This divides Europe religiously between a Rome centered Western Europe, and a Constantinople centered Eastern Europe. The western church comes to be known as the Roman Catholic Church, and the eastern one comes to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Or as people usually call them, Catholic and Orthodox. Yes, Eastern Orthodox sounds super similar to Oriental Orthodox :I. As to what sort of differences you can see between these two…
Catholics: There is one dude straight up in charge at the top, this is the pope I'm sure you know of. The pope is the boss of the Catholic church. All hierarchy in this church leads to him in the end.
Here's an idea of how the priests sometimes dress, their nuns, typical church architecture inside and outside.Orthodox: There is a top guy, but he isn't all that important and doesn't hold anywhere near as much power as the pope. The Orthodox Church is much less hierarchal, with the relative power smoothed out among a variety of different sub-groups rather than one big superstructure like the Catholics have. The Orthodox church is basically divided up into a bunch of different national churches that still recognize one another as the same sect, and still all see Istanbul's church as the center point. So you have a Russian Orthodox chruch, a Greek Orthodox church, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Ukrainian, even a Cypriot one separate from the main Greek one.
The clothing and architecture can be pretty different from sub-group to sub-group but there are general themes. Namely beards, and domed churches.
Russian priest, Greek priest. Russian nun, Greek nun. Russian architecture, Greek architecture.
- Protestant Churchs (not a sect, a category of countless sects): Got all that? Good. Because now it gets really confusing.
So maybe you saw how the Catholic church seemed extra organized and centralized. Right. Now in medieval times that meant it was also a huge political power that had its influence and fingers in everything in Western Europe, not unlike your own Iran with its theocracy. It got corrupt as all hell, and was acting like a big nasty force in general. So around the 1400's people started popping up genuinely questioning its authority in Western Europe. People like John Calvin and Martin Luther. This started a huge trend of bucking the authority of the Catholic Church, and straight up eventually to rebel churches being formed that broke away from the Catholic Church. In protest, thus Protestant. Naturally the unifying factor of these rebel churches was completely dropping their recognition of Rome being their boss, and the pope no longer meant anything to them.
That's not so hard to understand I suppose.
Now understand that this meant a bunch of different sects formed around the same time, this is NOT ONE SECT. It is a category of sects, defined by breaking from the Roman church and then breaking from eachother and so on and so on….
This meant initially you had the sects of Lutherans, Calvinists, the Anglican church, and others.
And this also means that since then? A blizzard of other sects have popped out of those movements or formed next to them.... aye aye aye.
The diversity of belief in this category is insane.
You can go all the way from Anglicans who are basically Catholics in most ways except they made everything focused in England with .I can't post pictures because it varies so much. The older Protestant groups can have styles that stay relatively consistent, again like the Anglicans have churches that look a lot (and WERE) Catholic churches. The younger ones (mostly in the US) have very un-flashy churches and plainness in general.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
It's a real hair splitter in practice.
Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants both think Mary and the saints are cool as heck.The difference is Protestants (well some sects) are uncomfortable with the level of focus and devotion that Catholics/Orthodox give them. They think its goes too close to levels that should be reserved for Jesus/God. The more extreme ones will straight up call it idolatry and condemn it.
But really its kind of dumb imo, because even in the super saint/Mary focused rituals of the most old world style Catholic and Orthodox churches, if you asked those people if they thought Mary and the saints were equal to God they'd laugh you out of town.
thanks for all these
Now that i think of it shia sunni is lot more simple than these
(Isn't the actual name Joshua? Jesus never sounded right on the tongue to me when you look at the other biblical names)
Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua; the Gospels were originally written in Greek, or at least adapted into it rather quickly.
Spoiler:
@Monkey:
Psh, check out Pope Sweden and his cathedral over here, boy, you're not even touching on absurdly lo-fi protestant churches until you've been to the South.
So what about the new world Caths, can they just smack up a church in a teardown down the street or do they need the bishop to survey and approve that shit beforehand. I sorta feel like i've never seen a really shady catholic church in the way i've seen like basement churches or mosques. Feels more regulated somehow.
