ThatFanficGuy and I were talking the other day about doing another one of these threads. I don't want to type up too much in advance, because I kind of want to see what statements come out of this naturally from other Hubski users.
In the past three or four months, I've had probably half a dozen various discussions with people in terms of religions and, for lack of a better term, conspicuous consumption (if someone has a better term, please throw it my way cause that one has a ton of baggage). It ranged from everything from comparing worshiping in a church/mosque/temple etc. versus praying in someone's living room, from simple no frills garbs to colorful and elaborate clothing, and on and on. It was interesting to see what people were comfortable with, what people were uncomfortable with, and why they thought the way they thought about certain things.
So Hubski, your thoughts?
This concept is actually what pushed me very far from religion. I visited Spain and France for two weeks in the summer years back for some religious thing. I visited some of the "sacred" places in the Roman Catholic belief, and it was pretty much then I knew it. You had massive cathedral in poor towns, and while the people struggled here stood these monuments to earthly things. After that I began to question why the church was so dead set on building monuments for God. God is a god, and I can't imagine there being a physical way in existence to laud him that would be sufficient. I took to the simpler forms of faith that there was prayer in good deeds, prayer in loving/respect one another (even when its tougher to do so). Community, meditation, and all of those other things have their place, but I believe there is a lot more to it. I'm a firm believer that expressions of positive emotions in our daily lives is among the strongest ways to worship God.
A god doesn't need anything. Worship is for us. If you believe in god as some singular entity worship sounds weird. If you believe in a god as a grand all encompassing entity then worship becomes our way of attuning ourselves with the world around us. At least that's the way I see it.
Often, I think the desire to build monuments is less about pleasing any dieties (though I'd like to hope they appreciate the effort and enthusiasm on our part) and more about our desire to create, period. There are beautiful buildings and projects all over the world, both religious and mundane, spanning hundreds and thousands of years of our history. The religious buildings just happen to be a form of religious art, and if with buildings, if you can go big, you're often tempted to. At the same time, some of these buildings are often big partially by necessity, because many of them are more than just places to worship. They're also administrative buildings, schools, hospitals, community centers, what have you. I agree.I'm a firm believer that expressions of positive emotions in our daily lives is among the strongest ways to worship God.
It's not so much the size, or even in certain situations the ornate nature of these places. In certain regards it's the location. I visited poor towns with massive cathedral's wondering why they didn't just downsize this place, and pour some of that money into the town itself. For me it's odd to see these grand structures while kids in the same town bathe in a river.
Yeah. The dichotomy can be very striking. It'd be interesting to get a financial snapshot of some of these communities and see where money really goes. It's worrisome that sometimes people seem to prioritize maintaining what's easier to maintain over what's more important to maintain. Then again, that's kind of human nature sometimes, so, I dunno. :/
Minority opinion, but I like the ostentatious displays. God is supposed to be the king of the universe, and any earthly leader doing the same things nobody would question. Why is Queen Elizabeth worth all the pomp and circumstance, the jewels, the cars, and so on, but God isn't. Why is it that you wouldn't dream of going to an audience with HRH in ripped jeans and a ratty t-shirt, but that's good enough for the God of the universe? My two cents is that I find the reverse to be just as ostentatious in the opposite direction. People tripping over themselves to remove anything that's not absolutely mundane. Like you decided that organs are too formal, so you use a guitar. And decorations are too formal. Its still showing off, you're showing off by not being formal.
I can only speak for my experience with Christianity but as I understood it, Jesus was pure humility and zero frills. If, as he says, no one goes to the father except through him, it would seem we should follow his lead and be humble and no frills too. No? As an aside, rd95 check out the Hubski podcast on religion v spirituality that I made with steve and some awesome hubskiers.
I'm very much in the low-ostentation side of things. To me, it becomes a distraction, and is a waste of money that could go to much better uses. I don't begrudge a congregation having a comfortable place to worship, but I do question the priorities of a place with a lot of gilding and obviously expensive stuff. If the pastor drives a Benz, there's something wrong. The praying-in-the-living-room is much more my style, though. I prefer a smaller community, should I ever find a good one.
