What Does Religion Mean To You?

[Jedishy 3,549]

On 6/21/2018 at 10:14 AM, Altastrofae said:

That's why I don't like organized religion. Spiritual practices should only be solitary. Different ideas between people just causes disagreement. Groups should be kept small and the people should be able to agree on most topics. Otherwise there'll be these problems. There shouldn't be leaders in religion. Just my opinion.

In my practices, groups (or covens) will select a high priest/priestess, and they'll make basic decisions, like the meet up schedule, where we meet up, whether we use cow skulls or wolf skulls (XD just a normal day at the office...)

But organized religion is simply :

Organized religion (or organised religion—see spelling differences), also known as institutional religion, is religion in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established.[1] Organized religion is typically characterized by an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices.

Which Wicca would fall under. So I do not understand what you are saying with a dislike of organized religion. 

 

As for groups being kept small to stop disagreement well why is disagreement inherently bad? How can one grow if you only ever hear that which you agree with? How can a faith or path grow if no one challenges it? 

A lack of leaders is impossible. Someone has to make decisions and keep order. It will happen naturally via personality, via a merit system or vote. But it will happen. You even point out your own leaders while saying that leadership is bad. 

Finally, I am sorry for all the flack you are getting about religion. Wicca is not the path for me but keep your head up. Too many people take misuse of a thing for the item itself being inherently bad. 

[Concerned Bystander 2,904]

2 hours ago, Jedishy said:

Too many people take misuse of a thing for the item itself being inherently bad. 

This raises an interesting question.  Can something be inherently bad or that solely governed by its use or misuse?  I appreciate that this is basically reductio ad absurdum but if you take something like chemical and/or biological weapons as an example, their use or misuse is not identifiably different, the end results are exactly the same to those affected by them.  I would hope that most people would agree that they are inherently bad, and if we can agree that inherently bad things do exist then inevitably there will be people that disagree about what is and isn't so.

Is religion inherently bad?  Depending on who you ask you will get every every possible answer to this question, because some people do think that religion is inherently bad.  I'm not sure I'd go that far myself but I certainly do believe that it is a concept that had its time and has now outlived its usefulness, unless of course it is willing to become more flexible in order to keep pace with changes in society.  The world now is very different to that of two thousand years ago, and societal progress cannot be shackled by the myths and superstitions of a long bygone age.

[Jedishy 3,549]

11 minutes ago, Concerned Bystander said:

like chemical and/or biological weapons as an example, their use or misuse is not identifiably different, the end results are exactly the same to those affected by them.  I would hope that most people would agree that they are inherently bad,

Oh they are? You do realize that research and thus the use of the weapon IE the disease can lead to improved cures, treatments, and clean up procedures in the event of someone else using them right? Research of a thing indeed involves the use of the thing when it comes to a disease and thus no they are not inherently bad.

11 minutes ago, Concerned Bystander said:

I certainly do believe that it is a concept that had its time and has now outlived its usefulness, unless of course it is willing to become more flexible in order to keep pace with changes in society.  The world now is very different to that of two thousand years ago, and societal progress cannot be shackled by the myths and superstitions of a long bygone age.

How many religions are you aware of?  How many can you tell me the changes in throughout time? How many have you weighted the good that they do vs the bad people use them to excuse? Somehow I question if its even a fraction of what the data available that has been considered.  Do you know of Joseph Campbell and his monomyth? Are you aware of the religions that have come about since the 1950s?   So how can you claim with surety that they are outdated and not keeping pace with the times?

I am aware that all of these questions could seem aggressive. But that is not the intent. My intent is to point out that many peoples knowledge of religion is regulated to bad events from a handful of major faiths and a few classes of philosophy 101.  

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Jedishy

[Concerned Bystander 2,904]

40 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Oh they are? You do realize that research and thus the use of the weapon IE the disease can lead to improved cures, treatments, and clean up procedures in the event of someone else using them right? Research of a thing indeed involves the use of the thing when it comes to a disease and thus no they are not inherently bad.

There is no need to weaponise a disease in order to conduct research on that disease.  I know a little about the cleanup of chemical weapons due to my work, I'm no stranger to the inside of a GTS and knowing what I know about the effects of chemical weapons and the environmental aftermath of their use has done nothing to soften my attitudes towards them, if anything I am far more adverse to their use now that I was before I learned about them.  Saying that the use of chemical weapons teaches us better how to clean up after their use is a circular argument that in no way diminishes the abhorrence of their use in the first instance.

