you know what i want to rant about in the next couple sentences?

[charlesischuck]

It seems that in this world today there are an infinite number of religions is it a bad thing? maybe not.. But what i don't like to see is how religion has become an expression of that individual's personality. An just like the things you buy is simply a reflection of what you think "fits" you just right. people truly believe in their religions there is no doubt about that except for atheist, agnostics, and whatever other thing makes you just not give a dam about it. Is it wrong that we have so many religious choices you could choose a single one or all of them if you're really crazy enough to warp your mind into it. But many people unless highly influenced in younger years will look for the religion that "fits" them or in other words "fits their personality and what they think their morals are. Or the other side of this coin are te sheep, those that blindly follow a religion out of it just becoming a normal thing for them like watching tv or playing a game and think no more of it and just listen to the radicals who are warping their morals to what the person who made up the religion thinks "fits" them. I just think it's a terribly ****** up thing and wonder if one religion was correct why isn't everyone in that religion? hmmm must mean it isn't..

i should have said several sentences haha

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me you are ranting about humans being human. The challenge of individuals negotiating their place within groups is innate to the human condition. We're social animals. Whenever we are a part of any sort of group larger than ourselves, there is always a negotiation of fit and belonging. It doesn't matter if we're talking about organized religion, family, or the workplace... these dynamics are perpetual to being human. I guess I'm not sure what there is to rant about here, particularly since religion is not at all unique in how group-individual dynamics play out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice that even those who have their religion chosen for them (by geography, culture &
place in history), they still adjust their interpretation of their religion to suit their personality.
At least lately, they can more easily adjust by moving to a different one.
It smells like increased liberty to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I notice that even those who have their religion chosen for them (by geography, culture &
place in history), they still adjust their interpretation of their religion to suit their personality.
At least lately, they can more easily adjust by moving to a different one.
It smells like increased liberty to me.

*sniffs and screws up face*

Clearly increased liberty involves the choice of not bathing...lol

There is one small point I'd pick up on that I think has some value, actually. When people are 'picking' religions, I would hope they are using some evaluation of what they think to be true, in amongst the 'personal choice'. And I believe mostly they do this.

Otherwise we'd all be following Dionysus, right?

 

[underthesun]

I notice that even those who have their religion chosen for them (by geography, culture &
place in history), they still adjust their interpretation of their religion to suit their personality.
At least lately, they can more easily adjust by moving to a different one.
It smells like increased liberty to me.​

Is it that they're choosing their religious interpretation to suit their personality,
or is it that their understanding of the world leads to a matching religious interpretation and personality?​

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it that they're choosing their religious interpretation to suit their personality,
or is it that their understanding of the world leads to a matching religious interpretation and personality?​

I'd say they're related....so both.

 

[Revoltingest]

*sniffs and screws up face*

Clearly increased liberty involves the choice of not bathing...lol

There is one small point I'd pick up on that I think has some value, actually. When people are 'picking' religions, I would hope they are using some evaluation of what they think to be true, in amongst the 'personal choice'. And I believe mostly they do this.

Otherwise we'd all be following Dionysus, right?

"Truth" depends upon the perspective of the believer, much of which appears to be inborn.
Fortunately, Mrs Revolt & I are both big believers in bathing (showering, actually).

 

[Lady of Permutations]

if one religion was correct why isn't everyone in that religion?

There are people who will disagree even with facts that are known to be correct. I don't know if any particular religion is correct, but if there is a correct one it's certainly reasonable to think that some people wouldn't know it.

I understand why people want to create their own religions/interpretations, but I don't understand how they actually make themselves believe in them. I'd like to believe a lot of things that aren't true, but I can't believe things if I don't have a good reason (or a bad reason, at times) for thinking they're true.

 

[underthesun]

I'd say they're related....so both.​

Let me rephrase, I think my original phrasing might have been too confusing. Originally, it sounded as if you were saying that the people you spoke of were picking and choosing their religion in order to blend it in with their personality. It sounded to me as if you disapproved of this, or felt that it was in some way a less than genuine religious interpretation. Couldn't it be, instead, that the reason some have seemingly "chosen" or "matching" religious interpretations and personalities is not that they purposely did this, but simply that both are a result of their own world-views?

...I am not sure that I managed to word this any better this time, but hopefully it explains the difference between the two ideas better?​

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me rephrase, I think my original phrasing might have been too confusing. Originally, it sounded as if you were saying that the people you spoke of were picking and choosing their religion in order to blend it in with their personality. It sounded to me as if you disapproved of this, or felt that it was in some way a less than genuine religious interpretation. Couldn't it be, instead, that the reason some have seemingly "chosen" or "matching" religious interpretations and personalities is not that they purposely did this, but simply that both are a result of their own world-views?