@Kaido:
Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua
Greek is Iesous (pronounced Eee-soose) not Jesus. Which went to Latin as Iesus, then to English where it ended up as Jesus.
The original name was Hebrew and would have been something like Yeshua. Where English got Joshua.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So what about the new world Caths, can they just smack up a church in a teardown down the street or do they need the bishop to survey and approve that shit beforehand. I sorta feel like i've never seen a really shady catholic church in the way i've seen like basement churches or mosques. Feels more regulated somehow.
All the Catholic Churches around here look pretty good to really good. I think the fact alone that the Catholic church can get money from a wealthy center in the Vatican and other vast networks from below that means you won't end up with anything less than great.
@xan:
I just skimmed through the posts and I didn't find this combo member yet: has there been anyone who was brought up in an atheist family? I see only people who have been brought up as a theist who have become an agnostic or an atheist. Sorry if I missed any of the posts above mentioning the same
Another Swede here. I'm a bit of an interesting case.
Sweden is a very, very secular country. About 80-90% of our population. As a result (from my perspective) the concept of Atheism doesn't really exist, at least not in the same way as in many other countries. I wasn't raised an Atheist, rather I was raised with absence of religious beliefs. I didn't even know the concept of Atheism existed or that there was a word for it until my late teens.
But I wasn't raised without religious influences. I come from a village, about 2000 people so pretty big. The church provided daycare services and events for the community so I went there as a kid. We would say a prayer to god and then do fun stuff. Every year in school we celebrated the end of the Autumn Semester and Spring Semester in the church, with a combination of songs (Christian and not Christian), people talking and the priest would always tell us a story from the bible (the most boring part, after the Principal's speech). However many schools has stopped having the celebrations in church and move them to the school building, including mine (which caused a lot of controversy). I also leaned about Christ and his stories in the church (they had this really cool and scary play!) and we got to test attend some events. I never believed in Christianity, but I've participated in some events. We also celebrate a lot of Christian events such as Easter, Lucia and Christmas (Though we call Christmas "Jul" (Yule) instead). I was baptized, and I was asked if I wanted to go through Confirmation (I was one of very few people who didn't go through with it).
Also our Church is quite pretty! Most of it has been rebuilt, but the tower is about 600-700 years old! That makes me proud :P This isn't my church, but it's the same style.
!
To me Christianity is the same thing as our Norse Mythology, our folklore and ancient pagan religions. It's a collection of tales that bring people together, and a part of my history and culture.
Another interesting thing is the difference between how Christianity is celebrated in the US and in Sweden. In US people flaunt Christianity a lot more, whereas in Sweden religion is a very personal thing. So coming here was a bit of a shock, haha. I will never forget the I LOVE JESUS sign one guy had in his garden. It was massive.
At least, that's my experience.
So what about the new world Caths, can they just smack up a church in a teardown down the street or do they need the bishop to survey and approve that shit beforehand. I sorta feel like i've never seen a really shady catholic church in the way i've seen like basement churches or mosques. Feels more regulated somehow.
I had no idea how many random podunk churches were around me until I played Pokemon GO
To be honest i think we are still fairly christian without really realizing it. In the phrases we use, the ceremonies we partake it and the images and understandings we evoke when we think of the afterlife. Certainly more everyday for people to think of the christian heaven or mention god than it is to talk about valhalla or say by Odin.
@Zar:
Another interesting thing is the difference between how Christianity is celebrated in the US and in Sweden. In US people flaunt Christianity a lot more, whereas in Sweden religion is a very personal thing. So coming here was a bit of a shock, haha. I will never forget the I LOVE JESUS sign one guy had in his garden. It was massive.
You're in the South, religion is very out, homogenous, and communal minded down there. If you made your way up to the Northeast you'd find things very different and much more like Sweden (though not as irreligious).
