TOPICS:
JUL 18, 2005 05:52 PM
fpkk said:
By 'they might not feel confident (read: arrogant) enough to stick with their own personal set of beliefs' I meant that my own personal spirituality is one that I have made myself and that works for me. Some people might feel that they need a mass religion to validate their spirituality because they don't feel that an entirely personal belief system is a valid one.
I was not calling people who subscribe to a religion arrogant, rather the arrogant ones are those who evolve their own personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy. Being one among that number I feel at liberty to direct the charge of arrogance toward myself.
see, i don't think "arrogance" applies to all members of any religion. i just think there are specific elements of any religion that are arrogant enough to not respect anyone else.
i go to a nondenominational youth group, and while i know the pastor there believes that his god is the greatest, he's also respectful about that belief. he knows that it isn't my belief, so he doesn't push it on me.
that respect is what i see missing from some people of every religion. and that arrogance is what i abhor, not believing that your god is the greatest.
ok, so that didn't actually answer anything. fuckit, i'm giving up.
JUL 18, 2005 05:54 PM
a548456
United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL
JUL 19, 2005 02:00 AM
Thistle said:
You said you could not think of anything else for people to become fanatical about. I am trying to show you that people would become fanatical about SOMETHING were we to somehow magically erase religion.
Yes, you did give some examples of other things, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the comment that you quoted where I replied about if religion made people go insane or not...
JUL 19, 2005 02:45 AM
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
By 'they might not feel confident (read: arrogant) enough to stick with their own personal set of beliefs' I meant that my own personal spirituality is one that I have made myself and that works for me. Some people might feel that they need a mass religion to validate their spirituality because they don't feel that an entirely personal belief system is a valid one.
I was not calling people who subscribe to a religion arrogant, rather the arrogant ones are those who evolve their own personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy. Being one among that number I feel at liberty to direct the charge of arrogance toward myself.
see, i don't think "arrogance" applies to all members of any religion. i just think there are specific elements of any religion that are arrogant enough to not respect anyone else.
i go to a nondenominational youth group, and while i know the pastor there believes that his god is the greatest, he's also respectful about that belief. he knows that it isn't my belief, so he doesn't push it on me.
that respect is what i see missing from some people of every religion. and that arrogance is what i abhor, not believing that your god is the greatest.
ok, so that didn't actually answer anything. fuckit, i'm giving up.
Which part of '(the arrogant ones are people who have a) personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy' did you not understand?
Before I get piled on by more people who think I'm taking a swipe at people who choose to subscribe to a particular religion:
My beliefs about the soul, God, existence beyond death, good, evil etc. are my own synthesis of religious, ethical and metaphysical philosophy. I acknowledge that to have synthesised this set of beliefs on a wholly personal basis is an act of personal arrogance. But I respect the beliefs of all orthodox followers of religion as long as those beliefs do not cause harm to others.
JUL 19, 2005 04:19 AM
fpkk said:
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
By 'they might not feel confident (read: arrogant) enough to stick with their own personal set of beliefs' I meant that my own personal spirituality is one that I have made myself and that works for me. Some people might feel that they need a mass religion to validate their spirituality because they don't feel that an entirely personal belief system is a valid one.
I was not calling people who subscribe to a religion arrogant, rather the arrogant ones are those who evolve their own personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy. Being one among that number I feel at liberty to direct the charge of arrogance toward myself.
see, i don't think "arrogance" applies to all members of any religion. i just think there are specific elements of any religion that are arrogant enough to not respect anyone else.
i go to a nondenominational youth group, and while i know the pastor there believes that his god is the greatest, he's also respectful about that belief. he knows that it isn't my belief, so he doesn't push it on me.
that respect is what i see missing from some people of every religion. and that arrogance is what i abhor, not believing that your god is the greatest.
ok, so that didn't actually answer anything. fuckit, i'm giving up.
Which part of '(the arrogant ones are people who have a) personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy' did you not understand?
Before I get piled on by more people who think I'm taking a swipe at people who choose to subscribe to a particular religion:
My beliefs about the soul, God, existence beyond death, good, evil etc. are my own synthesis of religious, ethical and metaphysical philosophy. I acknowledge that to have synthesised this set of beliefs on a wholly personal basis is an act of personal arrogance. But I respect the beliefs of all orthodox followers of religion as long as those beliefs do not cause harm to others.
i wasn't piling on you...
i thought i was agreeing with you...O.o
JUL 19, 2005 04:49 AM
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
By 'they might not feel confident (read: arrogant) enough to stick with their own personal set of beliefs' I meant that my own personal spirituality is one that I have made myself and that works for me. Some people might feel that they need a mass religion to validate their spirituality because they don't feel that an entirely personal belief system is a valid one.
I was not calling people who subscribe to a religion arrogant, rather the arrogant ones are those who evolve their own personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy. Being one among that number I feel at liberty to direct the charge of arrogance toward myself.
see, i don't think "arrogance" applies to all members of any religion. i just think there are specific elements of any religion that are arrogant enough to not respect anyone else.
i go to a nondenominational youth group, and while i know the pastor there believes that his god is the greatest, he's also respectful about that belief. he knows that it isn't my belief, so he doesn't push it on me.
that respect is what i see missing from some people of every religion. and that arrogance is what i abhor, not believing that your god is the greatest.
ok, so that didn't actually answer anything. fuckit, i'm giving up.
