Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Why? Is he or she Highlander?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The religion you rejected - why did you reject it?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Why? Is he or she Highlander?
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Isn't it great? I really like Krishna, as to me, a love god is the best kind. I like sun gods as well, but don't know much about them. I am so happy you've found your spiritual home. I wish so much that some people would stop scaring people into religions that are not right for them. The world would be a better place if people were not pressured to do things that aren't good for them, creating boogey men and women that make them fearful.
Last edited:
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Actually we can create our own realities with our thoughts, beliefs, actions, words, etc. Our minds are quite powerful. Placebo effect, hypochondria, etc.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Yes, being a Wiccan and learning about different gods and goddesses has been a wonderful, positive experience. And you're right, I have found my spiritual home. I haven't rushed into following any specific deities since I started to follow Wicca and polytheism. I've been taking my time to learn about multiple deities, as well as learning more about Wicca and other non-Abrahamic religions.
Last edited:
Hi @Windwalker
Windwalker said : "You're using the term religion differently that I was. The OP was talking about some recognized religion you used to be a part of that you left."
I agree that you and I are not using the same definition for religion.
To me, you seem to be using religious organisations (unless I misunderstood you...) as "religion". I think you are correct that the original post seemed to refer to that as well. However, the thread detoured into other types of religion.
For example:
@Kenny said he had left secularism. He referred to it as a religion where God was not particularly important.
Similarly, ATHIESM also has a specific belief about God : (In the religious belief of the Atheist, no God exists and no relationship is therefore to be had with a God.)
Windwalker said :I don't think that's what the intention of this thread was about."
I agree with you on this point as well.
We veered into this specific detour when someone disagreed with @Kenny regarding secularism as a religious position (a religion).
Windwalker said : "But as far as atheism goes, again that does not qualify as a religion that anyone joins."
"Joining" a group is irrelevant though we hear of someone "joining the ranks" of atheism. However, a Theist need not "join" any organisation at all, yet they still have their personal religion that has a membership of one.
Windwalker said : "... as I said, if atheism is a religion, that what is its core beliefs, what are its values and morals, what are its teaching, if any?"
Regarding core beliefs
If an ATHIEST believes or has faith that there is no God, this is a core belief of his personal religion.
Regarding values and morals
Though one may attempt certain specific generalizations, I think an individual's values and morals will vary widely. An Atheist may value kindness and truth or they may be mean and deceptive and combative. The same values may exist in the Theist. .
Regarding teachings of atheism
This also may vary. However, if they care to teach what they believe, they may teach that there is no God, no reward or punishment after this life, therefore one needs to obtain all attestation in this life. Our they may be selfless and self sacrificing. It is thy tree religion of the individual I am describing, not the organization an individual may belong to.
Windwalker said : "There are things that make these different religions, no?"
Yes, I agree with this point. There are many different principles and things people believe in and are devoted to.
Clear
Windwalker said : "You're using the term religion differently that I was. The OP was talking about some recognized religion you used to be a part of that you left."
I agree that you and I are not using the same definition for religion.
To me, you seem to be using religious organisations (unless I misunderstood you...) as "religion". I think you are correct that the original post seemed to refer to that as well. However, the thread detoured into other types of religion.
For example:
@Kenny said he had left secularism. He referred to it as a religion where God was not particularly important.
Similarly, ATHIESM also has a specific belief about God : (In the religious belief of the Atheist, no God exists and no relationship is therefore to be had with a God.)
Windwalker said :I don't think that's what the intention of this thread was about."
I agree with you on this point as well.
We veered into this specific detour when someone disagreed with @Kenny regarding secularism as a religious position (a religion).
Windwalker said : "But as far as atheism goes, again that does not qualify as a religion that anyone joins."
"Joining" a group is irrelevant though we hear of someone "joining the ranks" of atheism. However, a Theist need not "join" any organisation at all, yet they still have their personal religion that has a membership of one.
Windwalker said : "... as I said, if atheism is a religion, that what is its core beliefs, what are its values and morals, what are its teaching, if any?"
Regarding core beliefs
If an ATHIEST believes or has faith that there is no God, this is a core belief of his personal religion.
Regarding values and morals
Though one may attempt certain specific generalizations, I think an individual's values and morals will vary widely. An Atheist may value kindness and truth or they may be mean and deceptive and combative. The same values may exist in the Theist. .
Regarding teachings of atheism
This also may vary. However, if they care to teach what they believe, they may teach that there is no God, no reward or punishment after this life, therefore one needs to obtain all attestation in this life. Our they may be selfless and self sacrificing. It is thy tree religion of the individual I am describing, not the organization an individual may belong to.
Windwalker said : "There are things that make these different religions, no?"
Yes, I agree with this point. There are many different principles and things people believe in and are devoted to.
Clear
Last edited:
Reyn
The Hungry Abyss
I rejected Christianity because:
It is based on lies
I reject the grace doctrine
I reject Jesus Christ
I reject the veneration of Mary
I reject the Christian concept of Heaven
I reject the right hand path
I reject the doctrine of Hellfire
I reject the Rapture
I reject how Christians understand Satan
I reject the concept of Jews as the chosen people
Also... Lucifer isn't a thing.