Religion's still pretty widely flaunted in most parts of New York. Politics is flaunted more, though; I see bumper stickers year round supporting various stereotypical left or right wing views.
Religion's still pretty widely flaunted in most parts of New York.
Not in the places people actually live lol.
I'd also debate including most of Upstate in the Northeast. It's like the Midwest after you go past the Catskills and Adirondacks. Complete with people calling Soda "Pop". And hella German ancestry.
To be honest i think we are still fairly christian without really realizing it. In the phrases we use, the ceremonies we partake it and the images and understandings we evoke when we think of the afterlife. Certainly more everyday for people to think of the christian heaven or mention god than it is to talk about valhalla or say by Odin.
That is pretty much the reason why I wanted to find out if there was anyone who was born and brought up as an athiest. The difference between theists or a community built around theists is that the religious influence is there by default even if individual grow out of it with contrasting perspectives about religion. The effects are fundamentally built so much so that people don't realize that it's actually there. It sort of becomes their understanding of culture and community living with the basic morals provided by an indirect religious influence. That for me seems to be the main advantage of religion and how it positively affects a community as a whole. The problem occurs when people don't grow out of that implicit relationship and pursue something extreme past what the religion dictates.
Although I am from a Catholic family, my community consists of a majority Hindu one. The way we were brought up resonates with a mix of Hindu and Catholic culture. It took me a long time to understand Hinduism as a Catholic since the understanding of a Polytheistic religion been brought up along with a Monotheistic perspective was interesting. I see many of my friends who follow different practices since they worship different Gods but are all still considered to be Hindus. Different Gods require a different set of practices to be followed which ranges from eating habits, marriage rituals, individual responsibilities and behaviors but they all fall under a single umbrella of Hinduism. Such a variety of different cultures residing under a same name living peacefully is entirely due to the core belief the religion itself provides to the culture which not only encourages secularism but actively has been practicing it within the religion itself for centuries.
On a historical note…
! A problem occurred after the colonial conquests when Hindu leaders realized that other monotheistic religions do not have the same perspective of secularism and hence actively pursued the evolution of the religion itself giving rise to 'Hindutva' which staunchly promoted protecting the culture itself that the religion professed. It all makes sense (or not) when you consider that Hindutva was actually started of by an Atheist.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
I'm not assuming that everyone who fasts is mentally ill, but I do have to ask… do you experience emotional benefits from fasting? If not, why do you do it?
So I saw this post and decided to post about it.
I went to an all boys public school where people are about 50-60% Muslim and there were about 800-900 students. That's about just below or above 500 students.
There are no doubt the devout believers, but a majority just waits for the sun to go down and just go crazy eating after. I was explained the basics and one of the reasons was to show respect for other people that can't eat or drink.
To me it's like, what's the point of starving and thirsting (if that's a word) if you're going to be a glutton at night.
To me a majority of people would be doing it because all their friends and family were doing it so they would do it and fit in. It didn't really look like they got any emotional benefits.
6 years seeing it in school was the same old;
"Oh I don't wanna doing anything sir I'm fasting"
"What are you doing eating your food around us?"
"It's that time of the year again"
"Eid Mubarak".
For some it was just another cool get together celebration party at the end and the the others were actually doing it because it was "spiritual".
I had both types of friends, this is from my experience.
It's definitely possible and something i don't discount,it's just something i am not very keen on and neither i can imagine happening currently.
I like to think that i'll always keep my mind open,learning and changing,but in the end that's only a dream.people tend to want to settle down and have a constant place,both physically,mentally and emotionally.so i reckon that i too will maybe just have a somewhat constant and permanent belief or opinion in the future
Well, it's true. Humans have a basic need to adopt a belief and then protect it. But nonetheless, i find your approach to your own formation very wise, rather scientific. You make no assumption and only relies on future experience, by seeing, thinking, understanding (quoting you), even admitting your own limitation about this, like you're afraid to make the wrong choice. That's just what the scientific method expect, are you sure that what you really want is a religious view of the world?
