Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Teneb]

What I was trying to say is that I believe if you frame religion as a mechanism for controlling people to have certain behavior, you've missed the boat. Abrahamic Religion isn't about behavior, it's about relationship with God and with other people.  All the focus on "is this good or is this evil? Who gets to decide what is good or evil?" is secondary to the relationship aspect.

FTFY

I know a lot of people in Europe, the Americas and Russia only have contact with abrahamic religions and as such have a concept that religion = judaism/christianity/islam, but come on.

[McTraveller]

No, I really meant all religion, not just Abrahamic.  All religions ultimately are about how to relate with people and god - even for religions that say "no god" there is still the abstract concept of "relationship with the devine or lack thereof."

I'm still struggling with the assertion of "that leaves the divine looking abusive as hell" view. Can you elaborate on the base assumptions from which that arises?  By contrast, what would define a "divine" not considered as abusive as hell and still maintain its "divine" nature?  I would posit that, linguistically, just as it's possible to make any statement (at least in English) have sexual connotations, it's possible to make any assertion about any kind of divine seem abusive.  I mean even if you're just a Deist, that can seem abusive since "why just create us and then decide to leave us to our own whims - isn't that abuse through neglect?"

[Frumple]

By contrast, what would define a "divine" not considered as abusive as hell and still maintain its "divine" nature?

Eh, it's possible. You can have a position of power and authority without your relationship with those impacted by that becoming abusive. Divine stuff has a much, much easier time of it when they're more limited beings... stuff in the direction of the greek/roman gods (though pretty emphatically not them specifically) or small spirit type junk. But it's not impossible to have capability or nature generally ascribed to divine entities and avoid showing stereotypical abusive behaviors. Stupidly difficult for most monotheistic formulations given the whole physical reality is what it is with everything that says about the creator entity's decision making thing, but not impossible.

You just have to avoid things like capricious or disproportionate harm (so hell type stuff is right out, eye parasites are right out if there's the ability to prevent them (unless you're the god of eye parasites and bugger everyone else, I guess), genocide/mass murder is probably off the table for the specific divinity, etc., etc.), allow for some degree of give and take that's not entirely one-sided/at your whim, so on and so forth. Stuff that makes for a relationship that's not master and servant with a side of "beatings will continue until morale improves _{also they'll probably happen occasionally regardless}".

When you're dealing with a relationship where all the power is on one side, it withholds the right to inflict any amount of harm on you it pleases, and there's no check or balance or means of leaving... that shit has a real hard time being healthy, y'know? It's not impossible but the standard of behavior for the one in power is real damn high, and unfortunately most scripture abrahamic or otherwise ascribes behavior to their divine that doesn't meet it at some point or another.

Though "made it and dumped it" sort of formulations sorta' get a pass. You could call it abusive by way of neglect but mostly it's just not a relationship anymore. The divine's kinda' a prick but they're also just not there so... *shrugs*

[McTraveller]

So question about the "hell is right out" kind of thing.  It's an interesting discussion point I think.  I'm of the view that hell specifically the eternal separation from god type, not the literal fire and constant torment type, is tied to the concept of justice, rather than "abuse".  So how do various other religions handle the distinction between abuse versus justice?

I want to make the distinction of just thinking about is a hell always out of the question, or could it be part of reasonable justice - I don't want to talk about "oh eating shellfish is a mortal sin, so that warrants capital punishment". That is, I'm not talking about the criteria for what is punishable or isn't. Just if the concept of justice in general is accepted or not (and I suppose by extension, does karma fit the definition of justice, or is it something else?)

[Dunamisdeos]

Eating shellfish is what I piously refer to as a "mortal win".

Carry on.

[Trekkin]

So question about the "hell is right out" kind of thing.  It's an interesting discussion point I think.  I'm of the view that hell specifically the eternal separation from god type, not the literal fire and constant torment type, is tied to the concept of justice, rather than "abuse".  So how do various other religions handle the distinction between abuse versus justice?

I want to make the distinction of just thinking about is a hell always out of the question, or could it be part of reasonable justice - I don't want to talk about "oh eating shellfish is a mortal sin, so that warrants capital punishment". That is, I'm not talking about the criteria for what is punishable or isn't. Just if the concept of justice in general is accepted or not (and I suppose by extension, does karma fit the definition of justice, or is it something else?)

Well, what just purpose does eternal punishment serve? There's no point rehabilitating people who will never be released, and it is difficult to see what injury we could do an omnipotent being that would merit retributive justice, let alone an eternity of it. Nor, if the aim is simply to quarantine unwanted people for reasons of public safety, is there any need for them to continue to exist -- particularly if the judge and jury, acting with infinite wisdom, never sentences someone erroneously and so never needs to release someone.

Karma, with its finite effects, doesn't raise the same questions, since the only eternal outcome is a willing (and difficult) escape from the cycle.

[VislarRn]

My "religious" background is 15 years of practicing semi-occultism. I'd use the word paganism, but it is not edgy enough and occult as a standard meaning contains somewhat a cocktail between satanism and esotericism flavored with some Crowlian philosophy, which is something I am not that interested about.

So, if I wanted to sell this idea...

Pros- *You can impress philosophers
         *Trains your intuition
         *Interesting
         *Helps you to understand psychology very fucking well.
         *Makes you really conscious about your inner mental life
         *No need for LSD or other mind-altering drugs

Cons- *Takes a lot of your time, and I mean a lot.
         *Gives you somewhat weird social life.
         *Since it's a practice around human will, you can't use standard moral systems to justify your behaviour.
         *If you don't want to come out of the closet with your beliefs, you'll need to find some sane excuses for your weird behaviour or decisions.
         *Hard to find people with similar beliefs, small community
         *Hard to explain (What are your religious beliefs? Er... well... it's complicated)

Idk about more negatives. Maybe I am too biased since I follow this system myself and I don't plan to stop any time near future.

[Hanslanda]

I suppose another con might be the moral panic some people might undergo. 'Oh no a Satanic baby eating pagan! Get the pitchforks.'

I wish people were more understanding of alternative religion.

[Rolan7]

Since I always forget solstices and equinoxes, um...  Today's the solstice!  Just a heads up.
(So the days are getting shorter here...  Surely that means tomorrow won't be 3 digits F.  Totally.)

[TD1]

Now, y'all remember not to sacrifice strangers to unholy forces just because it's the solstice.

You've got family members for that.

[hector13]

Don’t be silly, we don’t sacrifice people for the solstice.

We sacrifice people so the temperature won’t be ungodly.

[Frumple]

Doesn't work, sadly. Both the solstice and the ungodly temperature likes to strangle their meals with their own appendages.

Sacrifices just make them annoyed enough to convince a few more parents to leave their kids in a closed up car sans AC.

[Dunamisdeos]

So have any of you actually tried HUMAN sacrifice? Because I'm currently in an office with 20 other HUMANS in cubicles and the AC has been broken for 2 days now.

Asking in regards to a friend who is HUMAN and also present.

[hector13]

There’s no harm in trying.

Well... for a given definition of harm, I guess?

[Dunamisdeos]

No, I understand. What you're saying is that if it doesn't work it's not like it'll get any hotter. Thank you for helping me (and my friend) find the proper perspective.

Let me know if it's gets any cooler by you folks in, say, 15m. No reason.