It is based on lies
I reject the grace doctrine
I reject Jesus Christ
I reject the veneration of Mary
I reject the Christian concept of Heaven
I reject the right hand path
I reject the doctrine of Hellfire
I reject the Rapture
I reject how Christians understand Satan
I reject the concept of Jews as the chosen people
Also... Lucifer isn't a thing.
I rejected Judaism because I decided if Yahweh is real, even if he's god, he is not a good being by any stretch of the imagination.
I rejected atheism and materialism because I became convinced of mind body dualism and polytheism through school and experience.
I left Satanism for many reasons, mainly its too Christian-based and has lost all meaning thanks to edgy LARPers.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Baptist then Messianic.
Finally realized that there can be no empirical truth claims for things immaterial. Religion's demand of fealty is based on textual and clerical authority. It only has the hold on us that we give it.
Finally realized that there can be no empirical truth claims for things immaterial. Religion's demand of fealty is based on textual and clerical authority. It only has the hold on us that we give it.
Windwalker said : "You're using the term religion differently that I was. The OP was talking about some recognized religion you used to be a part of that you left."
Clear responded "I agree that you and I are not using the same definition for religion."
@Windwalker
I asked Regarding your definition of religion and its association with your claims regarding 1) central authority, 2) core teachings or philosophies and 3) rituals.
Authority : While an Atheist may or may not see themselves as a central authority, why are you implying that a religion must have a "central authority"?
It makes no sense to me that a religion MUST have a "central authority".
Core teachings or philosophies : If a religion believes that there ARE NO core teachings or philosophies then why would you insist that religion must have "core teachings or philosophies" in order to be a religion? I don't understand why you would insist on "core teachings" required in an individual's personal belief or personal religion.
Common practices or rituals : Similarly, why would an individual's personal religion require a "common practice" with others? Why does your concept of religion require "rituals" in order for an individual's religion to BE a religion?
Certainly those things do NOT define a personal religion.
You seem to be describing what most religions seem to have rather than allowing that what occupies a person's Supreme interest might lie outside any "central authority", lie outside "core teachings" and lie outside of rituals.
Clear
.
Clear responded "I agree that you and I are not using the same definition for religion."
@Windwalker
I asked Regarding your definition of religion and its association with your claims regarding 1) central authority, 2) core teachings or philosophies and 3) rituals.
Authority : While an Atheist may or may not see themselves as a central authority, why are you implying that a religion must have a "central authority"?
It makes no sense to me that a religion MUST have a "central authority".
Core teachings or philosophies : If a religion believes that there ARE NO core teachings or philosophies then why would you insist that religion must have "core teachings or philosophies" in order to be a religion? I don't understand why you would insist on "core teachings" required in an individual's personal belief or personal religion.
Common practices or rituals : Similarly, why would an individual's personal religion require a "common practice" with others? Why does your concept of religion require "rituals" in order for an individual's religion to BE a religion?
Certainly those things do NOT define a personal religion.
You seem to be describing what most religions seem to have rather than allowing that what occupies a person's Supreme interest might lie outside any "central authority", lie outside "core teachings" and lie outside of rituals.
Clear
.
Last edited:
Two stories to tell, I think...
The Smartie-Pants Problem
The first story is of a child who was born into a multicultural household. It was decided by their parents that the structure of an organized religion would make for a good upbringing, and so they were brought into the fold of Catholicism. Catholicism is an old and rich religious tradition with much good to be said about it, but it was all but inevitable the child would not find a long-term home there. This child had a relentlessly inquisitive mind, you see, constantly wishing to learn more about everything. They spent hours upon hours in libraries, primarily reading science books spanning across disciplines. The child also discovered the wonders of fantastical worlds filled with dragons, magic, robots, and spaceships. In short, the child was a smartie-pants mega nerd.
The Bible was painfully dull by comparison. "Why are all the women in the Bible so lame?" the child might have asked of their Sunday school teacher. "Where's Xena, Warrior Princess?" "I've been reading all about geology; a worldwide flood like that didn't happen," the child might have decried, "this story is stupid!" God didn't make sense, the Bible didn't make sense, and worse it was boring! "Why can't I just stay home with dad? He doesn't have to go to church! Church is BORING! I wanna stay home on Sunday and do something else!"
After enough whining and protesting - and probably several behavioral complaints caused by back-talking to Sunday school teachers - the child's parents relented. Catholicism was never going to be a good fit for a relentlessly curious mind that didn't take "because I said so" for a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately, the child developed an immature understanding of religion and theism from this experience.
The Angstheist Phase
From this immature understanding of religion and theism, the child became that stereotypical nasty atheist who constantly hated on it. Religion was stupid, theism was stupid, and anyone who believed in either of them was by association, also stupid. Everyone should just embrace science because science was obviously correct and all religion was obviously wrong. Or so the story went that the child-becoming-teenager told themselves. But just as it was inevitable that Catholicism wouldn't fit, it was also inevitable angstheism wouldn't fit and for the same reasons as before: the child was a smartie-pants mega nerd.