@xan:
That is pretty much the reason why I wanted to find out if there was anyone who was born and brought up as an athiest. The difference between theists or a community built around theists is that the religious influence is there by default even if individual grow out of it with contrasting perspectives about religion. The effects are fundamentally built so much so that people don't realize that it's actually there. It sort of becomes their understanding of culture and community living with the basic morals provided by an indirect religious influence. That for me seems to be the main advantage of religion and how it positively affects a community as a whole. The problem occurs when people don't grow out of that implicit relationship and pursue something extreme past what the religion dictates.
And to add to the whole Swedes don't believe in any god thing. There are a whole bunch of professed non-believers who dislike Christianity but are always open, curious and friendly about y'know Buddhism or stuff like that, because they aren't deemed as religion religions, it's that whole cherry pick parts you find quaint and sprinkle with a belief that all non-westerns are a little more pure than us for that kind of my name is earl understanding of religion. Which i guess feels comfortable because that's more or less what we do/did with Christianity. But i mean that's sort of our thing, we always profess to be more than we can truly back up, we profess to be multi-cultural, we profess to be secular, we profess to be nobody gets left behind welfare states. All of which have a certain basis in reality, but not to the extent we like to tell people. Atleast that's my take on it.
@Dr.:
Well, it's true. Humans have a basic need to adopt a belief and then protect it. But nonetheless, i find your approach to your own formation very wise, rather scientific. You make no assumption and only relies on future experience, by seeing, thinking, understanding (quoting you), even admitting your own limitation about this, like you're afraid to make the wrong choice. That's just what the scientific method expect, are you sure that what you really want is a religious view of the world?
you know,you seem to make an assumption that i don't necessarily agree with.and that is that science and religion have to be separate.this may sound sophistry,but bear with me:what is religion?
i have been reading a lot about the FSM,and the thing they don't agree with is when people say they are a spoof religion,because they are basically questioning the idea of what religion is.which really makes sense.religion has to have started somewhere,and there's really no reason for it start anew,but maybe better.there are many other new religions that have started more recently,like somewhat in the 18th century.
of course,people say that flying spaghetti monster is a deity based mostly out of satire.but that really shouldn't stop it from making it a religion.all in all,believers of FSM either actually believe in the Satirical based being and his lore,or they believe in the idea that the concept of a deity who looks like meatballs and spaghetti,who created the world when drunk and also can be weird and chaotic sometimes,makes at least as much sense as any other God.at least,he doesn't ask people to fight wars in his name and punish non-believers.maybe he is just a visual representation of the all encompassing Spirit or Consciousness,the infinite which exists.Maybe religion doesn't actually require a dogmatic faith or belief,maybe it just requires the coming together of like-minded people.after all,religion is just a way of life.
The way i see it Religion is a social construct and structure,a set of belief system,a community of like-minded people,of friends and family.there is no reason religion and a scientific method have to be separate.they can be interwined,or even just co-exist.
Let's say hypothetically tomorrow we come to know about God/s form any of the available religions actually exist.we would have scientific proof of it's existence,and religion and science can function side-be-side.
that was of course an extreme "what-if",but my point was that Science isn't necessaily against religion or supernatural.in fact,science is against any pre-conceived notions,even ones seemingly set-up by science itself.and science doesn't have all the answers.
sorry if this post sounds like meandering and not adequately replying to your posts,but my thoughts are a bit jumbled.but one last thing,the stuff i said about observing,experiencing and thinking wasn't just about the world itself,it was also about myself.i myself need to know if i want to believe in something.i need to introspect what i want with life.because in the end,religion is not just for getting answers,but for whatever it is we require emotionally and mentally.a lot of the times it is what we require to live comfortably,to clear our minds and remove the fear and anxiety that haunts us.a simple belief that can change our life,and help us find a place in the world.something that helps us ascribe meaning to our lives.maybe i just need that.or maybe i won't need a belief,maybe i find something completely different but more precious.
