Because neither monotheism nor universalism has ever made a lick of sense to me. Saying “I have a great god and you should follow it too!” makes about as much sense as “I have a great husband and you should have a relationship with him too!” (I am neither my husband’s pimp nor my gods’ pimp. Someone wants to hook up with them, they have to do the work themselves.) Religion strikes me as a matter that is inherently, for lack of a better word, tribal (a belief that was common in the ancient world and remains among many indigenous peoples today). The god(s) of the religions I had contact with as a child was clearly not interested in me; my first religious impulse was to find one that was.
Given that I have had experiences that strike me as encounters with multiple gods, I don’t consider my hypothesis chosen so much as the one that currently best suits the evidence I possess. There may be one god out there with a gi-fucking-gantic mask collection so it can present in a variety of ways depending on what will get through to its targets; that would also be consistent with my experience. I could be dealing with manipulations of and by Jungian-style subconscious archetypes. I could also be stark mad, in which case I will nonetheless persist as if my delusional state was identical to reality because I don’t know how to do any better.
I’m a hard agnostic; the facts of the matter strike me as completely undeterminable, so anything anyone is working on can only be rooted in their best ideas from their subjective experiences. I have no way of verifying that my own experiences are objectively as I interpret them, let alone anyone else’s. I have tools that work well for the goals I have; that different people with different situations and different goals favor different tools is just one of those things about living in reality.
Given that I believe the facts to be utterly inaccessible and everyone to be muddling on to the best of their ability and using whatever tools work best for what they’re trying to do, I can’t really get worked up about “What if Phelps’s god is real?” Its reality or lack thereof doesn’t change the evidence that its existence is almost entirely consumed with ineffectual rage about the size of its penis.
I’ll go for “A popular and annoying lobotomisation of a bit of a religion that isn’t mine”, myself. I’ve yet to figure out if I’m more aggravated by the ones who lobotomise “If it harms none, do as you will” to “Do no harm” or the ones who settle on “Do whatever you want”, but neither the original nor its popular bastardisations is any more a part of my religion than Leviticus.
I don’t think so. I am no defender of organized religion, but it seems to me that what you call the Age of Faith pretty much encompasses the whole of recorded history so far. You will find many intelligent, thoughtful, erudite members of this board who champion faith as the most meaningful aspect of their lives. I suspect, but do not know, that many of these posters possess great understanding of the world and how it works; much more than mine and quite possibly more than yours.
Faith means nothing to me. I see the evils committed in the name of God and am appalled. However, it might be advisable for you to narrow your focus and dial back the rhetoric if you truly wish to engage those who do not share your views. After all, there is no debate when everyone agrees beforehand.
I suppose it depends on the tone of the question you pose to him.
If you were to say, “Your Holiness, I have a few questions for you,” and then cite your concerns, he’d probably be more than happy to explain his position.
If you were to say, “You stupid hypocritical fucker, why can’t you see how wrong and retarded your beliefs are?” then you’d probably get your ass handed to you by his bodyguards, and rightly so.
Ask genuine, thoughtful questions and you’re more likely to get genuine, thoughtful replies. But any time you try to use “gotcha” questions, you’re going to essentially be talking to a brick wall. Be respectful and you’ll get respect in return.
The problem is, his answer wouldn’t be any more concerned with the problem at hand regardless of how the question is phrased. The rule against birth control has ruined plenty of lives worldwide. Whether I approach him with the utmost politeness or if I open up on him with both barrels, he’s not going to lift the ban on the use of contraceptives. And that is a cruel act.
True. I should have been saying “Wiccans” instead of “pagans” in that post. Even when you focus it down that far, though, there are the serious people who actually acknowledge the Divine Pair’s dark sides (and do serious ritualwork with aspects of Kali, Shiva, Hades, Hecate, Loki and Hela), and there are the fluffy-bunnies whose goddess is moonbeams and silver ravens and whose god is sunshine and fuzzy wolves who roll in the meadow with you and lick your face.
There are the dark fluffies too, the ones who are all “My goddess can beat up your goddess, because I serve the Morrighan, boogety boo” and stuff like that. My-religion-is-badasser-than-your-religion. I run into a fair number of these types (I find that it’s hard to avoid them entirely if I ever talk about which gods I’m affiliated with); I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that it’s a flip-a-coin thing on people who claim ties to certain gods – heads we may be able to have a rational conversation, tails it’s another self-centered asshole looking for an excuse to behave badly that they think will get them out of being called on it.
I know a fair number of people who have basically crawled under a rock and given up on religious community outside of their personal circles because of the deluge of bunnies, darkfluffs, and purveyors of wildly inaccurate or severely slanted information. I stick to places where I think that fighting ignorance might actually help; there are some horrible cesspits of rotting bunnies out there, and it takes people with stronger stomachs than mine to go try to deal with those.
I realise this post wasn’t addressed to me, but… so what? It almost sounds like you wish to deprive the theists the opportunity to feel certain about anything. I appreciate they may not have anything that convinces you, but if they have something that convinces them, should they hold back from feeling convinced merely on your say-so? I don’t get it.
I don’t wish to deprive anyone of anything. But I have yet to meet anyone who bases their belief on anything but faith and a vibe. Those standards allow for a pretty big margin of error, don’t you think?
Sure, but unless they wish to forcibly impose that margin error upon you, isn’t it their own lookout?
OK, I’ll admit right now, that some of them - quite unacceptably - do wish to impose their beliefs on you. But those unacceptable elements aside, what about the others?
I never said it was anything but their own outlook. What…now I can’t wonder what makes people tick? I’m having a hard time understanding what your point is.
You make a good point. I think it is possible for good people to choose their religion and still respect others rights to do the same. For many people it’s about a path that works for them. They don’t necessarily discount all other paths or think they have the “truth” in exclusion of all other religions, simply because they are a member of a certain denomination. Granted there is too much of that going on. That’s the kind of thing I think needs to be challenged. My own beliefs are considered pretty out there by most mainstream Christians but I can still go to a church and enjoy the worship there.
I think one of the main ingredients in wisdom and humility is being aware of what we don’t know and only believe. It’s fine to move forward based on certain beliefs. Everybody does that. Being unwilling to examine your beliefs and change them when it’s appropriate doesn’t promote growth. It’s unfortunate that so many religions are so attached to certain traditions and beliefs that they can’t quite conceive of changing. When you challenge their traditions or beliefs they react as if your attacking Jesus himself. I think in time some can see the difference. I sure hope so.
Well, my point is to express my opinion and to try and understand others. I’ve been trying to understand the religious opinion all my life and haven’t made much headway. And yet I soldier on…
Fair enough, I expect I just misunderstood or misread you; it sounded like you were saying it would be fine for people to dabble in their religions, just as long as they didn’t commit.
Slight hijack, but do you think that “church” and “denomination” choices are more social than religious? Could you switch churches (come Sunday, do six months at a mosque or synagogue) and still get the same spiritual kick you get at your current church?
My uncle, the dyed-in-the-wool atheist, belonged to the Unitarian church. It is a very tight-knit group dedicated to helping people. It was an outlet for creativity and enrichment. It was in essence a non-denominational social club. It sounds like lots of people focus less on religion and more on events, projects, and people when they speak of “church.”
Well, you didn’t read me completely wrong. It’s fine whatever they do…it would just be more understandable to me if they dabbled. I don’t understand where their certainty comes from. And I’m quite aware that they don’t need my approval. Nor am I interested in offering it.