How Would You Classify Your Religious Beliefs?

[gaia.plateau]

For instance, My version of Heaven is very Different than the Muslim Version(NO I'm not referencing 70 virgins before you ask), the same way that the Buddhist belief in Nirvana isn't the same as the Hindu Belief of Brahman, or in the belief of several gods. Yes they are different, but to say they are nothing alike is just ludicrous.

Fun facts.

In the Islamic afterlife, you are seen to by 72 angels, not virgins. That misinterpretation/mistranslation only started after 9/11, when some retarded pundits wikipedia'd Islam, and began to proliferate among North American belief with disgusting rapidity.

In Hindu belief, there are simultaneously millions of gods and only one god.

As a post-script I basically agree with you on all points. Edited January 25, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[dude3516]

YAY for Idealistic Monist Monotheism

But yea, didn't feel like explaining the philosophy of Idealistic Monotheism...kinda hard to sum up in a forum post heheh Edited January 25, 2008 by dude3516

[Dr. Atkins]

so who else iz a voodoo preist up in hurrrrr

[Snoopy1966]

Fun facts.

In the Islamic afterlife, you are seen to by 72 angels, not virgins. That misinterpretation/mistranslation only started after 9/11, when some retarded pundits wikipedia'd Islam, and began to proliferate among North American belief with disgusting rapidity.

Thank you Gaia, I wanted to point that out, there is so much misconception of Islam now. Another interesting fact. 4 out of 5 reverts or converts to Islam are women. If you truly understand the religion, Islam does not oppress women. Man oppresses woman with their inability to comprehend the true meaning of Peace and Submission to the word of God. If anyone has questions about Islam please ask, and I will find the answer for you. I am not a scholar but I have many resources at hand.

Don't put me in the middle of a religious debate, I am not here for that.

Also where are all the Muslim votes? There are more out there.

[Glassjaw]

Buddhism, to an extent.

[Geiseric]

"Not to be offensive to anyone, but as a theology minor, and as someone who has had a great many different religions forced down his neck (hippy parents) I can honestly say those of you who are trying to make it sound like you guys know something in fact know nothing at all. If you guys are at all interested you can pm me and I'll recommend a book off of my bookshelf that you can read that explains why it is ridiculous to openly discuss such delicate subjects. Buddhism not a religion, come on! I have like 8 different professors that would laugh at some of you before kicking you out of their class for speaking first and not thinking...please do yourselves a favor and wikipedia (or something else) what religion is and what factors it has to have to be a religion."

This may be your perspective. This may be a large amount of Theology professor's perspectives. Doesn't mean it is the only relevant perspective. Theologians are FAR from being the only authorities on religion.
Many other fields spend just as much time seeking to understand religions and classify them - be it historians, Cultural Anthropologists, Sociologists, etc. (Some of which have branches dedicated to the study) What I have been speaking have been is primarily the Sociological perspective on religions. I'm a sociologist. It makes sense that that would be the perspective I would take. And it is a valid perspective, being that it studies religions from the perspective of what they bring to the society around them.

And Gaia is right. Speaking your perspective is one thing. Speaking strongly about is fine. Disagreeing with the other arguments is fine (although actually responding to their arguments would be nice. I'm talking to you, Perjj99). Stating that everyone in the discussion doesn't know what they are talking about, and you hold the answer because you are MINORING in ONE of the fields that studies what is under discussion... Very arrogant.

One last note:
WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS? This started out with me simple stating that Hinduism and Buddhism have certain things in common, which they do, and that was why I could understand Dr. Atkins grouping them together in his very quick, basic poll. And that there was a lot more then what was in your *comprehensive* list(Perjj99). Because there is. Nothing mind blowing here. No one ever said anything about the two religions being even close to identical.

Time to move on. The only reason I posted again was because Jtownin's comment annoyed me. Edited January 26, 2008 by Geiseric

[Perrj99]

Which of your points did I not respond to? And what more than what I listed? We already covered the whole Taoist, etc thing. Which research has shown it has a lower percentage of followers than Judaism, even though you apparently think that it is far more popular throughout the world. The only other major religion I left out is Sikhism. Please enlighten us, Geiseric.