BTW,this article about a converted atheist and his family is a great read.it's pretty long though
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@xan:
Although I am from a Catholic family, my community consists of a majority Hindu one. The way we were brought up resonates with a mix of Hindu and Catholic culture. It took me a long time to understand Hinduism as a Catholic since the understanding of a Polytheistic religion been brought up along with a Monotheistic perspective was interesting. I see many of my friends who follow different practices since they worship different Gods but are all still considered to be Hindus. Different Gods require a different set of practices to be followed which ranges from eating habits, marriage rituals, individual responsibilities and behaviors but they all fall under a single umbrella of Hinduism. Such a variety of different cultures residing under a same name living peacefully is entirely due to the core belief the religion itself provides to the culture which not only encourages secularism but actively has been practicing it within the religion itself for centuries.
On a historical note…
! A problem occurred after the colonial conquests when Hindu leaders realized that other monotheistic religions do not have the same perspective of secularism and hence actively pursued the evolution of the religion itself giving rise to 'Hindutva' which staunchly promoted protecting the culture itself that the religion professed. It all makes sense (or not) when you consider that Hindutva was actually started of by an Atheist.
agreed.people(me included) don't often realise it,but the variety in hinduism is pretty big.Customs,culture,food,worship can be pretty wide-ranging.which is also why i see the hardliners as idiots.they don't realise that they themselves are aping the west,pushing for a unified agenda which doesn't exist in the first place.
And to add to the whole Swedes don't believe in any god thing. There are a whole bunch of professed non-believers who dislike Christianity but are always open, curious and friendly about y'know Buddhism or stuff like that, because they aren't deemed as religion religions, it's that whole cherry pick parts you find quaint and sprinkle with a belief that all non-westerns are a little more pure than us for that kind of my name is earl understanding of religion. Which i guess feels comfortable because that's more or less what we do/did with Christianity. But i mean that's sort of our thing, we always profess to be more than we can truly back up, we profess to be multi-cultural, we profess to be secular, we profess to be nobody gets left behind welfare states. All of which have a certain basis in reality, but not to the extent we like to tell people. Atleast that's my take on it.
People try to sometimes sensationalize the ground reality, both the positives and the negatives, of a country in what they perceive about it so I think it's understandable in your country's case if it comes off as a comfortably liberal one with idealism oozing in all of it's policies. There is no doubt that there will be inconsistencies in them and not all are perfect but I feel that even THAT might be less than the inconsistencies many coutries offer in their workings. Either way as long as the rift between the reality and the idealistic notion of Sweden we know of isn't way far off I think it's alright ;)
agreed.people(me included) don't often realise it,but the variety in hinduism is pretty big.Customs,culture,food,worship can be pretty wide-ranging.which is also why i see the hardliners as idiots.they don't realise that they themselves are aping the west,pushing for a unified agenda which doesn't exist in the first place.
It's kinda myopic to try to force cultrual rules especially when there are hundreds of historically unique ones. Hinduism has always been part of the culture and it has always been a liberal religion but I guess paranoia or will always keep the loud ones awake all night. Even if there was a credible threat, it makes no sense in unifying the cultural outlook anytime. The country was known for its stubborn bunch of middle finger waving empires who are known to uphold pride in every shit they do ever since history so trying to unify cultural practices is an easy way to piss off 3/4ths of the country and bring the unnecessary foregone pride back. And you got it spot on when you said that they are aping the west when they try to categorize culture instead of understanding that Hindu culture and it's secularism is wayy beyond the binary understanding of what they perceive.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
@xan:
People try to sometimes sensationalize the ground reality, both the positives and the negatives, of a country in what they perceive about it so I think it's understandable in your country's case if it comes off as a comfortably liberal one with idealism oozing in all of it's policies. There is no doubt that there will be inconsistencies in them and not all are perfect but I feel that even THAT might be less than the inconsistencies many coutries offer in their workings. Either way as long as the rift between the reality and the idealistic notion of Sweden we know of isn't way far off I think it's alright ;)
True true. Just keep your expectations low when you do visit, and you'll probably have an interesting time.
