Religious people: what is your level of observance?

VEGANGELICA · 03-29-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

Yeah, I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm glad you get what I was trying to say. If a god changes rules only because people sinned against that god, which rules would the god *really* prefer the people to follow: the original ones, or the new ones created in response to people having sinned?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

Even now study of Torah law and the reasons for it are encouraged.

It's always good to make people think!

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

One of the things which put me off my old church, and indeed Christianity, was that those people who wished to ask questions or debate matters were often looked down upon or openly criticized. Most of the churches I've attended seemed to want people to learn answers by rote, withiout even really learning or understanding the reasoning behind them.

I can understand you feeling put off by anyone expecting you to learn answers by rote without trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

Geddy, I'm thinking this isn't a problem with Christianity or any religion as a whole, but rather with the philosophy of some of the practitioners. People in secular organizations can also be resistant to the questioning of rules or organization philosophy.

Speaking of following rules without questioning them, I remember being befriended by truly very nice members of the Boston Church of Christ, considered by some to be a cult, that was led by a (male) pastor who definitely had a strong aura of authority that didn't seem to invite questioning. During one of his sermons, he talked about how he had once sinned by kissing his wife with lust. He admonished the congregation to rid themselves of lust.

I was surprised, since I thought this was a good way to empty a church, and I hadn't realized that he felt the congregation as a whole should avoid lustful feelings. There didn't appear to be any debate over this issue in the Bible studies I attended as a guest. I thought the lack of debate was interesting and a bit disturbing, since I didn't think the Bible ever said lust shouldn't exist as part of love or should be avoided.

Often following religious laws seems to translate into following people's interpretations of religious texts, and so the exact law that a particular church may expect the congregation to follow comes down to which group of people has the most power within a religious organization.

I do think there must be religious organizations that simply offer a philosophy and leave it up to practitioners to decide for themselves how they interpret it and whether or how they want to follow it. I grew up going to a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, which originated from Christian beliefs but is no longer dependent on any creed or faith. The people there always seemed very open-minded. I never actually thought of it as a religion, though.

UU is more of a group of people who support some basic principles, most of which I do follow because I think they are kind:

Unitarian Universalist Principles: http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml

*The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
*Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
*Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
*A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
*The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
*The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
*Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

crukster · 03-29-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Speaking of following rules without questioning them, I remember being befriended by truly very nice members of the Boston Church of Christ, considered by some to be a cult, that was led by a (male) pastor who definitely had a strong aura of authority that didn't seem to invite questioning. During one of his sermons, he talked about how he had once sinned by kissing his wife with lust. He admonished the congregation to rid themselves of lust.

I was surprised, since I thought this was a good way to empty a church, and I hadn't realized that he felt the congregation as a whole should avoid lustful feelings. There didn't appear to be any debate over this issue in the Bible studies I attended as a guest. I thought the lack of debate was interesting and a bit disturbing, since I didn't think the Bible ever said lust shouldn't exist as part of love or should be avoided.

Often following religious laws seems to translate into following people's interpretations of religious texts, and so the exact law that a particular church may expect the congregation to follow comes down to which group of people has the most power within a religious organization.

That's the thing though, a majority of people go to Church or their respective place of worship and listen to the Sermons for the guidance aspect. They want someone who apparently knows what to do, to tell them what to do. That's a very dangerous thing though, all it takes is one selfish agenda and you've got a room full of wide-eyed believers following a Terrorist.

Definitly guidance is important imo. But people still have to think for themselves, take in the words and lessons and analyse it. You can't be an automaton, a sermon is a place for "input", ideas. It should be bubbling with debate and arguments imo, people trying to separate out what works from what doesnt.

I don't think there's anything wrong with kissing your Wife lustfully. It's a celebration of marriage and love. What two married people do is their own business.

Quote:

I do think there must be religious organizations that simply offer a philosophy and leave it up to practitioners to decide for themselves how they interpret it and whether or how they want to follow it. I grew up going to a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, which originated from Christian beliefs but is no longer dependent on any creed or faith. The people there always seemed very open-minded. I never actually thought of it as a religion, though.