46 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

How many religions are you aware of?  How many can you tell me the changes in throughout time? How many have you weighted the good that they do vs the bad people use them to excuse? Somehow I question if its even a fraction of what the data available that has been considered.  Do you know of Joseph Campbell and his monomyth? Are you aware of the religions that have come about since the 1950s?   So how can you claim with surety that they are outdated and not keeping pace with the times?

I am very well aware that there are many religions beyond the few that are widely known, and I would think it would go without saying that the most modern religions are rather more suited to the modern age by the virtue of having being born in it.  However, most modern religions are relatively small niche affairs that have yet to prove themselves against the test of time.  If they manage to not only survive the death of their founder but continue to grow thereafter then they certainly warrant recognition, but until that point they are little more than fads at best, or cults at worst.

[Jedishy 3,549]

8 hours ago, Concerned Bystander said:

Saying that the use of chemical weapons teaches us better how to clean up after their use is a circular argument that in no way diminishes the abhorrence of their use in the first instance.

I did not say that the use of them in the sense that you are trying to imply here. I said that they can be used to study how to better clean up after them. As in used in a lab setting to better understand how it could be cleaned in the real world situations. Further, I have argued before and you are ignoring the fact that I have said its the use or misuse that makes it bad not the thing itself. So the argument of its abhorrent that they were used in the first place is moot. 

The fact is that scientist in country 1 could see that country two has weaponized disease A. Realizing that disease A is weaponized he not only creates that in a lab to test cures etc on but thinks that disease B would be worse if made a weapon. So he weaponizes that and proceeds to figure out how to combat it. There we go, the weapon itself is not bad. Its the use with malicious intent that is bad. Which is my point. Simply because you argue that they are generally made with ill intent does not mean they must be used with such. They can be used simply for study which means they are neither bad nor good until used. You can try to argue that we dont need to weaponize them to study them. Bunk I say. The reason being is that often weaponizing them means creating different strains that are stronger and spread easier. That means to fight that strain we must make it as we might not have the resources to fight it without studying it. 

 

8 hours ago, Concerned Bystander said:

I am very well aware that there are many religions beyond the few that are widely known, and I would think it would go without saying that the most modern religions are rather more suited to the modern age by the virtue of having being born in it.  However, most modern religions are relatively small niche affairs that have yet to prove themselves against the test of time.  If they manage to not only survive the death of their founder but continue to grow thereafter then they certainly warrant recognition, but until that point they are little more than fads at best, or cults at worst.

This ignores the fact that you likely have not done any study into good vs bad done or adjustment of older religions to modern situation Which in itself is important when attempting to render judgment.

As for the surviving the test of time and passing of the founder well you mean like Wicca or Satanism and those are just off the top of my head. 

The fact is that a blanket failure to adapt and outliving its usefulness just falls flat without actual data. 

[Altastrofae 937]

You guys are getting a little off topic. Read the title. I won't have any pointless bickering here. It doesn't lead anywhere. Like, ever 

[Pr0m4NV14 839]

Yeah, you guys do your religion, I’ll do mine. Let’s not bicker.

[TBD 17,262]

Religion is  kinda like undertaking an philosophical aspect. which also ideally means when people gathers together under the same beliefs and shares it among others through actions/practices. Unfortunately, that ideal are often being overlooked due to the list of bad history that involved religion.  

 

[O-78 28,611]

What does religion mean to me?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! 

Edited September 23, 2018 by shyabetes3939

[Crystal Peppermint 1,108]

Religion can be a guide book for life, a star for those who seek hope. 

But i don't believe in that anymore, because i think seeking own answer for life is the right way, instead of following rules of old men who passed away since ages.

 

 

[Dreambiscuit 10,562]

For me, religion is the foundation that life is built on. Without it nothing else would matter. I often see people rejecting religion because of aspects they don't understand, or because it's poorly represented by someone who is well-meaning but, like all humans, is imperfect. If there are obstacles to your relationship with your religion, disregard them and let God speak to you in the way that is best suits your personal understanding and temperament. Everyone is different and not everyone is going to connect in the same ways. Social conditioning and the media these days makes it difficult for anyone to embrace something that's so internal and personal as their relationship with God. It doesn't mean religion should be abandoned. Nor should anyone think that all the answers are going to spell themselves out when and where they want them. Religion is a practice of seeking and understanding, not folding one's arms defiantly and demanding that everything be exactly as we dictate it or it's not worth our time. Practice humility, open your heart and listen; you'll find God if you're truly open to Him. 