And....this all started because I simply asked why it is worded as "Hindu or Buddhist" and "Agnostic/Atheist", when Hinduism and Buddhism are separate religiously, philosophically, and so on...as are Atheism and Agnosticism. Then you felt the need to chime in with a "Protestantism is different than Orthodoxy" argument to somehow justify that all "Eastern" religions are similar so they can be bunched into one category while for some strange reason different branches within the same religion (Christianity) should be specified within a "simple poll", as you stated it. Not to mention your condescending attitude, and the fact that you think Agnosticism and Atheism are closely related.

Blah, blah, blah...........




And if your gonna deliberately call me out on something, specifically putting my username in your post, don't pretend that you think it is "time to move on"... Edited January 26, 2008 by Perrj99

[Geiseric]

Rather than pulling a Gaia (No offense, Gaia, I just don't have your stamina, and I really don't care enough) and going through and making 4000 quotations to show what you've ignored, I ask you to go ahead and re-read what I said.

Or don't.

I don't really care either way.

The whole Eastern thing... You would understand if you understood the Eastern perspective in any way. The eastern way of looking at the world is SO far removed from the west that grouping the any ancient eastern religion with a western religion is.... fairly foolish.



The whole thing is really rather pointless. I look at religion from a different skew than most do. For some reason, you seem to have taken great offense at my perspective. Deal. I've given up on trying to explain the way we see it to you in a calm manner, because it seems you grow upset with every comment I make. The last one was criticism. I'll give you that. Not much of one, more of a comment, but go ahead and look back and I think you will see why I said it.

But frankly, I grow tired of your constant antagonism. I don't deserve your attitude. I politely stated what I thought. Agreed with some, disagreed with others. I made a comment about you ignoring my arguments, because you did. It was not said as an insult, and it doesn't read like one either. You are taking everything I say, becoming upset, and bringing that anger into the thread. I had hoped it was possible to keep this academic, but I see I was wrong. Everyone needs to make everything personal when it comes to speaking of religion.

Basically... chill. You've been here for a while (not very active, but....) and by now you should have absorbed a more laid back method of expressing yourself. Every word you write is screaming "I AM OFFENDED, and I am going to let everyone know."

And now, I am done here. This just isn't getting anywhere. Really. This thread is disappointing, to say the least. Edited January 26, 2008 by Geiseric

[Foos]

All this serious argument aside.

Anyone else consider the Mormon religion a cult?

[Geiseric]

I can't help but feel the history of the church is foolish, extremely so, but, none the less, one cannot deny the positive the Mormons have brought about, either.

At least its leaps and bounds above Scientology, which is just a scam wrapped up in fancy vocabulary and secrecy. Oh wait, shouldn't have said that, now I am BOUND to be sued. It's funny how freedom of speech is really only applicable when you aren't speaking of church or country.

BTW, thanks for starting up a new topic... but, hey lets try to be somewhat objective. There are foolish things in every religion, and it is often only easy to see then from the outside looking in. Edited January 26, 2008 by Geiseric

[r1v3th3ad]

Well, the mormons are fun...
They believe that only 120000 people will get into heaven, yet they go door to door recruiting, lessening their chances.
And one of their latter day saints, joe something, got all of his "visions" or whatever you wanna call them from a "magick hat". They all consider him higher up than Jesus...
I think its Joe Smith.

Nothing against them, just quit fucking knocking on my door. I DONT FUCKING CARE!

[gr!m]

I wouldn't group Atheism and Agnostic together they are VERY different. I classify myself as Agnostic (Not denying that there can be a god, but I don't actively practice. Almost a "see it to believe it" factor.)

[JtowninAtown]

Things like what we are talking about here are dangerous subjects to talk about on forums as some translation is lost through words. I would gladly sit and talk with anyone about these subjects, but in all honesty over the safety of a computer is the most emotionless and and idiotic way to portray one's religious beliefs and understanding. I made a mistake by typing my response earlier as I was a bit heated over the arrogance (no, I'm not the only one) of some people's responses. I apologize. Though, I still hold true to my belief that those that talk the most know the least (ironic?). It is evident that some of the attacks here are made by college-going-mr/mrs.talkstomuch (myself included, and I have been kicked out of class before for it), so all this intellect bullshit is just another thing I can laugh at at the end of the day. Do any of you know what The Dark 30 group is by chance? We discuss religions like these all the time. We are a group of theologians. The trick is when we argue is not to insult someone's intelligence in the process. I guess I failed already. It makes me glad I don't teach stuff like this as religion is something one can only be taught to a certain degree and then the rest is all experience. To me, all religion has been to me, thus far, is who can sway the most logical argument. But I do know a great deal more about culture and religion than most my age, and it is something I pride myself in. Anyway, I didn't mean to start anything, or to sound naive. I apologize. I would much rather discuss something like this in person is all.