UU is more of a group of people who support some basic principles, most of which I do follow because I think they are kind:

Unitarian Universalist Principles: UUA: Our Unitarian Universalist Principles

*The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
*Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
*Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
*A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
*The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
*The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
*Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

This sounds quite a bit like Sufism, the Islamic counterpart. I was raised Sunni but the Sufi aspect of Islam is something that's always been very interesting to me, something I'm going to study further

Sufism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's some info there. From what I understand of it it's more about the "functionality" of the Universe; of God.

**Janszoon** · 03-29-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

This sounds quite a bit like Sufism, the Islamic counterpart. I was raised Sunni but the Sufi aspect of Islam is something that's always been very interesting to me, something I'm going to study further

Sufism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's some info there. From what I understand of it it's more about the "functionality" of the Universe; of God.

There are actually a fair amount of atheist Unitarian Universalists by the way. Maybe in your studies of Unitarian Universalism you'll discover that atheism isn't a cult or juvenile or whatever other odd negative notions you have of it.

crukster · 03-29-2011, 05:21 PM

I didn't actually say I was gonna study Unitarian Universalism, I meant Sufism. But yeah I might do, that sounds interesting as well.

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction of terms. If you're tackling Theological ideas, you can't be an atheist.

**Janszoon** · 03-29-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

Still doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction of terms. If you're tackling Theological ideas, you can't be an atheist.

Sounds like you need to study more about UU. And atheism for that matter.

crukster · 03-29-2011, 05:32 PM

a-theism.

the absence of Theology.

Theology hardly refers specificaly to Jesus Christ.

I assumed Unitarian Universalism would tackle the idea of God and Existence also, admitedly I don't know anything about "UU" other than what VEGANGELICA wrote there. If it doesn't, then it's nothing like Sufism, I'll retract my claim.

Also, I thought atheists were only called atheists because they "fell into no other category"? Surely if you follow UU, you'd be a called a Unitarian Universalist.

If you're an atheist Unitarian Universalist then that just proves me earlier point where I was sayign atheism is a group with it's own agendas. Thus it contradicts itself and the name is innacurate and misleading.

**Janszoon** · 03-29-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

a-theism.

the absence of Theology.

Theology hardly refers specificaly to Jesus Christ.

I assumed Unitarian Universalism would tackle the idea of God and Existence also, admitedly I don't know anything about "UU" other than what VEGANGELICA wrote there. If it doesn't, then it's nothing like Sufism, I'll retract my claim.

Also, I thought atheists were only called atheists because they "fell into no other category"? Surely if you follow UU, you'd be a called a Unitarian Universalist.

If you're an atheist Unitarian Universalist then that just proves me earlier point where I was sayign atheism is a group with it's own agendas. Thus it contradicts itself and the name is innacurate and misleading.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Unitarian Universalism doesn't require its followers to believe in the supernatural to be part of the group--their emphasis is much more on the here and now and on community--so there isn't any conflict in being an atheist UU. As I said there are quite a few of them.

GeddyBass2112 · 03-30-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

I'm glad you get what I was trying to say. If a god changes rules only because people sinned against that god, which rules would the god *really* prefer the people to follow: the original ones, or the new ones created in response to people having sinned?

Agreed.

Yay.

Quote:

I can understand you feeling put off by anyone expecting you to learn answers by rote without trying to understand the reasoning behind them.

I'm just not that sort of person who can accept those kind of answer.

Quote:

Geddy, I'm thinking this isn't a problem with Christianity or any religion as a whole, but rather with the philosophy of some of the practitioners. People in secular organizations can also be resistant to the questioning of rules or organization philosophy.

Major problem I've comes across is that questioning any sort of religious principles or teaching seems to get far more resistance than most.

Quote:

Speaking of following rules without questioning them, I remember being befriended by truly very nice members of the Boston Church of Christ, considered by some to be a cult, that was led by a (male) pastor who definitely had a strong aura of authority that didn't seem to invite questioning. During one of his sermons, he talked about how he had once sinned by kissing his wife with lust. He admonished the congregation to rid themselves of lust.