There's some things that can be appreciated about the more ornamental religious buildings. They're aesthetically pleasing and often rich in cultural history. Sometimes though, I think they can be too much, especially if for one reason or another they're becoming financial burdens. There's a lot of give and take though, cause on one hand money could be better spent in other ways but on the other hand, people might see a value in the buildings that extend beyond finances. Which then brings up the whole idea of materialism and detachment and the question of how much might that apply to places people consider literally and truly sacred? One of the really interesting things that I've noticed, at least here in my part of The States, is that people are getting creative in where they're holding church. I've seen everything from coffee shops being rented out every Sunday morning to buildings like old barns, restaurants, and even bars being bought up and converted to Churches. As for Baha'is, some larger cities will have Baha'i centers, but for many smaller communities, feasts, devotions, and holy days are just held in someone's living room. It's kind of nice. That said, I've been inside some awesome buildings and it's a shame to think of any of them falling into disrepair.
Sure, but historical and ostentatious don't have to go together. I grew up in Williamsburg, and we have three super-old church buildings, none of which are particularly garish. Hickory Neck, built in 1734 and where I was baptized) Bruton Parish, formed in 1674 (current building constructed in 1715), where my parents got married * The Wren Chapel, built 1695-1699, where my wife and I were married (here's what the inside looks like) When I first started attending Quaker Meeting (also in Williamsburg), it was in someone's living room. I like that even better.
I'll take your thread and go somewhere else with it. Many religious people take God's name in vain incessantly. They say God wants you to do this or that, good hates this or that with no fear of sinning. Taking God's name in vain has devolved into saying "jeasus fucking Christ" when you hit your thumb with a hammer but it really centers around pretending you know God's will. It's the sin of pride. It's immodesties pinnacle. Anyone who wears a polyester blend, eats shrimp and is also willing to tell me I'm going to hell because I use drugs or had sex before marriage or have gay friends based in a few vague Bible quotes can pretty much suck it. They are are using God's name in vain and are pretty much on the outside of biblical teaching. If they were to say "I think you are going to hell," I'd be perfectly fine with it.
This is a concept that has always puzzled me... I don't know which I find funnier: the atheist who exclaims the name of diety when they smack their thumb with a hammer... or the "devout" christian who does the same thing. For the atheist - why not just yell out "Richard Dwakins" or "Daniel Dennett". Or just some random name. If God isn't real and Jesus was just some dude... why exclaim their name ever? Why not simply yell "Justin!" or "Avocado!"? For the devout... well... it's just funny.Taking God's name in vain
Yeah, and this turned me off of even reading the Bible for a long time. Now that I've started to do so, though, I find a lot of beauty and wisdom in there. Plus, I find it significant that like 99% of the bullshit moralizing comes from Paul's various epistles. I don't feel particularly obligated to follow those.
Shoot. A good portion of The Sermon of the Mount is Jesus saying "Don't be a dick." I'm always a bit nervous talking about scripture and such, but Matthew 7:1-5 kind of directly addresses this whole thing. There's a writing by Baha'u'llah that touches on some very similar themes that I read from time to time, because I like it. What's really interesting is that the concept of "Don't be a dick" can sometimes be a bit overwhelming when you think of everything that philosophy entails. No one can do it. Period. But the desire to be as little of a dick as possible should be there and I think for most people, it really is. Personally, sometimes I think people have the wrong view of religion. When people think of religion as "Don't do this. Don't do that. This is bad. This is wrong," all they'll focus on is how people, including them, fall short. I'd like to think that maybe if people think of religion as "Look at all of these wonderful things we're encouraged and empowered to do," there'd be a lot more positive focus and definitely more acceptance and inclusion, though it still wouldn't always be easy.
I think the problem most people have with religion is not religion per se but religion's externalization. Anybody whose faith focuses primarily on their place in the world and their practice as a method and means to beatification is likely to incur little wrath. Anybody whose faith focuses primarily on altering the behavior of others is gonna face controversy. The Jews have been persecuted since the 8th century BC but because the majority of their religion is inward-facing, they've adapted and largely found a place in many non-Jewish societies. I suspect that if their religion had a proselytization component like the Mormons they'd have been wiped out before the Peloponnesian War.
