All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Rugeley Villa]

I have trouble dismissing religion completely. A lot of it is far fetched, but there is something in me that thinks it actually means something and has its place in this world. To believe in the afterlife, or something after death which I firmly do means I have belief in religion, surely? 

[blandy]

14 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

......To believe in the afterlife, or something after death which I firmly do means I have belief in religion, surely? 

No, it doesn’t. Believing in an afterlife, or even in some kind of celestial force or being isn’t the same thing as having religion. Religion is all about worship, about behaving according to a set of rules or guidelines, about devotion...etc.

belief in the existence of “Gods” isn’t in itself “religion”, until or unless you start worshipping those God dudes. Then it’s too late, you’ve been religioned.

[Rugeley Villa]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, it doesn’t. Believing in an afterlife, or even in some kind of celestial force or being isn’t the same thing as having religion. Religion is all about worship, about behaving according to a set of rules or guidelines, about devotion...etc.

belief in the existence of “Gods” isn’t in itself “religion”, until or unless you start worshipping those God dudes. Then it’s too late, you’ve been religioned.

You're right. Should have said, I maybe believe that there is some higher power entity. Does not mean I have to worship whatever, which I don't anyway. 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No, it doesn’t. Believing in an afterlife, or even in some kind of celestial force or being isn’t the same thing as having religion. Religion is all about worship, about behaving according to a set of rules or guidelines, about devotion...etc.

belief in the existence of “Gods” isn’t in itself “religion”, until or unless you start worshipping those God dudes. Then it’s too late, you’ve been religioned.

So, in that Quakers each kind of set their own personal guidelines, and no two Quakers believe the same thing or worship in the same way or even have the same definition of whether there is a 'god' etc., would you say Quakers are religious?

Genuine question, not a trap. 

[limpid]

2 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said:

You're right. Should have said, I maybe believe that there is some higher power entity. Does not mean I have to worship whatever, which I don't anyway. 

The usual label for this is "deist" rather than "theist".

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

So, in that Quakers each kind of set their own personal guidelines, and no two Quakers believe the same thing or worship in the same way or even have the same definition of whether there is a 'god' etc., would you say Quakers are religious?

Genuine question, not a trap. 

No two Christians believe exactly the same thing either.

[chrisp65]

Just now, limpid said:

No two Christians believe exactly the same thing either.

I don't think that's quite the same thing. There's a rule book for christians and some follow it more rigorously than others. Some interpret the rules with different emphasis. It's relatively rare that someone re writes the bible and when they do, they then force that re write on other people.

I think with a Quaker, you get to write your own set of rules, do your best to live by them. If it isn't panning out, you look at sorting yourself out or re writing your personal guidebook. 

Or to put it another way, two christians can argue over the rules. Two Quakers would have their own personal rules, so can't really disagree. 

So back to the original question, if religion is following the rules and worshipping a god, is a Quaker religious?

This might not really be the forum for that question in all fairness.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So, in that Quakers each kind of set their own personal guidelines, and no two Quakers believe the same thing or worship in the same way or even have the same definition of whether there is a 'god' etc., would you say Quakers are religious?

Genuine question, not a trap. 

I’d think they are religious, because they worship their God. They follow rules based around their interpretation of what their God requires of them. But I take the point that they’re a bit “different”.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't think that's quite the same thing. There's a rule book for christians and some follow it more rigorously than others. Some interpret the rules with different emphasis. It's relatively rare that someone re writes the bible and when they do, they then force that re write on other people.

Which begs the question, why are there 43,000 recognised sects of Christianity? 

But it's rhetorical. Their rule book has several answers for every question and those answers are often contradictory.

[chrisp65]

43,000 variations isn't that big a number when there's around 2.2 billion in total (and growing!). Some of those groups will just be tiny waco groups like the Branch Davidian people (there are still some around), others will be normal people like us lot.

But that's by the by, it was the Quakers and their individualist take on it all that I was interested in. I know a couple and they appear to be quite grounded, centred, generally good eggs. In a sort of hippy without the sandals sort of way. 

 

 

[limpid]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

43,000 variations isn't that big a number when there's around 2.2 billion in total (and growing!). Some of those groups will just be tiny waco groups like the Branch Davidian people (there are still some around), others will be normal people like us lot.

Most Christians would say that Branch Davidians aren't Christians. But then most evangelicals say Catholics aren't Christian. That would neatly cut your numbers in half 

[choffer]

16 hours ago, limpid said:

But then most evangelicals say Catholics aren't Christian.

I'm not sure I'd buy that. I had a hugely Evangelical upbringing and although I'd hear on many occasions that Catholics were wrong about a few things, I never heard anyone say they weren't Christian. 

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, choffer said:

I'm not sure I'd buy that. I had a hugely Evangelical upbringing and although I'd hear on many occasions that Catholics were wrong about a few things, I never heard anyone say they weren't Christian. 

Americans do. 

[limpid]

1 hour ago, choffer said:

I'm not sure I'd buy that. I had a hugely Evangelical upbringing and although I'd hear on many occasions that Catholics were wrong about a few things, I never heard anyone say they weren't Christian. 

Unless you can claim to speak for all flavours of evangelical - not just your own  - then you are reinforcing my point. As Moon man says it is true for (most) American evangelists; even if only as a rhetorical device to keep the sheep from straying.

[choffer]

10 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Americans do. 

I wasn't brought up in America

 

(This is why personal experience can never win in this thread as there'll always be someone else with a different experience).

[choffer]

18 minutes ago, limpid said:

Unless you can claim to speak for all flavours of evangelical - not just your own  - then you are reinforcing my point. As Moon man says it is true for (most) American evangelists; even if only as a rhetorical device to keep the sheep from straying.

I used to speak on behalf of the big man himself.

 

Or at least I thought I did

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by choffer

[TheAuthority]

Quote

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has released a grand jury report detailing sex abuse in the Catholic Church, naming over 300 accused clergymen.

The landmark grand jury investigation found more than 1,000 children had been abused by members of six dioceses in the state for the last 70 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45190355

70 years.

Systemic sex abuse of children.

This cult should be illegal*

 

 

*I know, freedom of speech and religion**

 

**selfdelution

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45190355

70 years.

Systemic sex abuse of children.

This cult should be illegal*

 

There will be plenty more scandals with the paedo-sex cult. Yet people still openly declare themselves to be part of the cult

We still allow them to have a role in schools

We still allow them charitable status

Hell, an organisation responsible for so many deaths around the world should be prosecuted, one involved in so many cover-ups would be prosecuted?

You'd imagine that an organisation that had been involved in so many paedophile scandals would be outlawed and would be an underground secret organisation but no

[mjmooney]

Ah, but CHARIDEE... 

[villakram]

8 hours ago, bickster said:

There will be plenty more scandals with the paedo-sex cult. Yet people still openly declare themselves to be part of the cult

We still allow them to have a role in schools

We still allow them charitable status

Hell, an organisation responsible for so many deaths around the world should be prosecuted, one involved in so many cover-ups would be prosecuted?

You'd imagine that an organisation that had been involved in so many paedophile scandals would be outlawed and would be an underground secret organisation but no

A detailed look at their finances would tell you how sorry they really are. I bet everything have been moved off shore, re-incorporated etc (what went on in Ireland in the 90s was a disgrace, politicians fully onboard). Every single penny that organization has should be confiscated, property and rosary beads included. Then to work on finding the wives.

[Brumerican]

10 hours ago, bickster said:

 

You'd imagine that an organisation that had been involved in so many paedophile scandals would be outlawed and would be an underground secret organisation but no

There are Lodges in nearly every town.