PS: I don't believe in atheists... Edited January 26, 2008 by JtowninAtown

[gaia.plateau]

All this serious argument aside.

Anyone else consider the Mormon religion a cult?

The only difference between a cult and an organized religion, is formal recognition and legitimation by a government. Mormonism is recognized as an organized religion, ergo it is one... That being said, it's pretty fucked up. THAT being said, I'll sign up for any cult that gives me magical underpants.

I wouldn't group Atheism and Agnostic together they are VERY different. I classify myself as Agnostic (Not denying that there can be a god, but I don't actively practice. Almost a "see it to believe it" factor.)

I was raised Agnostic, and exposed to various religions growing up... I relate agnosticism to people by comparing it to pushing random play on your stereo. You're happy to listen to music, but you don't really care what's playing.

We are a group of theologians. The trick is when we argue is not to insult someone's intelligence in the process. I guess I failed already.

"I can honestly say those of you who are trying to make it sound like you guys know something in fact know nothing at all."

Think so?

I rhetorically ask, into the empty void of webspace before all of us... how prestigious is a "group of theologians" that is at least partly made up of undergraduates with minors in theology? Edited January 26, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Geiseric]

"I rhetorically ask, into the empty void of webspace before all of us... how prestigious is a "group of theologians" that is at least partly made up of undergraduates with minors in theology"
Ah hah hah hah hah hahhhhhh. I would make an intelligent response.... but I am too drunk. Shit. Stupid alcohol that tricks you by tasting like it has nothing in it. Damn you!


*Sigh. I hate coming back to places and having to clean up the mess I made when I was drunk. This is why I don't drink often.
Clever response, Gaia, but he has expressed his apologies, so I think we are all good again.* Edited January 26, 2008 by Geiseric

[JtowninAtown]

deleted for civil reasons... Edited January 26, 2008 by JtowninAtown

[Johnny_D]

Gents. Keep it civil. Otherwise you'll all find yourselfs on vacation. Don't make us do it. Please.

JD

[Snoopy1966]

Yes I am disappointed in this thread. It was just supposed to be what religion are you, simple enough. Lets leave all this behind now.

[gaia.plateau]

Gents. Keep it civil. Otherwise you'll all find yourselfs on vacation. Don't make us do it. Please.

JD

Sorry JD. I was constraining myself, but that last sentence was a bit jarring.

Maybe someone can refer something off their bookshelf to an unfortunate pleb like me, that will help with self control. (Okay I'm through posting in this silly thread now ) Edited January 26, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[shisha fan]

Yes I am disappointed in this thread. It was just supposed to be what religion are you, simple enough. Lets leave all this behind now.

[/sarcasm] yeah its so weird, religion has never caused any conflict before [\sarcasm]

[Perrj99]

The whole Eastern thing... You would understand if you understood the Eastern perspective in any way. The eastern way of looking at the world is SO far removed from the west that grouping the any ancient eastern religion with a western religion is.... fairly foolish.

I've spent time in India (speak conversational Hindi), Pakistan and China...but okay, Geiseric. Who grouped an Eastern religion with any from the "West"...?

I look at religion from a different skew than most do. For some reason, you seem to have taken great offense at my perspective.
But frankly, I grow tired of your constant antagonism. I don't deserve your attitude. I politely stated what I thought.

Politely? Really...?

+ (hmmmm...)

Don't assume becuase you haven't heard of them in NY that they must not be common. The world is a bit bigger place than the good ol' American Empire.

This was your second response....Wonder why I thought you were an asshole after that? Condescending...I've been far further from my house than my backyard.

And about your comment about some people taking everything personal when it comes to religion...I am the furthest you will meet from a religious person. I take things personal when someone gets a condescending tone right off the bat in a simple argument, which comes down to opinion....in this case, apparently.