Depends on your definition of "dick". You can be a very agreeable person, and to you, "being a dick" would mean simply disagreeing with someone, since it is in your nature to act in harmony rather than (constructive) disarray. If you are, on the other hand, very disagreeable, it might mean "don't be actively involved in harming another person you've never crossed paths with". That's a broad spectrum of allowed ground: it would mean you are allowed to slight someone who did you wrong, including bloody revenge (if you're so inclined, but other factors - like aggressiveness and certain natural sadism - would have to play into it). There seems to be no natural, objective line whereupon crossing which you'd be considered universally evil. Making others follow your definition is a disrespect to the natural differences between our worldviews and character traits. Any one person is not legible for setting that line for everybody else. Not disagreeing with the quote, but adding a dimension to it that seems often missing. That's a good way to think of it. The problem, I believe, is how religions portray our flawedness. If you keep telling me that I must eternally repent for the sins of an imaginary character simply because I am related to that character by blood, I would naturally not feel well about this idea. It's an application of an antiquated idea (that I am my ancestors, therefore I must pay their debts - vengeance gone awry) to establish what is, fundamentally, a reasonable idea (that we must improve upon our imperfect being) in an authoritarian way. If, instead, you tell me why I'm flawed and what can I do about it, I'd be inclined to go ahead and do it. Now, I understand the rationale behind my nature and know that I'm not trapped in this terrible state of deep flawedness. I am enlightened as to my being and empowered to change it, as is in my nature as a human. We're all flawed. There's nothing perfect lest we perceive it as such (thus, a perfect moment with the person you love is attainable). We can't act out our fantasies of power and control without consequence. I feel like the difference between psychology and religion is that psychology acknowledges and teaches us to be better. It doesn't seem possible for religion to turn this aspect of itself around any time soon, if at all: there's too much baggage. I'm even going to say that there's too much trash: holding onto old, antiquated ideas, making no apology for the things the church as an entity made or allowed to be (as Stephen Fry so eloquently put) and continuing preaching the same old story that existed for millenia where the rest of the world has made moral, psychological and otherwise scientific discoveries about ourselves and other people. If I were king, I would gather philosophers from all over the country - or, indeed, excellent ones from abroad - and make them use their understanding of the human nature and being to construct a system of beliefs that corresponds - and continues to correspond as time goes on - to the most accurate contemporary representation of existing as a human being. It is from that point that I would make them construct a supplimentary system of beliefs that would ensure that human beings who understand the main system could apply certain certified and tested methods to improve their own lives and, once they're rid of major flaws (like being incapable of holding a relationship due to fear of abandonment), others'. I don't religion is up for the task as it is. Not with the constant news of how the church hides and protects their child abusers from justice. Not with the way priests drive expensive cars when their believes advice them to abstain from excessive luxury. Not with the fatalistic idea that we'll never be perfect as God has supposedly made us. At the very least, I believe a fundamental restructuring would be required. At that point, it would be almost easier to simply invent something new.But the desire to be as little of a dick as possible should be there and I think for most people, it really is.
I'd like to think that maybe if people think of religion as "Look at all of these wonderful things we're encouraged and empowered to do," there'd be a lot more positive focus and definitely more acceptance and inclusion
Each society kind of has their own definitions on what they consider acceptable and unacceptable. This includes hard laws, both secular and religious, as well as less strict but still important mores and folkways. Well, there are certainly lines that people cross sooner or later that cause people to categorize them as “bad.” How do you feel about the idea though, that the lines are blurry and seem to move about? I think you’re touching at the edges of how and why religions explain suffering and bad behavior and how we go about addressing it as people. Different religions have different explanations. To me, personally, I think the focus often seems negative just because the original questions, such as “Why do we suffer” and “Why do people do bad things,” have a negative connotation to begin with. The goal of psychology is to understand why people behave the way they do as individuals. The goal of psychiatry is to help us be healthy in regards to our psychological health. Many religions similarly encourage us to be strong, rightful people, both to ourselves and to others. This encouragement is found in many forms, from theology to parables to lectures to even prayer. I honestly think that one of the main roles of religion is to form social cohesion and it’s kind of difficult to have that if you don’t do your best to encourage people to be good to each other. Religion, our relationship with it, it’s relationship with us, and its relationship to the world is constantly evolving. It’s not a static thing in the slightest. Theology as we know and understand it today is different than theology as we know and understand it five hundred years ago and the further we go back in time, the further it changes. Look at Christianity, how old it is, yet people still look towards it to find inspiration to making the world a better place. You’re convoluting things. It’s important to understand how things work together, but it’s also important to segment things and see them individualistically. There are many bad actors in the religious world. But there are many bad actors in the world period. Because individuals or institutions have a religious base, it doesn’t mean religion is necessarily to blame for their behavior. Let me ask you this, if tomorrow war broke out between Russia and America, would you blame me because I’m an American? Would you blame my constitution? Would you blame my military? Would you blame my government? Would it be some of those mixed together with some blame layed more on some than others? How would you want me to answer those questions in reverse? Here’s a whole list of something new. You’ll have everything from stuff that expands on more traditional religions, such as The Abrahamic Faiths and Hinduism, to Neo-Paganism, to UFO cults. Some of that stuff is pretty mundane. Some of that stuff is pretty out there. Some of that stuff could be downright scary. If you check it out, you'll actually see the Baha'i Faith is on there. Want an open confession? Sometimes I wonder about trying to be a good Baha'i, because it is new, because the early days of The Faith did have a rough past, and because I worry that there's actually a bit of truth to the argument that the number of adherents a particular faith has lends to its legitimacy. This stuff isn't easy to figure out, many religious people go through periods of intense doubt, and there's a good chance many of us have things all wrong. In a way, that's okay, because that's part of life, that's part of being human, and the important thing we take away from all of this is that it's important to try and be good people, to ourselves and to each other.Depends on your definition of "dick".
There seems to be no natural, objective line whereupon crossing which you'd be considered universally evil.
That's a good way to think of it. The problem, I believe, is how religions portray our flawedness.
I feel like the difference between psychology and religion is that psychology acknowledges and teaches us to be better.
It doesn't seem possible for religion to turn this aspect of itself around any time soon, if at all: there's too much baggage. I'm even going to say that there's too much trash: holding onto old, antiquated ideas, making no apology for the things the church as an entity made or allowed to be (as Stephen Fry so eloquently put) and continuing preaching the same old story that existed for millenia where the rest of the world has made moral, psychological and otherwise scientific discoveries about ourselves and other people.
I don't religion is up for the task as it is. Not with the constant news of how the church hides and protects their child abusers from justice. Not with the way priests drive expensive cars when their believes advice them to abstain from excessive luxury.
At the very least, I believe a fundamental restructuring would be required. At that point, it would be almost easier to simply invent something new.
First of all, I'd like to apologize if I come off as unnecessarily antagonistic. I mean to pick no fight with anyone. I've been feeling rather willing to engage with antagonistic thinking today, so it might leak into the text. After that, I'd like to acknowledge that I have nothing against individuals following any kind of scripture. I have heavy problems with the scriptures themselves. I don't mean harm unto anyone one following the scriptures per se. "It's not okay to hate people for their beliefs". That being said, I'm not above blaming people for the bad things they've done, whether in accordance with or in misuse of their holy texts and theological decisions. We, individually, have each a will to use our power to exert influence onto the world in the way we deem most appropriate. If you decide to exert it in a manner that's harmful to anyone, even yourself, I will judge you for your behavior, whether you're acting on your religion's morality or your own. Here goes. Those aren't instated to encourage one not to be a dick. Those are instated for one not to upset the social order. Each operates on a different level. Their reconcilability depends not on the person not willing to be a dick but on one's social orientation: towards self (highly individual) or towards society (highly social). You may choose to define your worldview based on the morals you grew up with, or you may be naturally attuned to one particular set of values, but the existence of laws and folkways in themselves doesn't discourage dickotry. Those aren't universal. The best you can get out of them is "the majority agrees that". Then, you get into the territory of autists, psychopaths, narcissists and others whose sets of values differ from the majority of the population. You may, with a high degree of success, argue that only the majority's will matters anyway because of the sheer social and, heck, physical mass of such a group. Doesn't preclude that it's not universal to begin with. Blurry? From the statistical point of view, definitely - at least from the reasons stated above. From the personal point of view, though? I'd argue that a line is blurry until the person decides whether crossing it is acceptable - and from those personal decisions a big-picture view on the morals of the given group arises. Move about? If history teaches us anything, it's that they most definitely do. Slavery was once okay with many cultures, including religions. Women's rights were practically unheard of in the West until the suffragette movement. Monarchy was once the preferred form of government. Discoveries with time shift our perspective on things. Not if you fucking beat people into submission to achieve it. If you're acting on given positive values - generosity, helping the poor etc. - on the notion of going to Hell if you don't, you're not being kind: you're acting in self-defence. It's a necessary action if you truly believe in posthumous damnation, but acting on a fictional construct we have no way of proving the existence of will, at best, hamper the believer's performance: you probably know on your own how people act worse under pressure. I imagine the existential pressure like that would cause a lot of background noise. Social order is important, but it only ever works as a social order (as opposed to an oppressive, authoritarian order) when people agree to it. If you're shamed into submitting to a given set of values, you better leave the nearest second later, because the only thing you're going to extract from such an order in a civil society is damage to the self, which will only make you less mentally healthy as a result. Authoritarian order is only ever important in crises, when you need people to get their shit together and operate on scarce resources to survive. Even there is a place for reason: "I'm taking control of this group so that we could live long enough to tell the bloody tale. This is non-negotiable. Act according to the rules or risk lonely death outside the camp". Now, harsh as the conditions are, at least people know what they're getting. They have a goal, and they have the hope of cohesion. But there's also the promise of Heaven if you behave, isn't there? If you live a good life, if you