These are some pretty interesting times in Swedish history playing out, so lots of new stuff plopping up.
But you could always do some truly old fashioned Swedish things like have some friday night tacos and discuss the weather.
you know,you seem to make an assumption that i don't necessarily agree with.and that is that science and religion have to be separate.
What i was implying in my post wasn't specifically that science and the existence of God are incompatible, that is completely incorrect, as you pointed out here
Let's say hypothetically tomorrow we come to know about God/s form any of the available religions actually exist.we would have scientific proof of it's existence,and religion and science can function side-be-side.
then the existence of God would be proved. The real problem is that the existence of God can't be disproved no matter how hard you try, and that is why the hypothesis of the existence of God holds no scientific value (which is different from saying it is false!), and what i was implying was rather that science and faith (rather than God) are ultimately incompatible since science by definition reject faith and only relies on observations, if God would be observed it would become automatically a scientific fact and cease to be an object of faith.
Now that doesn't mean there can't be succesful scientists who have faith in a religion, one can apply the scientific method just on the reality that we can observe and even reaching success, but not on the currently unobservable aspects of reality, like for example: what is it outside the universe? (if it even makes sense to talk of an outside). Believing in a God wouldn't change nothing, for the sake of practicality, for the scientist that is trying in laboratory to synthesize a new compound (just an example), but if he/she wanted to know the answer to that question, the real truth, regardless of what religion preach the best/most moral teachings and what impact the abandonment of those beliefs would have on him/herself, then he/she would have to cast aside that faith, since it would get in the way of the scientific method, and accept the fact that he/she doesn't know, and maybe there's not even a way to know it.
The reason i admired your post is because usually in discussions like this when people explain their point of view, that always reduce to what they belief and what they don't belief: i believe in that, i'm atheist, i'm agnostic etc… and almost no one says: maybe i'll find out by living, you also admit that religion is also for what you could emotionally require, and i assure you, there are few who have the sincerity of admitting that. So i wondered if adopting a religious faith is really something you could even be able to do, regardless of how much you need it.
sorry if this post sounds like meandering and not adequately replying to your posts
The response wasn't inadequate at all.
@Monkey:
Not in the places people actually live lol.
I'd also debate including most of Upstate in the Northeast. It's like the Midwest after you go past the Catskills and Adirondacks. Complete with people calling Soda "Pop". And hella German ancestry.
Can confirm.
I moved from Rockland county (across the river from Westchester) to Rochester last year (where girlfriend is + her German-ancestry-having pop-preferring family was, before they moved to Kentucky) and it's scary different. We're surrounded by Trump lawn signs and regularly get white racist strangers spouting bigoted crap to our faces, looking for casual, implicit agreement. And all four times I've seen confederate flags in the backs of pickup trucks in my life have been in the Rochester area.
No wonder they want Western NY to secede from NYC, dumbasstastic as that would be.
It was bizarre feeling more New York than people from New York, but that was my sensation on visiting up there.
Like fuck, people from Massachusetts feel more New York than upstate, as aggravating as that comment would be to them. Hell VERMONT felt more New York.
Even the geography and architecture up there felt alien.
Lots of dusty small towns surrounded by nothing at all that look like the one from Back to the Future. Miles and miles and miles and miles of that. Threaded by I-90, the worst goddamn highway.
"DERP DERP LETS HAVE THE HIGHWAY PASS NEAR TO ALL THE CITIES, BUT NOT NEAR ENOUGH THAT DRIVERS CAN ENJOY THE CHANGE OF PACE AND SEE THE CITIES ON THE DRIVE. SO IT CONTINUES TO BE ONE LONG NOTHING DRIVE DERP DERP. HA HA WHERE IS SYRACUSE? WHERE IS UTICA? NOWHERE TO BE SEEN! ENJOY MORE FLAT TREES AND MANURE FARMS!"
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Basically.