[Jirehlov 9]

For me, religion is just an English word whose spelling is R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N.

As a Christian, I hate to say believing in HIM is someway of religion.

[Hachiroku 127]

I honestly don't believe in any of the stuff in the Bible. But I like attending Sunday mass with my parents, it just feels nice ya know. Maybe I'm not into the whole spiritual stuff but I do enjoy the culture of it. I also like the morality of Roman Catholicism, being on a college campus everyone is kind of doing stuff that just would not fly back home so it is a nice little escape from that stuff. When I go home from campus I always go when I can with my parents. 

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,469]

It's important to me and very simple. I am a Christian.

I have actually gotten crap from atheists for it before. Not all the time mind you. I know a few atheists who know it's important to me and respect that. But a handful have talked down to me like I'm some ignorant child. So I threw up on my bib and asked for a lollipop.

We don't talk anymore. I wonder why; I was having fun.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Stone Cold Steve Tuna

[Midnight Solace 5,132]

My definition of religion is what ponies/humans believe in. I don't currently believe in any, but I'm interested in Celestianism.

[Altastrofae 937]

On 6/28/2018 at 2:56 AM, Jedishy said:

But organized religion is simply :

Organized religion (or organised religion—see spelling differences), also known as institutional religion, is religion in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established.[1] Organized religion is typically characterized by an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices.

Which Wicca would fall under. So I do not understand what you are saying with a dislike of organized religion. 

 

As for groups being kept small to stop disagreement well why is disagreement inherently bad? How can one grow if you only ever hear that which you agree with? How can a faith or path grow if no one challenges it? 

A lack of leaders is impossible. Someone has to make decisions and keep order. It will happen naturally via personality, via a merit system or vote. But it will happen. You even point out your own leaders while saying that leadership is bad. 

Finally, I am sorry for all the flack you are getting about religion. Wicca is not the path for me but keep your head up. Too many people take misuse of a thing for the item itself being inherently bad. 

Does Wicca have a bureaucratic leadership system? Rarely. As a whole, not really at all. Ultimately, it's a solitary practice as far as I know.

As for the rules, the actual merit system was put in place by the founder, he's long since dead, and the rules are fairly simple, they've gone unchanged for decades, though like in Christianity, not everyone follows these to a tee. They include:

If you aren't harming anyone with whatever you're doing, it's alright

If you are hurting someone, then you should probably have good reason to, and be prepared to brace the backlash

Don't burn elder wood

There isn't much you can't do, and everything else was written in a series of stories, and other writings. All in all, not much really to it, just... A bunch of backstory on a very large scale.

I made this post so long ago, my views have changed alot, so don't even worry about it. I just thought I'd make this one clarification

[Jedishy 3,549]

52 minutes ago, Altastrofae said:

Does Wicca have a bureaucratic leadership system? Rarely. As a whole, not really at all. Ultimately, it's a solitary practice as far as I know.

As for the rules, the actual merit system was put in place by the founder, he's long since dead, and the rules are fairly simple, they've gone unchanged for decades, though like in Christianity, not everyone follows these to a tee. They include:

Except covens are the most comment form of Wiccan practice so yes there is leadership. Further, it does not say solely but commonly so it does not mean there must ALWAYS be a bureaucratic leadership merely just one of the signs. 

As for rules, it matters not how few there are or if they are not always followed. It simply matters that they are there. 

So in short Wicca has 

Leadership

Rules 

Doctrine as codified by the likes of Gardener, Buckland and the Farrars 

So it fits the definition 

 

[Altastrofae 937]

8 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

Except covens are the most comment form of Wiccan practice so yes there is leadership. Further, it does not say solely but commonly so it does not mean there must ALWAYS be a bureaucratic leadership merely just one of the signs. 

As for rules, it matters not how few there are or if they are not always followed. It simply matters that they are there. 

So in short Wicca has 

Leadership

Rules 

Doctrine as codified by the likes of Gardener, Buckland and the Farrars 

So it fits the definition 

 

Firstly, that's why I said rarely

And in my experience, more people practice solitary Wicca than those who do coven work

But I suppose so. As I say, my philosophy has change dramatically. I don't really have a problem with organized religion anymore

[Jedishy 3,549]

15 minutes ago, Altastrofae said:

And in my experience, more people practice solitary Wicca than those who do coven work

 

Personal experience does not really lead one way or the other. Most people who claim to follow Wicca dont even read the core texts from Gardener or those that came afterward. Its hard to say you follow any path with no organization. Besides even if many who claim the title Wiccan practice in solitude it does not change that there is leadership nor does one have to meet 100% of criteria to be organized. 2 of the 3 would be enough. 

In short in my own time in the Wiccan community, I have found many claim the path without really following more than the rede which does not one a Wiccan make. One must follow one of the schools in my opinion to actually be a Wiccan and that means at some point you need instructions which means someone IE a leader or guide wrote them down 

[ExplosionMare 18,105]

On 6/21/2018 at 11:05 AM, Califorum said:

It is a way of reaching what is beyond our knowledge. Religion fills in the gaps of what we don't know.

That’s kinda how I feel too. Sometimes things that happen for no logical reason fall into the religious reasoning category for me.

For me, it’s like a guide for things I can’t  do or can’t understand. When I apply religion to my life, I usually apply it to situations that are out of my control.

[Altastrofae 937]

On 11/30/2018 at 5:07 PM, Jedishy said:

Personal experience does not really lead one way or the other. Most people who claim to follow Wicca dont even read the core texts from Gardener or those that came afterward. Its hard to say you follow any path with no organization. Besides even if many who claim the title Wiccan practice in solitude it does not change that there is leadership nor does one have to meet 100% of criteria to be organized. 2 of the 3 would be enough. 

In short in my own time in the Wiccan community, I have found many claim the path without really following more than the rede which does not one a Wiccan make. One must follow one of the schools in my opinion to actually be a Wiccan and that means at some point you need instructions which means someone IE a leader or guide wrote them down 

Eh... I feel like that could be argued. All that matters is that you know the principles and follow them

And even so, most other religions don't listen to half of their old scriptures and writings. I've seen many a Christian wearing two fabrics of different types

[Jedishy 3,549]

6 minutes ago, Altastrofae said:

And even so, most other religions don't listen to half of their old scriptures and writings. I've seen many a Christian wearing two fabrics of different types

That would be more akin to following only the ten commandments but ya know not the faith in Jesus bit. I can follow Buddhist principles as a Jedi but that does not make me a Buddhist 

[Altastrofae 937]

Just now, Jedishy said:

That would be more akin to following only the ten commandments but ya know not the faith in Jesus bit. I can follow Buddhist principles as a Jedi but that does not make me a Buddhist 

Okay, you know that isn't what I meant

Let's put it this way; you have to follow the central principles. Like, to be Christian, obviously you have to worship Jesus, it's in the name. And Jedism has principles and morals that are substantial enough to seperate themselves from Buddhism, so, say, believing reincarnation won't seperate you from that faith

But, if I, a Wiccan, were to believe in the parts of the bible that say witchcraft is a sin, either I hate that part of my self, or there's some continuity issues going on. These logic loops are where faiths can't branch

[Jedishy 3,549]

15 minutes ago, Altastrofae said:

Okay, you know that isn't what I meant

 

No I really did not. I take people at their word exactly as its said most of the time unless given clear signs to do otherwise. 

17 minutes ago, Altastrofae said:

Let's put it this way; you have to follow the central principles. Like, to be Christian, obviously you have to worship Jesus, it's in the name. And Jedism has principles and morals that are substantial enough to seperate themselves from Buddhism, so, say, believing reincarnation won't seperate you from that faith

The point I am making is its easy to say you believe in the rede and various rules. But without reading up on at the very least the core materials of one of the major schools you can't ever know if you are just a witch or you are actually a Wiccan. Just like a Jedi could be dang close to being Buddhist without following one of the various training programs out there to get their base. One has to have a clear training and foundation in any system be it philosophical or spiritual to know they are actually on the path they claim to be on. 

[Altastrofae 937]

7 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

No I really did not. I take people at their word exactly as its said most of the time unless given clear signs to do otherwise. 

The point I am making is its easy to say you believe in the rede and various rules. But without reading up on at the very least the core materials of one of the major schools you can't ever know if you are just a witch or you are actually a Wiccan. Just like a Jedi could be dang close to being Buddhist without following one of the various training programs out there to get their base. One has to have a clear training and foundation in any system be it philosophical or spiritual to know they are actually on the path they claim to be on. 

Oh of course, I agree that you definitely need to agree with the central beliefs at the very least to be sure you're on the right path. That's what I've been saying.