I was surprised, since I thought this was a good way to empty a church, and I hadn't realized that he felt the congregation as a whole should avoid lustful feelings. There didn't appear to be any debate over this issue in the Bible studies I attended as a guest. I thought the lack of debate was interesting and a bit disturbing, since I didn't think the Bible ever said lust shouldn't exist as part of love or should be avoided.

Wow.

Quote:

Often following religious laws seems to translate into following people's interpretations of religious texts, and so the exact law that a particular church may expect the congregation to follow comes down to which group of people has the most power within a religious organization.

I saw this in my old church. There was a vociferous but fairly small group of people in my church who held some very 'traditional' ideas about the Bible and Christian thought, many of whom were Creationists too. They seemed to wield a lot of power in the church and so I often felt that too much emphasis of my church's teachings was about appeasing this group of people. Prime example is discussion of evolution- we tried to hold a series of lectures on the subject of the Bible and evolution, only to have the idea suddenly and quietly get panned, likely on the say-so of this group of people.

Quote:

I do think there must be religious organizations that simply offer a philosophy and leave it up to practitioners to decide for themselves how they interpret it and whether or how they want to follow it. I grew up going to a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, which originated from Christian beliefs but is no longer dependent on any creed or faith. The people there always seemed very open-minded. I never actually thought of it as a religion, though.

UU is more of a group of people who support some basic principles, most of which I do follow because I think they are kind:

*snip*

I've come across this group before and it sounds pretty great.

VEGANGELICA · 03-30-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

That's the thing though, a majority of people go to Church or their respective place of worship and listen to the Sermons for the guidance aspect. They want someone who apparently knows what to do, to tell them what to do. That's a very dangerous thing though, all it takes is one selfish agenda and you've got a room full of wide-eyed believers following a Terrorist.

Agreed. One reason I am interested in seeing what sorts of religious rules or laws or philosophies people follow, and why, is that sometimes beliefs encourage followers to hurt others. I wish no belief system encouraged this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

[Unitarian Universalism] sounds quite a bit like Sufism, the Islamic counterpart. I was raised Sunni but the Sufi aspect of Islam is something that's always been very interesting to me, something I'm going to study further

Sufism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crukster, reading your link makes me think Sufism and Unitarian Universalism are quite different since Unitarian Universalism supports seven basic (ethical) principles (UUA: Our Unitarian Universalist Principles), without telling people what their spiritual path should be (or even if they should have one).

Sufism, in contrast, appears to require a spiritual teacher and the following of a particular spiritual path aimed at purifying the soul. One could, however, follow Sufism *and* Unitarian Universalism, because they don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

I assumed Unitarian Universalism would tackle the idea of God and Existence also, admitedly I don't know anything about "UU" other than what VEGANGELICA wrote there. If it doesn't, then it's nothing like Sufism, I'll retract my claim.

Also, I thought atheists were only called atheists because they "fell into no other category"? Surely if you follow UU, you'd be a called a Unitarian Universalist.

If you're an atheist Unitarian Universalist then that just proves me earlier point where I was sayign atheism is a group with it's own agendas. Thus it contradicts itself and the name is innacurate and misleading.

I think many people (but not all) who identify as Unitarian Universalist *do* think a lot about existence and the meaning of life (and whether it has one), as well as other theological questions.

Here's a joke about Unitarian Universalists that demonstrates what I mean:

Quote:

A Unitarian Universalist dies, and on the way to the afterlife encounters a fork in the road with two options: "to heaven" and "to a discussion of heaven." Without pausing, the UU heads right to the discussion of heaven.

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM

I think that would make a lot of UU people laugh because they'd relate!

At least, it made me chuckle when I first heard it.

I don't view being an atheist and a Unitarian Universalist as contradictory since one can believe in *any* religion and also be a Unitarian Universalist. For example, there are Jewish people who are also Unitarian Universalist (Jewish Voices in Unitarian-Universalism, the project, the book, the on-line community).

The reason this is possible is that UU makes no statements about gods, neither whether or not they exist, nor what their nature might be. Spiritual beliefs are left up to individual members to decide (or not decide) for themselves, such as views about gods and whether or not there is any ultimate purpose in existence or for the self. UU often looks at and appreciates aspects of religious teachings from a variety of religious traditions, but does not subscribe to them.