Why are we talking about New York geography/demographics in the religion thread lol
Hey Europe, wanna have your mind blown and see a place where the Italians populate the successful urban modern place, and the Germans populate the stagnant agricultural place?
Well have I got a state for you!
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Kaido:
Why are we talking about New York geography/demographics in the religion thread lol
Region is religion.
(just take out the "li")
Talk About Re(li)gions and Be F**king Nice About It
Set Art by Daily Rowlet
Looka me, I'm from Upstate.
"GUTTENTAG, HOW IZ ZE POP TODAY FRAULINE?? MEIN CONFEDERATE FLAG IST SHININ IN ZE SUNSZHINE BENEATH ZE CRUMBLING FACTORY."
But seriously though, the differences between the the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox sects probably more than most things allowed for the success and spread of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa.
And the differences between pop and soda prohibited the enlightened New Amsterdam way from reaching up the Hudson river.
@Monkey:
Region is religion.
(just take out the "li")
!
@CCC:
Can confirm.
I moved from Rockland county (across the river from Westchester) to Rochester last year (where girlfriend is + her German-ancestry-having pop-preferring family was, before they moved to Kentucky) and it's scary different. We're surrounded by Trump lawn signs and regularly get white racist strangers spouting bigoted crap to our faces, looking for casual, implicit agreement. And all four times I've seen confederate flags in the backs of pickup trucks in my life have been in the Rochester area.
No wonder they want Western NY to secede from NYC, dumbasstastic as that would be.
I see Trump signs and religion signs here on Long Island all the time, but I've never seen a confederate flag… that's nuts.
I grew up in an irreligious household and came out on the other end as an irreligious person, despite having some pretty deep fascinations for in particular pagan cultures and rituals. Through my teens I was pretty much a fedora-atheist, big fan of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, etc. Upon getting older and developing a bigger care for partying, studying and lovelife, religion sort of became something I didn't reconsider anymore.
When it comes to my every day life today, I honestly don't care about religion or religious people, as long as they keep their belief out of politics and especially science education. Even if I find many, many practices within all religions to be proposterous, it doesn't bother me insofar as the people involved do it out of their free will and this should be the attitude everyone has, whether it be religious people or atheists. On the occasion that it does seep into mainstream discourse, I feel as if nothing should be sacred. Any statement like ''Jesus roose from the dead on the third day'', ''Mohammed flew to the heavens on a winged horse'', ''Jesus will return to Missouri'', ''Odin sacrificed his eye to get perfect knowledge'' should be handled with the same exact scrutiny everything else is handled.
That's something I had a hard time reconciling with when I studied Christianity on my own, the concept of God/trinity and such. What was the purpose of the prophets/messengers before Jesus? How come he only appeared after them?
I felt more comfortable with the Islamic explanation that Jesus was just a man, a prophet no less than Moses and Abraham. Still had a miraculous birth, but it made more sense to me that his purpose was the same as those who came before him, who also came with miracles in their own times. I never really felt comfortable with the concept of God-becoming-man, so the description of God being "There is nothing like unto him" in the Quran fit for me, personally.
So I know this post above is pretty old, but this actually leads to why the Muslim community is so fucked up. As the Quran says, Muhammad was just a man, not an omnipotent being. It's often spoken of how Muhammad was a fair and just man at the time he ruled, but he was far from being a politician. He had absolutely no experience in it, but with God's messages and guidance he did well enough to at least set up basic socio-political norms as well state treasury systems.
His inexperience can also be seen in his hadits about Itjihad (and no, Jihad and Itjihad are totally different things), where if one cannot find the answers to a certain societal problem in either the Quran or Hadits, one is allowed to make his own original decision based upon careful consideration of the two texts. It's basically a how to on learning on the fly. And that's pretty much how Muhammad dabbled in politics.
His former enemies on the other hand, was more experienced and what's worse, he only ruled for about 2-3 years. Muhammad didn't have the experience to foresee infighting in the future and this is how his former enemies took advantage of the political field and that is how everything got fucked up till today.
