Sunday, 09 November 2008
-
Stop doing religion wrong, guys, seriously.
Going to an art school, the majority of the students, like me, are agnostic. This is kinda confusing considering the history of art, but I guess creativity only runs in the blood of anarchistic heathens in this day and age. I'm kidding, kinda. but on the subject fo being anarchistic heathens, my friend and I got into a discussion about the innacurate portrayal of agnostics by pretty much everyone.
To be religious, it's assumed that one has to be tied to a religion. This encompasses the foundation of the problem with religion as a whole. The title of a religion is tied strictly to the religion's scripture, and not the ethics, because, for the most part, all religions have almost identical moral codes. So, one has to call themselves a "Christian," "Catholic," or "Muslim," in spite of having the same rules against murder, rape, theft, etc. And naturally, because these religions follow different literature, they have to look down on each other, because being different is just stupid, and you're stupid for being different (that's the code of all mankind right there, folks).
So, I wear the title of agnostic, because we have to have titles for everything, society would panic without a label and system of identification for everything. Because of this label, it's assumed I disregard everything about all religion. Obviously this is bullshit. I have read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, two books on taoism, a book on budhism, and even a book on Krishna that some monk gave me a few months ago. the last three are incredibly more interesting, since rather than telling incredibly ridiculous stories to prove their points, they discuss philosophy. Granted, these are just a few books on a very select few religions. Either way, though, I realized how dramatically similar they all really are.
So, take away the literature and stories of the respective religious texts, because, true or not, they are only in there to reinforce the morals and ideals that the religion is founded on. They are not important, and not ment to be taken literally in any context as they so often are. Suddenly, religion isn't so bad, and something I can totally get into. I'm still not going to accept whether there is or isn't a God, because I can't prove that. But again, diety isn't important in religion, either, and some don't even have one. I mean, what is a God in a religious sense? Someone who may or may not be there who you pray to, who may or may not do what you ask, which is irrelevant because he or she already has your fate pre-determined, so what the fuck are you praying for, anyway? Oh, also it's someone who you can kill in the name of, and it's automatically justified.
I don't hate religion, I just hate where society has placed the focus. That is, everyone is so caught up in literally interpreting the religious texts that they forget the point of religion. Religion is there to set a unified moral code and to give hope to those who need it. Instead, it's being used to give hate an excuse. I know this isn't any sort of new revelation, that the religious are misusing their religion, that's been done since before history. The problem that I've come to realize, though, is that while everything else in society advances, religion doesn't, and in my mind the single-most visible cause of this is the labelling and segregation of religions. But then, what do I know, I'm a anarchistic heathen.
-
recommend
- recs 47
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Post a Comment
- Back to DrugInducedDuck's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in DrugInducedDuck's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (196)
@DrugInducedDuck - What the chart tells us is more than "follow this religion and you'll become a good person." This is because each religion has a different idea of what "good" means and the means to get there. In this way religions differ so much as to often directly contradict each other. Some say that man is divine now and needs to be awakened to that fact. Some say that self-preservation or pleasure are the only goals in life. Some say that your personal happiness is the best, some say that total self-denial is best. Some say that salvation can only be gained by following rules, some say that salvation can never be gained by only following rules, and that something more radical needs to be done. These aren't just bare tenets; these are concepts on which people pattern their entire lives and world-views, with very differing results.
To say that they are essentially the same would be to assume that they each have the same idea of what is "good" and to grossly oversimplify very different bodies of religious thought and the world-views of those who follow them.
Woo, a post with lulz and meaning!
5 stars dood.
Yeah, art students unite! Hahaha. well, I'm Buddhist, but technically, all the ethic codes are the same. I also have to take some literature classes and it was mostly scriptures from the Bible. However, one thing that we discussed in the class is that the main difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Christianity is discussed more and often asserted onto others, as in they are trying to recruit everyone. For me, I don't the people who tell me that I have to believe in Jesus or God and that we have to repent to save ourselves and the only way is through Jesus and God. I mean, I always try to respect Christians, and I always hope in return, they respect my beliefs. And those who usually do, some others call them "fake Christians" which is just utter bull just because they don't the Bible literally. But, enough about my rant. This is a well written entry.
Well written, I've never been able to properly express those same feelings. By definition I'm an agnostic as well, but I refuse to use that label.
"Oh, also it's someone who you can kill in the name of, and it's automatically justified."
Only islam says this so you can throw this one out
"The problem that
I've come to realize, though, is that while everything else in society
advances, religion doesn't."
Aren't there plenty of other constant truths in the universe? Why single out religion?
This is a wonderful post! You make some very good points.
-- Jedi Master 713
So who decided that the reason behind religion is to have a unified moral code and to give hope those who need it? How is that now the official definition? Isn't that just your opinion of religion and now that anyone who doesn't fit your definition is not appropriately religious? I don't see how that is anymore rational or healthy than you saying people who use their religious texts to look down on others and judge them? Aren't you judging as well? What makes your judgement better than another persons judgement?
"...some monk gave me a few months ago"
Monks give me things all the time, too.
awesome.
@the_greatest_pip- The Bible was only the most influential book because it was the first book ever printed. That's it! During a time where religion was nearly all there was to life, what do you think most people would have read? Of course the Bible. Since it was the book that got most of Western civilization literate, of course it's influential.
