Why I Cannot Abide Organized Religion

[PureX]

It's not irrelevant. You are confusing the map for the territory. There are no laws or "laws" intrinsic or causal or extant. There is only reality. And reality functions however reality functions. The map (scientific laws) are not the territory (reality).

The whole endeavor of science would indicate that existence does not express itself "however". It expresses itself in and orderly way that the scientific process can observe and test. In fact, without order, existence could not exist at all. Because abject chaos cannot exist as anything but abject chaos. For chaos to become anything, order has to be imposed on/within it. And it is this imposed order that is the 'agency' I refer to. The order is not imagined (subjective), it is observed (objective), and it is intrinsic. And maybe someday, finally, it will even be defined and quantified.

I have chosen to act on hope. I don't ever remember trust being part of that decision. But maybe that is just me.

That's just semantics. Obviously you trusted in the possibility of that hope manifesting or you wouldn't have chosen to act on it.

You might also claim that you were not courageous, but I would contend that some courage was still involved. Deciding to act when you can't be certain of the outcome always takes some courage.

 

[ppp]

Constantly? How so?

The RCC is constantly having to readjust its stances on issues to keep people in the fold. The Leonine Revolution and Vatican II being two huge expressing of that reconfiguration. They beebopped back and forth on slavery for centuries. Now there are large swaths of Catholics (clergy and laity) raising contentions on sexual mores, reproductive standards, female priests, etc. If you read the Catholic Leagues pages you can see what the conservative RCC is at odds with against the liberal RCC

 

[PureX]

How can wildly disparate religions be part of a collective?

They are all populated and practiced by humans. That is their collective factor. It's the humans populating and practicing within the religious organizations that tend toward dishonesty and control.

So do boy scouts and golf clubs and quilt guilds. I understand if someone doesn't want to be part of an organized religion but they don't have to be. Organization itself isn't a bad thing, I don't know how many people would be attracted to chaos religion.

Religion is supposed to be the servant of theism. And as such I'm in favor of it. But all too often when people start organizing themselves into religious subcultures, they want their religion to become the master of theism, not the servant. And that's when they go awry, and become antithetical to theism. I am a theist. Not a religionist. Because theism is a valuable area of human exploration. Religions should serve and encourage that exploration, not dis-serve and discourage it in their own self-centered pursuit of righteousness.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't despise atheists, I despise willful stupidity. Whether it comes from atheists or theists or whomever. It's OK to be stupid. We all are. I certainly am. But wilful stupidity is another matter. That's inexcusable in my book.

But anyway, I share their dislike for that about organized religion.

Willfully stupid for not believing in your god, I see.

 

[anna.]

The RCC is constantly having to readjust its stances on issues to keep people in the fold. The Leonine Revolution and Vatican II being two huge expressing of that reconfiguration. They beebopped back and forth on slavery for centuries. Now there are large swaths of Catholics (clergy and laity) raising contentions on sexual mores, reproductive standards, female priests, etc. If you read the Catholic Leagues pages you can see what the conservative RCC is at odds with against the liberal RCC

There hasn't been a change in dogma, though. The creedal beliefs of the church.

 

[ppp]

The whole endeavor of science would indicate that existence does not express itself "however". It's expresses itself in and orderly way that the scientific process can observe and test. In fact, without order existence could not exist at all. Because abject chaos cannot exist as anything but abject chaos. For chaos to become anything, order has to be IMPOSED on/within it. And it is this imposed order that is the 'agency' I refer to. The order is not imagined (subjective), it is observed (objective). And maybe someday, finally, defined and quantified.

Your assumption is that order has to be imposed. You are also assuming that there can be abject chaos. Please warrant those.assumptions.

That's just semantics. Obviously you trusted in the possibility of that hope manifesting or you wouldn't have chosen to act on it.

That is a really trivial use of the word trust. Its basically an equivalent of 'taking it for granted' that it was possible. If I want to ask someone out, I take it for granted that I am capable of asking, and that they are capable of assenting.. Yet, I hope that they do. But like you said, semantics

 

[anna.]

They are all populated and practiced by humans. That is their collective factor. It's the humans populating and practicing within the religious organizations that tend toward dishonesty and control.

So it's the humans' fault, not the religion's fault?

Religion is supposed to be the servant of theism. And as such I'm in favor of it. But all too often when people start organizing themselves into religious subcultures, they want their religion to become the master of theism, not the servant. And that's when they go awry, and become antithetical to theism. I am a theist. Not a religionist. Because theism is a valuable area of human exploration. Religions should serve and encourage that exploration, not dis-serve and discourage it in their own self-centered pursuit of righteousness.

Religions should have a set dogma so as not to confuse the faithful. Those who don't want to follow the dogma don't have to be part of the religion, or they can sorta kinda discard what they don't want and be nominally that religion, which is what a lot of people do in Christianity: baptism, marriage, funeral, and not a lot in between.

 

[PureX]

Willfully stupid for not believing in your god, I see.

You have NEVER seen me post anything about anyone ever needing to or ever should believe in any gods of any kind.