This may help explain Unitarian Universalism better:

Quote:

Unitarian Universalism

While our congregations uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists may discern their own beliefs about theological issues. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

We welcome people who identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions.

UUA: Theological Perspectives

and

Quote:

Major concerns of the UU religion include social justice and service to humanity. Most UUs readily adapt their beliefs to the findings of science. Thus they were very active in the abolition of slavery, gaining of equal rights for women, and the attainment of equal rights, including the right to marry, for homosexuals and bisexuals.
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

But when people start giving a name to an idea based on nothing, essentially worhsipping the idea of a lack of worship, well I cant stomach that. Still though I can say, it's up to them, they can do what they want.

When those groups start intefering with the rest of the World, that's not something I'm happy about though, thats a step too far and tbh I've not really decided if and what I should do about that, I'm not exactly in a position of power.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't worship any person or idea, Crukster, although I admire and appreciate many. I love the concept of democracy, for example, but I also don't want the majority to dominate the minority by treading on privileges I feel should be rights.

Your statement about not liking when atheists interfere with the rest of the world probably comes from the same root feeling that makes people say they don't like it when religions interfere with the rest of the world. So, I think you share a feeling in common with many people, such as Janszoon, who discuss the experience atheists sometimes have in a predominantly religious society.

I think most people want to be able to practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. When a person doesn't let you do that, feeling angry in response is only natural. I know *I* want autonomy. So, I feel it is wrong when a secular regime (such as China's) forbids the practice of certain religions. And I feel it is wrong when a religious regime forbids the practice of certain religions and non-religions.

This brings us back to the issue you mentioned earlier: sometimes the way people observe their particular belief systems involves interfering in the lives of other people who don't want interference, such as people who want to marry the adult whom they love, or teachers who want to teach science in science classrooms rather than religious beliefs attempting to mascarade as science, or people who don't want to die at the hands of terrorists.

When one person's observance of her beliefs (whether they are religious or not) interferes with another person's autonomy, then we have conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

Major problem I've comes across is that questioning any sort of religious principles or teaching seems to get far more resistance than most.

I saw this in my old church. There was a vociferous but fairly small group of people in my church who held some very 'traditional' ideas about the Bible and Christian thought, many of whom were Creationists too. They seemed to wield a lot of power in the church and so I often felt that too much emphasis of my church's teachings was about appeasing this group of people. Prime example is discussion of evolution- we tried to hold a series of lectures on the subject of the Bible and evolution, only to have the idea suddenly and quietly get panned, likely on the say-so of this group of people.

I'd be troubled, too, by anyone squelching a discussion of evolution, since I feel that learning about how life procreates and has changed over time is a wonderful way to understand and appreciate life more.

crukster · 03-30-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

I think many people (but not all) who identify as Unitarian Universalist *do* think a lot about existence and meaning or lack thereof in it, as well as theological questions.

Here's a joke about Unitarian Universalists that demonstrates what I mean:

I think that would make a lot of UU people laugh because they'd relate!

I don't view being an atheist and a Unitarian Universalist as contradictory...since one can believe in *any* religion and also be a Unitarian Universalist. For example, there are Jewish people who are also Unitarian Universalist (Jewish Voices in Unitarian-Universalism, the project, the book, the on-line community).

The reason this is possible is that UU makes no statements about gods, neither whether or not they exist, nor what their nature might be. Spiritual beliefs are left up to individual members to decide (or not decide) for themselves, and are not proscribed, such as views about gods and whether or not there is any ultimate purpose in existence or for the self. UU often looks at and appreciates aspects of religious teachings from a variety of religious traditions, but does not subscribe to them.

I'm not disputing that someone could be Jewish and UU, or Muslim and UU or whatever so forth, and I agree one could probably be Sufi and UU.

I don't however believe someone could truthfully be atheist and UU.

