Why Should It Matter?

[Thief]

Including your religion.



Theologian?!?!?! You most definitely have a religion despite your egocentric denial.

nope.....no religion

I follow no one
no one follows me

no rug for your knee
no beads for your and
no ritual or ceremony
no recital of prayers

no religion

 

[stvdv]

11 nov 2018 borders proselytizing

If you identify with a particular religion or philosophy and label yourself as such, and another comes along with different ideas on what that religion or philosophy is and labels themselves the same as you, does it matter to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Would you go as far as to tell them that they are a false (insert aforementioned label here)? What can be accomplished by doing so?

Religion is subjective. All are free to believe as they please. If he tries to proselytize it does matter, because he crosses my border, or more accurate "I allow him to cross my border". My solution is to keep a proper distance from him. And then it does not matter to me whatever he does.

It has to do with crossing borders. First physical border. If crossed then we try to protect verbally our border (tell him to mind his own business). Next step is to mentally protect our border. If all three fail then we can spiritual protect our border. If that does not work we might go crazy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If he tries to proselytize it does matter...

But what if he merely states an opinion...one that is not in the mainstream of that religion? Does it still matter?

...because he crosses my border, or more accurate "I allow him to cross my border".

I admire your realization that he cannot 'cross your border' unless you allow him to. That's a mature philosophical stance; one that many, in my experience, do not realize.

 

[stvdv]

But what if he merely states an opinion...one that is not in the mainstream of that religion? Does it still matter?

This to me is not proselytizing. If he does not try to convert me AND it's not about hurting others then I call it a healthy sharing of each others thoughts.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This to me is not proselytizing. If he does not try to convert me AND it's not about hurting others then I call it a healthy sharing of each others thoughts.

I wasn't suggesting it was proselytizing. I was asking if it matters if these non-mainstream ideas or thoughts matter to one who has mainstream ideas and thoughts even in the absence of proselytizing.

 

[atanu]

If you identify with a particular religion or philosophy and label yourself as such, and another comes along with different ideas on what that religion or philosophy is and labels themselves the same as you, does it matter to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Would you go as far as to tell them that they are a false (insert aforementioned label here)? What can be accomplished by doing so?

When the differences are about subjective issues, there should not be any matter. But if the dispute is about some objective measure or about some definition/understanding that is commonly agreed upon, or when there is intentional mis-representation/trolling, I think, one must at least point out the mistake/mischief.

 

[shunyadragon]

nope.....no religion

I follow no one
no one follows me.

No one needs to follow you for you to have a religious belief.

no rug for your knee
no beads for your and
no ritual or ceremony
no recital of prayers

no religion

None of the above is needed for religious belief nor a religion. You do have the Bible I presume.

 

[Segev Moran]

Ha ha, that is not a Hindu experience, where it will be difficult to meet two Hindus with the same belief.

Exactly!

 

[shunyadragon]

Opposition to LGBT rights, forcing women to wear burkas, etc.

. . . persecuting minority beliefs like the Baha'i Faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
Ha ha, that is not a Hindu experience, where it will be difficult to meet two Hindus with the same belief.

So what?!?!?!?!?! That can be said to be fundamentally true of every human being that has ever lived.

 

[stvdv]

I wasn't suggesting it was proselytizing. I was asking if it matters if these non-mainstream ideas or thoughts matter to one who has mainstream ideas and thoughts even in the absence of proselytizing.

I know. I thought I made it clear that if the other is not proselytizing (which includes belittling, arrogance etc.) then I am fine. Hence I replied with "I do not see that as proselytizing". As long as there is no proselytizing I am fine. I am even fine if the other proselytizes, but choose to keep a distance.

For me all religions (or lack thereof) are equally good. So it's perfect if he believes different.

Spirituality is more about respect and thoughts/words/deeds in harmony anyway. Not about belief.

 

[Thief]

No one needs to follow you for you to have a religious belief.



None of the above is needed for religious belief nor a religion. You do have the Bible I presume.

start a thread.....Thief is religious.....


see you there

 

[stvdv]

start a thread.....Thief is religious.....

Nah ... Thief cannot be religious ... "Thou shalt not steal"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nah ... Thief cannot be religious ... "Thou shalt not steal"

IMHO, Thief can be religious. Even Krishna was 'Makhan Chor' (Stealer of butter) and Chit-chor (Stealer of hearts).

Two thieves at work here, Krishna and his elder brother, Balarama. Krishna is the dark one.

 

[stvdv]

IMHO, Thief can be religious. Even Krishna was 'Makhan Chor' (Stealer of butter)

Who Am I? The one others think I am, the one I think I am OR the one I really am

I doubt that Krishna saw himself as a thief. Remembering Ramana's "Who Am I"

 

[Aupmanyav]

For Krishna, the whole world is his 'leela', his game-play. Nothing true there.

 

[Quintessence]

If you identify with a particular religion or philosophy and label yourself as such, and another comes along with different ideas on what that religion or philosophy is and labels themselves the same as you, does it matter to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Would you go as far as to tell them that they are a false (insert aforementioned label here)? What can be accomplished by doing so?

These issues and arguments happen all the darned time in contemporary Paganism, as I'm sure you're well aware. This happens in no small part because the religious movement is non-dogmatic and non-authoritarian, and frequently non-organized. There simply isn't anyone around who can say "no, you aren't allowed to call yourself Pagan (or some other specific variety thereof)." The labels are pretty much on an opt-in basis, for better and for worse.

That said, I think anyone who has been around in the community for a while knows that there's a difference between self-identifying with a path versus having a specific community or organizational affiliation. You can self-identify as a Druid, but you cannot self-identify a member of a specific Druid order like ADF or OBOD. There's also a general appreciation that while you can call yourself whatever you want (even falsely claiming affiliations), the moment you enter a community context you will be held accountable. If you claim to be a Druid but are in no way earth-centered, you're going to get called out on it (hopefully constructively).

 

[Woberts]

The 1st tenet of Pastafarianism is

1. I’d really rather you didn’t act like a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou *** when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject.

So that means that we should leave 'em alone. If they want STD's and stale beer that's up to them.

 

[syo]

If you identify with a particular religion or philosophy and label yourself as such, and another comes along with different ideas on what that religion or philosophy is and labels themselves the same as you, does it matter to you? If so, why? If not, why not?

Would you go as far as to tell them that they are a false (insert aforementioned label here)? What can be accomplished by doing so?

The greek religion has one path. The path of arete. If you stay on that path then you are a virtuous follower. If you don't follow the path of arete, then you don't follow the path of arete. that's all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

When the differences are about subjective issues, there should not be any matter. But if the dispute is about some objective measure or about some definition/understanding that is commonly agreed upon, or when there is intentional mis-representation/trolling, I think, one must at least point out the mistake/mischief.

I agree with everything you said except...

But if the dispute is about...about some definition/understanding that is commonly agreed upon...

1500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everyone knew the earth was flat.* Is it so implausible that one might stumble upon a new discovery that is in conflict with a commonly agreed upon understanding?


_________________
*Yes I stole that quote from MIB, but it's still relevant.