@MJRx9000 - I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Islam is not the only religion in which people justify killing in the name of a God. The crusades alone should be proof of that, but there are radicals in all religions that have a diety that kill in the name them and consider it justified. For one, Scientology states that it is completely acceptable and expected to kill anyone who threatens scientology.
I single out religion, because as opposed to scientific or historic truths, religion is a social philosophy based off of what was considered "right" in the times that the scriptures were written. A time where slavery was cool, the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around us.
@vangelicmonk - I never said that was an official definition, simply my observation. This is a blog, sir, not Wikipedia. Please elaborate on how I am judging people negatively.
Hmm, I'll be sure to check out the Book of Krishna and Buddhism.
@DrugInducedDuck - OK, but the crusades can't be justified by the Christian "literature." Can you point to other things in Christian social philosophy you disagree with?
It's a bit deeper than just a list of moral dogma if you've really read it.
"And naturally, because these religions follow different literature, they have to look down on each other, because being different is just stupid, and you're stupid for being different (that's the code of all mankind right there, folks)."
"I mean, what is a God in a religious sense? Someone who may or may not be there who you pray to, who may or may not do what you ask, which is irrelevant because he or she already has your fate pre-determined, so what the fuck are you praying for, anyway?"
So well said, you have no idea how happy this made me...I've grasped with things like this all my life (I think anyone with a brain would, or at the very least should) and the older I get the more I reach these conclusions and realize how divisive religion has come to be.
Thanks for writing :)
Thank you! :)
Thank you. I should send this post to my high school religion teacher who reamed me out one day my Junior year because I said I was an agnostic. He used to say that "Agnostics are not sure [of the existence of God] because they don't care" and, "Most [agnostics] will say they believe and love God, but they live as if they don't." Yes, those are direct quotes from what he forced his class to write down into our notebooks.
Thank you for this. Because it's not that I don't care. I do care. I believe there could be some form of god out there, but there is no concrete evidential proof, so there may not be. I'm not going to devote my entire life to something that may not even exist. And, just like you said, many religions are incredibly contradictory of themselves. "God loves everyone" yet devout Catholics condemn homosexuals. And the entire end of your 4th paragraph. Absolutely beautiful. And who says just because I don't worship God that I'm living a terrible life? I commit no crime, I never harm another human being, I *rarely* cheat, and I volunteer at a children's cancer camp in the summer. I do that all because I choose to, not because I try and live up to some Perfect Being. I find that mentality to be incredibly ridiculous, and quite pointless to be honest.
So thank you.
This is way too thoughtful and reasonable. No wonder the Xanga Klique fell apart.
@ClockworkBunny - We didn't fall apart, we're just... laying low...
From my experience, a lot of people in the web community tend to be angry atheists that want to pick fights with people who believe in anything; even those who leave everyone alone. So....thanks for keeping the peace. Agnostics rule.
This is a great post and I think it's cool of you to actually explain this. I just reject everything about religion because of many of the things you talked about, but you seem to respect the morals and ideas presented by the many different religions.
Hooray for Agnosticism! :)
@CHS_Drummer - eye for an eye. You do this to me...I do this to you. Muslims attack us...let's go bomb them and their children to oblivion! It's okay, we are protected by God.
@DrugInducedDuck - I never said you were negative. I'm just challenging your assumptions. You made it a truth statment and I didn't see "I think" there in front of it so I was curious as to what authority you made your statement upon.
Essentially, I guess I'm trying to prove a point. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism make truth statements and exclusive claims based on what they see as authoritative texts. People will usually attack the people and their actions rather than the statements and the texts upon which they make their statements. The desire of the Muslim, the Christian or the Orthrodox Jew (those who have a sincere faith and those who do take their texts literally) do not essentially desire to attain a pluralisitc moral society, but to have salvation which proceeds after death. For the Hindu it would be the second or nth number of life after death until they reach Nirvana. Thus, there is a goal of a good afterlife and not a necessity for a good this life. That doesn't mean a good current life is bad, but that it is not essential to one's faith. Thus, one desires that one accept their "road" not because they only want them to have a good life here, but to reach an afterlife.
Now you may disagree with this view. That is all fine and dandy. However, having an exclusive view is not in itself wrong in contrast to another more pluralistic view in the context of a pluralistic society. As long as one does not believe in forcing one against their free will to believe how they believe, then within the context of pluralistic society one having a exclusive view of truth is not bad. In fact many people do it in a variety of ways. Evolution has a exclusive view of the origin of life. They base their text of a varitey of sources which include Darwins Orgin of the Species. In general I don't care that a person has that view as long as I'm not forced to believe it. However, in some contexts some Scientists are forced to believe it no matter their faith. I may think it is incorrect and within the free market palace of ideas I may challenge someone's view of evolution based on logic, but I would not force someone against their will to believe it otherwise. For me that is a great society.
Your problem seems to be with the fact that society allows and tolerates exclusive truth claims? Would you want it any other way? Would you want a soceity that is intolerate of people who make exclusive truth claims based on a faith and a religion?
@background__toyourlife - lol, that definition couldn't be more opposite of the truth.
Very cool! You hit it on the head...