Because what many atheists in this thread have agreed on, is that atheist is the word for the religious world's opinion of you. Well surely if you start tackling ideas which are common to you and them, whilst following UU, they would call you a Unitarian Universalist.

atheism is irrelevant. Ultimatly either you're for theism or against.

That's a good joke even I can relate to that lol.

Quote:

I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't worship any person or idea, Crukster, although I admire and appreciate many. I love the concept of democracy, for example, but I also don't want the majority to dominate the minority by treading on privileges I feel should be rights.

I don't either, not person anyway. And not the idea, only the Truth upon which it's based. I'm talking about the Universal energy of all existence. I know those terms are crude and generic. I'm hardly an expert on the idea, and tbh it's mostly self-formed. What I am getting at is there is a Universal commonality to all existence, or else we wouldnt be able to converse like this, we wouldnt even see each other, perceive, let alone understand. It'd be nothing, or at least, sole; alone.

Maybe that is our ultimate fate. Who knows.

In there here and now though, we are all here, we are all now. What I believe is God is the collective energy, will and power of us all. And capability; promise.

God is the eternal Sum of an evergrowing equation.

I definitly believe in autonamy as well. But I believe life is not about having a freefall toward nothing, shedding as many ties as possible. I believe, life is about thinking ideas and purposes that you choose to commit yourself fully, to pledge to, to live for.

Understanding through Autonomy.

Not the opposite.

Quote:

Your statement about not liking when atheists interfere with the rest of the world probably comes from the same root feeling that makes people say they don't like it when religions interfere with the rest of the world. So, I think you share a feeling in common with many people, such as Janszoon, who discuss the experience atheists sometimes have in a predominantly religious society.

I think most people want to be able to practice their religion or lack thereof in peace. When a person doesn't let you do that, feeling angry in response is only natural. I know *I* want autonomy. So, I feel it is wrong when a secular regime (such as China's) forbids the practice of certain religions. And I feel it is wrong when a religious regime forbids the practice of certain religions and non-religions.

This brings us back to the issue you mentioned earlier: sometimes the way people observe their particular belief systems involves interfering in the lives of other people who don't want interference, such as people who want to marry the adult whom they love, or teachers who want to teach science in science classrooms rather than religious beliefs attempting to mascarade as science, or people who don't want to die at the hands of terrorists.

When one person's observance of her beliefs (whether they are religious or not) interfere with another person's autonomy, then we have conflict.

I'd be troubled, too, by anyone squelching a discussion of evolution, since I feel that learning about how life procreates and has changed over time is a wonderful way to understand and appreciate life more.

To clarify I don't have a problem when people intefere in the World in general, I have a problem with atheists intefering.

For example, if the World was completely atheist, and I didn't like how it was being run, I wouldn't call myself

"aatheist"

thats not a typo the double a is intentional. I would say

"I don't like your World. I'm gonna burn it up and build my own one."

If that's what people think of this World, they should be honest. I dunno if at's at the point of burning up, but I definitly do not really like the World as it is today.

This is off topic again anyway, I apologise.

View Poll Results: Your level of observance?
Non-practicing/secular form of religion	20	43.48%
A little observant	3	6.52%
Middle-of-the-road observance	11	23.91%
Strict adherence to religious rules	4	8.70%
Don't know	8	17.39%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

03-29-2011, 05:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
crukster Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 181	I didn't actually say I was gonna study Unitarian Universalism, I meant Sufism. But yeah I might do, that sounds interesting as well. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a contradiction of terms. If you're tackling Theological ideas, you can't be an atheist.

03-29-2011, 05:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
crukster Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 181	a-theism. the absence of Theology. Theology hardly refers specificaly to Jesus Christ. I assumed Unitarian Universalism would tackle the idea of God and Existence also, admitedly I don't know anything about "UU" other than what VEGANGELICA wrote there. If it doesn't, then it's nothing like Sufism, I'll retract my claim. Also, I thought atheists were only called atheists because they "fell into no other category"? Surely if you follow UU, you'd be a called a Unitarian Universalist. If you're an atheist Unitarian Universalist then that just proves me earlier point where I was sayign atheism is a group with it's own agendas. Thus it contradicts itself and the name is innacurate and misleading.