You strayed from the topic, why Hinduism should be grouped with Buddhism, while the 2 are both different religions? Where as, in your opinion, different sects of Christianity, ie; Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy should deserve their own categories if the poll had been more extensive. That seems a tad biased to me, considering you are a member of one of the said sects...yet feel that Hinduism and Buddhism are so close they are fine being grouped as one. And showed even more ignorance when you stated that Agnosticism and Atheism are the closest related of them all. lol...

I never said Hinduism and Buddhism don't have similarities, I said they are different enough to be considered separate from one another, as they are.

A poll with the 3 religions stemming from Judaic tradition grouped, while Buddhism would get it's own...and Hinduism it's own...would make people confused. Wouldn't it?

The only thing I can think of which you stated previously, that I ignored, was:

If you wish to use the word Religion in the sociological sense, all methods of seeking to understand the meaning and origin of life can be described as such. Some would go so far as to describe Darwinism a religion. I would agree to a degree, being that it certainly has a lot in common with religion. It has people who simply follow it becuase it is what they have been tought, there are those that devote their lives to its study. It demands certain assumptions that cannot be proven, using the explanation that it is the only possible explanation, because a God cannot exist, which is exactly the same argument those who have belief in divinity of any kind use to justify the existence of said divinity.
But I digress.

Which was not only irrelevant, but in my humble opinion, inane.

And you called yourself a Sociologist when you are apparently just studying it...so would that make me a Historian (Major) and an Anthropologist (Minor)? lol...

Okay, now maybe you will understand why I personally did not like anything you said. You strayed off topic, with a clear bias, and were condescending to me right off the bat.

Whew, finally explained it for ya...so stop playing the victim, please. Now I am officially done with Geiseric's responses.

Wild n' crazy kids...

[Dr. Atkins]

Feelings of past lives as expected perturbations within the neurocognitive processes that generate the sense of self: contributions from limbic lability and vectorial hemisphericity.
Persinger MA.

Department of Psychology, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

Normal, young men and women who believed they may have lived a previous life (n = 21) or who did not endorse (n = 52) this belief of "reincarnation" were exposed to partial sensory deprivation and received transcerebral stimulation by burst-firing magnetic fields over either the left or right hemisphere. Individuals who reported belief in reincarnation could be discriminated from nonbelievers by their more frequent report of experiences of tingling sensations, spinning, detachment of consciousness from the body, and intrusions of thoughts that were not attributed to the sense of self. The results support the hypothesis that there may be neurocognitive processes which identify experiences as originating from the sense of self (episodic or autobiographical memory) or "not self." When anomalous experiences are beyond the boundary of the experiences contained with the generalization gradient of concurrent autobiographical memory, they are more likely to be attributed to culturally available default explanations such as living a previous life.

PMID: 9017718 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Thoughts?

[Geiseric]

I am not going to even bother arguing this any more, as Dr. Atkins has slyly interjected, its time to move on. You can keep going, but I think everyone else has gotten tired of this.

I am, however, going to respond to your little personal attack, simply because I would rather not let that just there.

To the sociologist comment, which was quite rude, but, something that is apparently part of your argumentative style; any one who would devote their life to the study of societies is in fact a sociologist. I am also employed in a social field at the moment, making me both a sociologist by trade and by study.

Now I am not going to repeat myself again. It is time to move on. This thread could have potential, so I am not going to say just let it die because someone is having difficulty remaining civil, so lets all act like adults and bring in the next topic.

Here we go- Dr. Atkins - Sounds pretty hypothetical, but interesting in and of itself. Do you have any more details on the study, or was this excerpt the only thing that was available? Edited January 26, 2008 by Geiseric

[Dr. Atkins]

I'm waiting for the full article on interlibrary loan.

Related: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

A number of scientists have since refuted Persinger's magnetic field idea (note the ludicrous 80% of subjects affected claim), instead concluding that suggestibility is the culprit for these spiritual experiences. In these studies, subjects are always interviewed about their own spiritual beliefs, and this questioning and subsequent self-examination, coupled with the unusual experience of participating in such experiments, probably has a powerful effect on the average dudebro.

[dude3516]

I wonder if evolutionary memory would fit in with this study as well?