Which part of '(the arrogant ones are people who have a) personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy' did you not understand?
Before I get piled on by more people who think I'm taking a swipe at people who choose to subscribe to a particular religion:
My beliefs about the soul, God, existence beyond death, good, evil etc. are my own synthesis of religious, ethical and metaphysical philosophy. I acknowledge that to have synthesised this set of beliefs on a wholly personal basis is an act of personal arrogance. But I respect the beliefs of all orthodox followers of religion as long as those beliefs do not cause harm to others.
i wasn't piling on you... i thought i was agreeing with you...O.o
Ah but in your previous statement you're running up against the problem of evangelism. In some religions you can't be considered a good devotee unless you 'spread the word' and part of many (though not all) religions is to believe you are 'one of the chosen'.
I don't think a concept like arrogance can be applied to someone who considers themselves to be just fulfilling doctrinal teaching. But it can be applied to someone who while not considering themself chosen or considering themself to have a duty to 'enlighten' others do choose to believe what they believe regardless of what anyone else tells them to believe.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
JUL 19, 2005 04:57 AM
JUL 19, 2005 06:00 AM
JUL 19, 2005 07:43 AM
JUL 19, 2005 09:00 AM
Spike said:
Thistle said:
You said you could not think of anything else for people to become fanatical about. I am trying to show you that people would become fanatical about SOMETHING were we to somehow magically erase religion.
Yes, you did give some examples of other things, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the comment that you quoted where I replied about if religion made people go insane or not...
Your comment on my comment didn't have much to do with what we're talking about either. I was hoping you would let me know if you now recognize that religion is not the only thing that people can become fanatical about. I brought up people going insane and killing each other because that's an oversimplification of terrorism, and terrorism is caused by fanaticism.
JUL 19, 2005 10:58 AM
JUL 19, 2005 11:03 AM
JUL 19, 2005 04:11 PM
fpkk said:
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
ashmanonar said:
fpkk said:
By 'they might not feel confident (read: arrogant) enough to stick with their own personal set of beliefs' I meant that my own personal spirituality is one that I have made myself and that works for me. Some people might feel that they need a mass religion to validate their spirituality because they don't feel that an entirely personal belief system is a valid one.
I was not calling people who subscribe to a religion arrogant, rather the arrogant ones are those who evolve their own personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy. Being one among that number I feel at liberty to direct the charge of arrogance toward myself.
see, i don't think "arrogance" applies to all members of any religion. i just think there are specific elements of any religion that are arrogant enough to not respect anyone else.
i go to a nondenominational youth group, and while i know the pastor there believes that his god is the greatest, he's also respectful about that belief. he knows that it isn't my belief, so he doesn't push it on me.
that respect is what i see missing from some people of every religion. and that arrogance is what i abhor, not believing that your god is the greatest.
ok, so that didn't actually answer anything. fuckit, i'm giving up.
Which part of '(the arrogant ones are people who have a) personal set of unaligned beliefs which are neither agnostic nor atheistic but also subscribe to no form of orthodoxy' did you not understand?
Before I get piled on by more people who think I'm taking a swipe at people who choose to subscribe to a particular religion:
My beliefs about the soul, God, existence beyond death, good, evil etc. are my own synthesis of religious, ethical and metaphysical philosophy. I acknowledge that to have synthesised this set of beliefs on a wholly personal basis is an act of personal arrogance. But I respect the beliefs of all orthodox followers of religion as long as those beliefs do not cause harm to others.
i wasn't piling on you... i thought i was agreeing with you...O.o
Ah but in your previous statement you're running up against the problem of evangelism. In some religions you can't be considered a good devotee unless you 'spread the word' and part of many (though not all) religions is to believe you are 'one of the chosen'.
I don't think a concept like arrogance can be applied to someone who considers themselves to be just fulfilling doctrinal teaching. But it can be applied to someone who while not considering themself chosen or considering themself to have a duty to 'enlighten' others do choose to believe what they believe regardless of what anyone else tells them to believe.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
even in evangelism there is a respect, or lack of respect for the people you're trying to convert. if they don't, the respectful evangelist will/should admit defeat and try with someone else. they shouldn't kidnap people (cults, to some extent), stalk them (the crazy family harvest people that tried to get me), or other acts that do not show respect.
maybe i'm just trying to put something in there that isn't really there, but i honestly believe this: respect is at the core of all human relationships. whether we do or don't respect people impacts greatly on our ability to hold a relationship with them. just because i don't believe in the same god as joe blow, doesn't mean that we should be mortal enemies. i can respect his devotion, and he can respect mine, and we can call it at that.
it all comes down to respect, in my opinion.
Thistle
SUICIDEGIRL
California, USA
JUL 18, 2005 02:58 PM