Photonic
Ad astra!
Believe me, I know EXACTLY what you mean.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your "deal-breaker." What is it and why?
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
Believe me, I know EXACTLY what you mean.
Agnostic, although I don't usually dwell on questions of whether there is a god or not.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I could never accept the doctrine of the Trinity, at least not as it is defined in the 4th and 5th century Creeds. Mormonism's understanding of the Abrahamic God and His relationship to His Son and the Holy Ghost makes so much for sense to me that I could never continue to be a part of a Christian denomination that required me to embrace a trinitarian view of God.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
OK, I would also say I am agnostic with not much dwelling on the G issue - so I also would say I am a non-theist.
Hell's Bells
Member
For me, it's...well, everything. If I didn't agree 100% with LaVeyan Satanism's philosophy, I wouldn't be able to call myself a LaVeyan Satanist. There is no room for interpretation. Either you agree or you don't. There's no "picking and choosing" the bits that suit you. As Anton LaVey said, "Do you have to agree with everything I say? The answer is yes!"
It looks like many people misinterpreted this question.
I believe it was asking what defines your belief/practice, without which it would not be what it was. Not what you are willing to believe/practice.
Sadly, this thread reads like a who's who of the closed minded (with a few exceptions)- a large portion of the responses giving plenty of poor attempts at rationalizing away that closed mindedness and pretending it is something else. :no:
People saying they'd never join a particular religion/belief system/practice that required something no matter what (regardless of truth or morality)?
So you'd never be Muslim because then you couldn't eat pork? Never even consider it by its own merits (or flaws)? Do you people even realize how profoundly ignorant and both intellectually and morally shallow that sounds?
Very disappointing; anybody who misinterpreted the question and didn't answer "truth" needs to take a long hard look at themselves....
Truth and truth alone is the only qualification anybody should be listing for believing in something.
Now, what practices you'd have to follow in order to count yourself a member of a particular belief/faith/religion/etc. is another matter (what I believe this thread was actually asking). That's probably what was meant by "deal-breaker".
As to the misinterpretation I'm seeing here, I find any other "deal-breaker" as to willingness to do or believe something highly immoral, if it is not with respect to the validity of a belief. Belief in falsehood is one of the most common roots of evil (ignorance, often driven by some degree of egotism); whether something will make me happy or not, how it affects those around me is a matter of validity.
Nobody is perfect, but we have not only an intellectual but also a moral responsibility to do our bests to uphold a standard of intellectual honesty. And if we are to even try to be moral, then to also use that information to guide our actions.
I believe it was asking what defines your belief/practice, without which it would not be what it was. Not what you are willing to believe/practice.
Sadly, this thread reads like a who's who of the closed minded (with a few exceptions)- a large portion of the responses giving plenty of poor attempts at rationalizing away that closed mindedness and pretending it is something else. :no:
People saying they'd never join a particular religion/belief system/practice that required something no matter what (regardless of truth or morality)?
So you'd never be Muslim because then you couldn't eat pork? Never even consider it by its own merits (or flaws)? Do you people even realize how profoundly ignorant and both intellectually and morally shallow that sounds?
Very disappointing; anybody who misinterpreted the question and didn't answer "truth" needs to take a long hard look at themselves....
Truth and truth alone is the only qualification anybody should be listing for believing in something.
Now, what practices you'd have to follow in order to count yourself a member of a particular belief/faith/religion/etc. is another matter (what I believe this thread was actually asking). That's probably what was meant by "deal-breaker".
As to the misinterpretation I'm seeing here, I find any other "deal-breaker" as to willingness to do or believe something highly immoral, if it is not with respect to the validity of a belief. Belief in falsehood is one of the most common roots of evil (ignorance, often driven by some degree of egotism); whether something will make me happy or not, how it affects those around me is a matter of validity.
Nobody is perfect, but we have not only an intellectual but also a moral responsibility to do our bests to uphold a standard of intellectual honesty. And if we are to even try to be moral, then to also use that information to guide our actions.