 

[lukethethird]

You have NEVER seen me post anything about anyone ever needing to or ever should believe in any gods of any kind.

You contradict yourself because when someone doesn't believe in your god they are willfully stupid atheists.

 

[ppp]

There hasn't been a change in dogma, though. The creedal beliefs of the church.

Okay.

 

[Rival]

There hasn't been a change in dogma, though. The creedal beliefs of the church.

It's alright, a lot of folks have no idea how the Catholic Church works.

 

[PureX]

Your assumption is that order has to be imposed. You are also assuming that there can be abject chaos. Please warrant those.assumptions.

Abject chaos cannot be anything but abject chaos. It cannot therefor "exist" in any way that we would consider anything to be existing. That aside ... For even 'chance' to occur within abject chaos would logically require some limiting factor within the chaos. Because chaos alone cannot be or produce anything but chaos. In fact, to say it "produced" even itself is an incoherent statement. So the idea that existence somehow sprung up out of abject chaos (a state lacking any organizing factor at all) is simply not a logical proposition. And once we accept that SOME organizing factor had to occur, we have 'agency'.

That is a really trivial use of the word trust. Its basically an equivalent of 'taking it for granted' that it was possible.

Actually, no. Because for one to "trust", one would also have to be aware of the necessity for trusting. Which means they are NOT taking the object or outcome of that trust for granted. They are, in fact, quite aware of the possibility of that trust being misplaced, and denied.

If I want to ask someone out, I take it for granted that I am capable of asking, and that they are capable of assenting.. Yet, I hope that they do. But like you said, semantics

Nevertheless, you are both trusting, and hoping, in the possibility that she will agree. Even though you know that your trust may be misplaced, and the result that you hoped for will be denied. So you muster the courage and take action, because what else can you do? And then the result will determine the validity of the proposition, for you. This is basically what we all do when we don't have sufficient information to "believe in" our chosen course of action.

 

[anna.]

It's alright, a lot of folks have no idea how the Catholic Church works.

Even a lot of Catholics have no idea how the Catholic Church works. : )

 

[Missglenda]

I’m a Deist. I Wonder, what parts of religion do you agree with? Do you agree with books like the Bible the Koran,theTorah etc? I believe in The supreme being but I have no religious beliefs.

 

[ppp]

Abject chaos cannot be anything but abject chaos. It cannot therefor "exist" in any way that we would consider anything to be existing. That aside ... For even 'chance' to occur within abject chaos would logically require some limiting factor within the chaos. Because chaos alone cannot be or produce anything but chaos. In fact, to say it "produced" even itself is an incoherent statement. So the idea that existence somehow sprung up out of abject chaos (a state lacking any organizing factor at all) is simply not a logical proposition. And once we accept that SOME organizing factor had to occur, we have 'agency'.

I don't believe that existence ever "sprang up". The concept makes no sense. Non-being can not be.

Nevertheless, you are both trusting and hoping in the possibility that she will agree. Even though you know that your trust may be misplaced, and the result that you hoped for will be denied. So you muster the courage and take action, because what else can you do? And then the result will determine the validity of the proposition, for you.

Eh. I am willing to let that one lie.

Though you are trusting that the person is a she.

 

[lukethethird]

I’m a Deist. I Wonder, what parts of religion do you agree with? Do you agree with books like the Bible the Koran,theTorah etc? I believe in The supreme being but I have no religious beliefs.

Isn't believing in a supreme being a religious belief?

 

[sun rise]

I’m a Deist. I Wonder, what parts of religion do you agree with? Do you agree with books like the Bible the Koran,theTorah etc? I believe in The supreme being but I have no religious beliefs.

@Missglenda it's not clear who you were responding to.

 

[ppp]

Isn't believing in a supreme being a religious belief?

No. Religions have doctrine, sacred texts, ritual.

 

[PureX]

I’m a Deist. I Wonder, what parts of religion do you agree with? Do you agree with books like the Bible the Koran,theTorah etc? I believe in The supreme being but I have no religious beliefs.

To be honest, I don't pay a lot of attention to believing in things. I prefer the action of faith to the presumption of belief. I have no idea if God exists, or what God's existing would even mean. How could I? That's way above my pay grade, so to speak. So I don't presume to believe in things that I can't know anything about. I feel that would be dishonest.

Instead, I choose the action of faith. I define God in my own mind in the best way I that can conceive of, and then I live according to that ideal. And so far, that has been an overall positive experience. So I continue. I realize that my idea of God is just my idea of God, and that God may or may not resemble that idea, or may not even exist at all. But so what? My faith in my God seems to work for me. So I stick with it.

I call myself a Taoist Christian, but that's only because I use some of the basic ideals from both of those ideologies to create my own.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe that existence ever "sprang up". The concept makes no sense. Non-being can not be.

Well, it's here, now. And it's an ongoing event (as experienced from within it). And that's what drives the ultimate question ... the thing is in motion, so to speak, and so we have to ask; what set in in motion, and to what end? Even if existence beyond the universe is timeless, the universe is not. And the questions remain.

Though you are trusting that the person is a she.

Sometimes the trust is misplaced. Happens all the time.