...I am not sure that I managed to word this any better this time, but hopefully it explains the difference between the two ideas better?​

I don't disapprove of choosing a faith (or lack thereof) which suits one. (My avatar just naturally looks disapproving.) Moreover, it strikes me as more functional than practicing beliefs which go against one's nature. Personally, I never made a choice, having always been an atheist (weak variety), & never being called elsewhere. As for believers, I imagine there's more leeway since there are so many more flavors to choose from.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Truth" depends upon the perspective of the believer, much of which appears to be inborn.
Fortunately, Mrs Revolt & I are both big believers in bathing (showering, actually).

Ah...well, no disagreements from me on 'truth' being generated by perspective. What I mean was that if you are following a religion, you should have a 'true' belief in it. You shouldn't follow it because you have simply added up the x's and o's and it is the which has a bunch of x's.

For example, if you don't believe Christ is the son of God, Christianity would appear to be off the table, even if you see Christianity as a 'good' religion.

So there is an aspect of personal truth in the decision. People should be honest with themselves, at least.

 

[apophenia]

i should have said several sentences haha

Once upon a time ...

People only knew about the religion of their tribe or culture. With few exceptions. Most people were illiterate, so studying other religions was not an option, even if books were widely available (which they weren't).

The Spiritual Supermarket and Customised Beliefs are a relatively new development.

The way people relate to religions now is different to how people related to them originally, because education, travel, and multiculturalism expose people to other cultures and beliefs, which imposes the need to make judgements and evaluations rather than just 'follow the rules'.

Except in a few culturally backward places.

Religion was once about absolute obedience to cultural norms (and still is in a few backward places). The god idea was an idealisation/projection of the authority of leaders. IMO, this is the human form of pack-bonding behavior, and so could be seen as an evolved behavior in humans with the same function as ,say, preening in chimpanzees. Just more complicated.

This was not a problem when people only encountered a few dozen people in their lifetime, all of whom had been exposed to identical conditioning into the group belief. Religion was really about obedience to the group, and the establishing of who in the group represented and enforced the rules.

Finding out 'truth' about life the universe and everything - that is the province of science, philosophy and art.

 

[underthesun]

I don't disapprove of choosing a faith (or lack thereof) which suits one. (My avatar just naturally looks disapproving.) Moreover, it strikes me as more functional than practicing beliefs which go against one's nature. Personally, I never made a choice, having always been an atheist (weak variety), & never being called elsewhere. As for believers, I imagine there's more leeway since there are so many more flavors to choose from.​

:sorry1:
Oh, I completely misunderstood your post, then! My apologies!
Thank you so much for clarifying and being understanding!​

 

[Revoltingest]

:sorry1:
Oh, I completely misunderstood your post, then! My apologies!
Thank you so much for clarifying and being understanding!​

No worries. You're wise to question.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah...well, no disagreements from me on 'truth' being generated by perspective. What I mean was that if you are following a religion, you should have a 'true' belief in it. You shouldn't follow it because you have simply added up the x's and o's and it is the which has a bunch of x's.

For example, if you don't believe Christ is the son of God, Christianity would appear to be off the table, even if you see Christianity as a 'good' religion.

So there is an aspect of personal truth in the decision. People should be honest with themselves, at least.

No argument here. But different people have different approaches to religion,
& I can't really criticize which path compels them, even if it seems loopy to me.

 

[apophenia]

Oh, I completely misunderstood your post, then! My apologies!​

Thank you so much for clarifying and being understanding!​

One of the good things about being young is being able to read text this small without reading glasses.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No argument here. But different people have different approaches to religion,
& I can't really criticize which path compels them, even if it seems loopy to me.

Yeah...but what everyone should understand is that my way is the right way.

:yes:

 

[underthesun]

One of the good things about being young is being able to read text this small without reading glasses. ​

Ah, yes, I suppose it is a tad bit too small.
I'll stop changing the font size then; I just liked the look of it better.
I definitely don't want to force anyone to squint to read my posts though!
Thank you for pointing this out. ​

 

[ChristineES]

Ah, yes, I suppose it is a tad bit too small.
I'll stop changing the font size then; I just liked the look of it better.
I definitely don't want to force anyone to squint to read my posts though!
Thank you for pointing this out. ​

Oh, Thank you. I could read your posts but I found I was squinting a bit. Welcome to the RF.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah...but what everyone should understand is that my way is the right way.

:yes:

Indeed!