What religion would you join if you HAD to join 1?

Chris OConnor

You're 100% correct Nick. The whole experience actually turns my stomach a bit. I have appointments all night so that is about all I can say right now.

The point being I am repulsed by watching grown adults sitting, standing, kneeling, singing, praying, holding hands, crying, shaking, hugging, dancing, and otherwise acting overcome with all sorts of emotions, all while worshipping a god that is clearly not there and never was and never will be. It is weird. It scares me. It makes me seriously ill to see such demented behavior. I just can't find words for how it makes me feel to see mature adults looking up in the sky or up into the painted celing of a catholic church as if they are seeing a magical being floating up there.

Mr. Pessimistic

...it scares me when they get that totally blank, reverent look on their faces when taking about god too.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

the hive queen

I would choose buddhism. Oh, right, I'm not allowed. Then, I guess I would choose some sort of predominately black church -- the ones where everyone is singing and actually enjoying the experience. I have never seen such a positive environment in my own church experience.

"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody is watching." -- Keller Williams

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/14/06 5:46 pm

Chris OConnor

the hive queen

Me too! I'd start with Buddhism and then as a second choice go with whatever is the most entertaining. Either a black church or maybe Wicca where we all run around naked in the woods and do kinky stuff under the moonlight.

MadArchitect

Chris OConnor: You're 100% correct Nick. The whole experience actually turns my stomach a bit.

Which is why I said, don't bother. If your reaction isn't to anything particular in any given mass, but rather towards the elements that are common to all forms of mass, then I don't see much good coming of trying new ones. The thing that's odd to me is that you'd have bothered in the first place when you think that mass is all about "worshipping a god that is clearly not there and never was and never will be." If you don't accept the basic premise behind the institution, then why would you think that any instance of the institution is capable of changing your mind? Mass, so far as I know, never argues for the existence of God; the participants take that as a given. It's a bit like attending a play when you've decided up front that the plot is worthless.

Chris OConnor

Mad

Catholicism bothers me more than most religions because the majority of the service is ritual and a waste of precious time. And all time is precious to me, so sitting, standing, kneeling and repeating the same little phrases over and over again just seems so wasteful and empty.

I love watching Baptist ministers preach on TV. Now that is quality time IMO. Their message is passionate and lively and ever-changing.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/16/06 10:01 am

scrumfish

I said I agree with this statement, made by GOD defiles Reason:

Quote:
I don't think being a freethinker just means being anti-religious.

Chris responded with this:

Quote:
We're all entitled to our own feelings so I appreciate that you feel freethinkers can be religious.

I did not say that I feel freethinkers can be religious. What I feel is that being a freethinker does not require one to hate or be hostile towards religion or religious people.

Chris OConnor

Ahhh my mistake. Yes, you're right. I agree.

scrumfish

I'm still curious about your choice of options. ::09

Chris OConnor

You're asking why I picked the religions that appear on this poll? Quite simply because I wantd to have a fun discussion. Obviously, freethinkers would pick Buddhism over the ones on my list. How exciting would that discussion be?

I wanted to pick extreme religions/cults that have irrational and ridiculous aspects. Each on my list fits the bill. Catholicism is chock full with vain repititions, idol worship, pedophilia induced by denying basic human instincts, and other meaningless nonsense.

Disclaimer
The above and below are my opinions and my opinions only.

Mormonism is pure bullshit. I lived in a Mormon home for a long time and know the religion better than most LDS's. Joseph Smith was a liar and a fraud, yet millions followed or are following him. I wanted to see if anyone would pick Mormonism.

Jehovah Witnesses are in a cult. The religion has so many sick and evil aspects that it demanded to be on the list. Don't you agree? They practice "shunning" which is basically turning your back on your family and friends if and when they leave the cult. I could go on and on about this one as I watched someone close to me get shunned. It was horrible to see her own husband divorce her and her entire family never speak to her again. Sick people.

What can I say about Scientology. Hmmm. I think everyone here knows about L. Ron Hubbard and his twisted cult. I live in Clearwater, FL, which is the "spiritual headquarters" for Scientology. I've seen enough to make me fairly comfortable saying they are one messed up group of people.