Relentless curiosity led the now college-aged child to learn that something called Paganism existed. And it didn't fit their presupposed notions of what god was, or what religion was. "What do you mean god can be nature?!" The teenager's mind shouted in befuddlement. "What do you mean polytheism isn't dead?" These ideas were, after all, abundant in the beloved fantasy fiction they'd grown up reading as a child. Plus, it meant the study of science was quite literally the study of gods. It was the same thing.
The realization that they'd been thinking inside a culturally curated cage about theology and religion was both upsetting and embarrassing. It was at odds with their perchance for relentlessly questioning - why hadn't they thought to look into this before? Confirmation bias, as it turns out, is a powerful thing. Sometimes all it takes is the right spark at the right moment to ignite the fires of inquiry. And thus it was so that the college-aged self abandoned angstheism.
The Smartie-Pants Problem
The first story is of a child who was born into a multicultural household. It was decided by their parents that the structure of an organized religion would make for a good upbringing, and so they were brought into the fold of Catholicism. Catholicism is an old and rich religious tradition with much good to be said about it, but it was all but inevitable the child would not find a long-term home there. This child had a relentlessly inquisitive mind, you see, constantly wishing to learn more about everything. They spent hours upon hours in libraries, primarily reading science books spanning across disciplines. The child also discovered the wonders of fantastical worlds filled with dragons, magic, robots, and spaceships. In short, the child was a smartie-pants mega nerd.
The Bible was painfully dull by comparison. "Why are all the women in the Bible so lame?" the child might have asked of their Sunday school teacher. "Where's Xena, Warrior Princess?" "I've been reading all about geology; a worldwide flood like that didn't happen," the child might have decried, "this story is stupid!" God didn't make sense, the Bible didn't make sense, and worse it was boring! "Why can't I just stay home with dad? He doesn't have to go to church! Church is BORING! I wanna stay home on Sunday and do something else!"
After enough whining and protesting - and probably several behavioral complaints caused by back-talking to Sunday school teachers - the child's parents relented. Catholicism was never going to be a good fit for a relentlessly curious mind that didn't take "because I said so" for a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately, the child developed an immature understanding of religion and theism from this experience.
The Angstheist Phase
From this immature understanding of religion and theism, the child became that stereotypical nasty atheist who constantly hated on it. Religion was stupid, theism was stupid, and anyone who believed in either of them was by association, also stupid. Everyone should just embrace science because science was obviously correct and all religion was obviously wrong. Or so the story went that the child-becoming-teenager told themselves. But just as it was inevitable that Catholicism wouldn't fit, it was also inevitable angstheism wouldn't fit and for the same reasons as before: the child was a smartie-pants mega nerd.
Relentless curiosity led the now college-aged child to learn that something called Paganism existed. And it didn't fit their presupposed notions of what god was, or what religion was. "What do you mean god can be nature?!" The teenager's mind shouted in befuddlement. "What do you mean polytheism isn't dead?" These ideas were, after all, abundant in the beloved fantasy fiction they'd grown up reading as a child. Plus, it meant the study of science was quite literally the study of gods. It was the same thing.
The realization that they'd been thinking inside a culturally curated cage about theology and religion was both upsetting and embarrassing. It was at odds with their perchance for relentlessly questioning - why hadn't they thought to look into this before? Confirmation bias, as it turns out, is a powerful thing. Sometimes all it takes is the right spark at the right moment to ignite the fires of inquiry. And thus it was so that the college-aged self abandoned angstheism.
-*-*-*-
There's probably one other story that could be spun, but these are the two most important, I think. The story of the child who drifted out of Catholicism because they asked too many damned questions, and the story of the atheist who drifted out of atheism because they asked too many damned questions. Turns out Paganism is good for people who ask too many damned questions.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Really? So I created the universe I live in by thinking about it? Lol, not!
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Logically if there were other gods they would not be the God because only the one with all power can be the God.
How so? If you ignore someone, or are simply unaware of their existence, how are they included in your reality? Explain.
Find another example then of something you were unaware of existing, and then after you become aware of it how you saw reality changed. Say, discovering the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way around?
Certainly you must be able to think of some example. My point is, if you are unaware of something or someone, then they are not in your reality, until they are when you become aware of them. This is not really hard to understand.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
I didn't say we have unlimited ability to do so, but we can to some extent.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
In the OT, people didn't just believe in one god. It went from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism. Yahweh was one of El's assembly, then became the most high god to the Hebrews.
It's also possible that the unwritten oral tradition of Yahweh was an influence on the others and they included it in their writing and their pantheon.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Could be.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Yes the Hebrews did believe in one God.
See now that I, I am He,
And there is no god besides Me;
It is I who put to death and give life.
I have wounded and it is I who heal,
And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.
Deuteronomy 32;39
For this reason You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
2nd Samuel 7:22
For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),
“I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:18