don't sin, if you're deserving all the way, you'll get to the place blessed by God, whatever it is in your particular definition. My problem with that is that people are never 100% sinless. The idea that Christianity got right is that we're all sinners. My problem with its attitude towards our imperfect nature is that we are to be constantly punished for it. This attitude's aim is to instill humility, but if we've learned anything in the past several decades, it's that forgiveness of the self leads to salvation, not being sinless to begin with. Christianity has the answer here, as well: ask forgiveness from another human being who, for some unobvious reason, is closer to God than you are, and you're good to go. But even that doesn't wipe your record clean, does it? You're still going to Hell. It's the "100% Completionist" challenge you didn't know you had to partake in in order to not suffer for eternity afterwards. Bloody harsh competition to beat, isn't it? Be all the way humile and don't disturb the order, and you may get the pass to the Wonderful Place. It's a terrible trap to set. "All or nothing" is the egoistical mentality I spent a lot of time shedding because it's sour to point of acidity for your living. If it guides any kind of moral code, it's not a code I would encourage anyone - much less my children - to follow, because it's going to break you if you aren't naturally attuned to it. (I recognize I'm taking an extreme and uneducated view of religion with those last few sentences, if not with the whole passage. I haven't had actual experience with real believers and their communities, so this is the best I can do so far) Not quickly enough. Including your own faith, by the way: Further down the article, it also says: ...but also: "many problems, both physical and psychological. Some are the result of the individual’s own behaviour, some are caused by the circumstances in which he grew up, some are congenital... homosexuality is an abnormality, is a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and... he or she should strive to overcome it." ...which does not sound to me like acceptance. When a high authority of one's faith claims that one's natural (and pretty bloody common) predisposition is a flaw to overcome when the whole educated world knows it's not, that's a claim against the faith. I would, at the very least, expect you to condemn that outcome and admit the major shortcomings that led to such a terrible turn of events, for both sides, and not go behind "But we have museums and operas!". I expect the same from my end. Of course there are bad actors anywhere. The difference is: in society, we punish them by law. Why are child molesters allowed to live their life in peace despite doing such harm to the child (or children)? (I am hereby linking to the Stephen Fry video from the previous comment) Why is the Catholic Church passively working against the lawful investigation in such a case? I don't even care if the Pope himself spoke out against it if the rest of the institution keeps on with their bullshit. This is not me ranting against religion per se. This is me ranting against the major institutions of it that condone or even passively encourage ill behavior. I recognize that some people use certain beliefs as a justification for their own sick and harmful behavior. Some of those people hide under an institution, either assumed or built as their own. Some of those institutions have "Church" in their name. That being said, I would condemn anyone doing ill a degree more if they do it in the name of God. That way, they're shifting responsibility from themselves - which they ought to bear fully if they act on their own - by saying "I'm doing God's will". At least I will have some respect for a murderer admitting they did it to satisfy their own desires: they're being honest.Each society kind of has their own definitions on what they consider acceptable and unacceptable. This includes hard laws, both secular and religious, as well as less strict but still important mores and folkways.
Well, there are certainly lines that people cross sooner or later that cause people to categorize them as “bad.”
How do you feel about the idea though, that the lines are blurry and seem to move about?
I honestly think that one of the main roles of religion is to form social cohesion and it’s kind of difficult to have that if you don’t do your best to encourage people to be good to each other.
Religion, our relationship with it, it’s relationship with us, and its relationship to the world is constantly evolving.
The Bahá'í Faith teaches that the only acceptable form of sexual expression is within marriage, and Bahá'í marriage is defined as exclusively between one man and one woman. This definition excludes premarital, extramarital, or homosexual intimacy from allowable Bahá'í practices.
Bahá'í teachings state that Bahá'ís should not treat homosexual people as condemned outcasts, nor expect people who are not Bahá'í to follow Bahá'í laws. The Bahá'í writings teach adherents to treat everyone with respect and dignity, and an attitude of discrimination and social intolerance toward homosexuals is not supported by the Bahá'í teachings.
The Universal House of Justice has responded to research that claims that homosexuality is innate and not changeable by asserting that homosexuality is one of
Let me ask you this, if tomorrow war broke out between Russia and America, would you blame me because I’m an American?