And then there are the Pentacostals. Have you ever been to a Pentacostal Church? Scary stuff indeed. Besides the fake "talking in tongues" bullshit, they are just a spooky group of unstable people. When I lived in the Mormon household we went and visited some Pentacostal churches. Why? I think to make the Mormon missionaries feel as if they were somehow superior. I remember sitting in the back of this eerie church watching people shaking and crying and flopping around talking in imaginary tongues.

So that is why I picked the religions you see on this poll. Buddhism is a fairly harmless religion and just about everyone here would probably opt to be a Buddhist if they HAD to pick.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 5/23/06 9:38 pm

MadArchitect

It's interesting to me that the perception here is that Buddhism is "more harmless" than other religions. It's less startling in some regards, I suppose, but less harmless? That seems like an odd conclusion to draw.

Or maybe it's just odd to me that you'd think of religion in specifically those terms. Is that the major criteria in terms of choosing one of the presented religions: which does the least harm? Does the least harm to whom? And so long as we're judging in terms of the potential harm that they do, why don't we throw in Nationalism as an option and see how it fares?

Edited by: MadArchitect at: 5/25/06 2:28 pm

GOD defiles Reason

Quote:
MadArchitect: Does the least harm to whom? And so long as we're judging in terms of the potential harm that they do, why don't we throw in Nationalism as an option and see how it fares?

Or adherence to a particular political party for that matter.

How much harm is being done right now because of our economic system?

How would a critical thinker address those comparisons to religion?

Chris OConnor

That might make for an interesting thread, but it hardly pertains to this one. Nationalism isn't a religion, but it could be classified as a dangerous belief. I'm not going to disagree if this is your position.

It would be nice if we could keep politics in the politics forum and religion in the religion forum. Naturally, they merge and intersect at times. Heck I am usually the merger or intersector. Are those words? But do we really have to derail this thread to talk about politics and economics?

Chris OConnor

Mad

Quote:
It's interesting to me that the perception here is that Buddhism is "more harmless" than other religions.

Perception? History speaks loudy on this subject. Buddhism is much more peaceful and harmless than any of the religions named.

Buddhists don't worship imaginary beings. Siddhartha Guatama was a human being, not a God. He was merely a wise man that bestowed wisdom on those that cared to listen. He didn't threaten those that didn't listen with lakes of fire. He didn't lead his people into battle to slaughter those with opposing viewpoints.

Buddhism doesn't deny or reject other religions. Name a time in history where Buddhists attempted to spread their religion through violence. Buddhists are tolerant and peaceful by nature. Can you say the same for Catholics?

Each of the named religions has some very disgusting qualities. I don't know of any such qualities of Buddhism. No, I don't agree with karma or rebirths, but these beliefs cause more good than bad.

Dissident Heart

Chris: Buddhism is much more peaceful and harmless than any of the religions named.

I think Buddhism has radically reshaped the lives of individuals, families, communities, entire nations and continents...it has uprooted persons from kinship units, out of expected familial roles, depleting labor forces, bringing entire economic and social systems to a complete standstill; demanding radical, systemic change. This demanded revolutionary restructuring of whole societies and cultures: this was not simple nor easy, and it was immensely costly...the kinds of costs you, as I've understood your own economic preferences, would find completely unacceptable.

In other words, Buddhism would shut America down: the wheels of Capitalism would vanish.

Chris: He (Gautama) was merely a wise man that bestowed wisdom on those that cared to listen. He didn't threaten those that didn't listen with lakes of fire. He didn't lead his people into battle to slaughter those with opposing viewpoints.

Still, I think his wisdom was something you would never endorse for yourself; nor would you want it embraced by even a sizable minority of your fellow citizens. His notion of anatman (or no-self) is anathema to the kind of individualistic self-aggrandizement and ego-promotion required to mobilize individuals within your world view. Likewise, the notion of pratitya-samutpada (interdependent co-origination) shatters all borders and boundaries of ownership, property, this-is-mine and that-is-yours...all of it merges into one body of shifting, flowing, indeterminate wonder. In essence, a nightmare for people who make a living by commodifying existence into sellable items. Finally, the basic principle of sunyata (emptiness/nothingness) where all is void of substance, stability, security, consistency...the impermanence and transience of existence cannot support any system (economic or otherwise) that claims universal application or pinnacle status.

Finally, the notion of nirvana: where the hunger and passion of desire; to claim, control, capture, dominate, force and consume existence...the diminshing of the flame of desire would eliminate our entire consumer culture.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT