Random Religion Thread

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

Religion?

Catholicism
25
12%
Protestantism
24
11%
Eastern Orthodox
12
6%
Judaism
4
2%
Sunni Islam
5
2%
Shiite Islam
2
1%
European Neo-Pagan
9
4%
Tribal Religion
2
1%
Hindu
2
1%
Buddhist
10
5%
Shinto
0
No votes
Atheism
74
34%
Agnostic
23
11%
Other (specify)
22
10%
Mormon
1
0%
Scientologist
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 215

User avatar
md0
Posts: 6780
Joined: 2010-08-08, 19:56
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby md0 » 2017-01-27, 20:01

The worst part is that they are homophones in Spanish.
"If you like your clause structure, you can keep your clause structure"

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14592
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-27, 20:04

Someone should write a book called La escatología y el seno de dos tetas. :lol:

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-27, 20:07

vijayjohn wrote:I figured I'd read the Wikipedia article eventually anyway, but thanks!
dEhiN wrote:Eschatology basically is theology that deals with the last days; things like what's found in the Biblical book of Revelations, etc.

Oh good, so it isn't a native speaker of Spanish trying to say "scatology" and throwing in an extra h just because it's from Greek. :lol: :silly:

Lol, not as far as I know. I haven't looked up the etymology, though I say it as /eskətɔləd͡ʒi/ or [ɛskətʰɔləd͡ʒi].
Follow my TAC 2017 here.

(N)  (en-CA) | (B2)  (fr) | (B1)  (pt-BR) | (A2)  (es-CO) |
(A1)  (ja) (ko) (sv) (ta-LK) | (A0)  (de) (fy) (hi)  (hu) (id) (it) (oc) (oj) (pl) (ro) (sq) (tl) (tr) (zh)

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14592
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-27, 20:10

Lol, no, they have completely different etymologies (despite both being from Greek).

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby dEhiN » 2017-01-27, 20:51

vijayjohn wrote:Lol, no, they have completely different etymologies (despite both being from Greek).

Oh I meant just the etymology of eschatology. Always wondered what it was from.
Follow my TAC 2017 here.

(N)  (en-CA) | (B2)  (fr) | (B1)  (pt-BR) | (A2)  (es-CO) |
(A1)  (ja) (ko) (sv) (ta-LK) | (A0)  (de) (fy) (hi)  (hu) (id) (it) (oc) (oj) (pl) (ro) (sq) (tl) (tr) (zh)

księżycowy
Posts: 8295
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby księżycowy » 2017-01-27, 21:12

I used to know the etymology of eschatology (that rolls right off the tongue :P ), but I can't recall it at the moment. All I can remember is it has something to do with unveiling or revealing.

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 14592
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-01-27, 21:15


księżycowy
Posts: 8295
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby księżycowy » 2017-01-27, 21:22

dEhiN wrote:Haha, we've been discoursing for so long I forget what the original points were. Vijay, I understand your point now, and yeah you're right: it's totally possible to be forced to assent to something and then later come to believe. (I don't consider saying yes when forced as equal to actual belief, but more assenting because of the external pressure).

Vlürch and księż, I think I actually agree with you two. I guess because I grew up indoctrined in Evangelical Protestantism, there are times when the things I used to believe without question still get triggered and I start to believe it again without questioning. And I think I also believed that modern missionary work, at least within Protestant Christianity, had changed sufficiently from its historical approach to not be considered to be a forcing of others. But perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps it hasn't changed that much due to an inherent flawed belief.

Actually, a recent example of that indoctrination being triggered is when księż said he doesn't necessarily see accepting the Jesus dies for me as being "Christian". My initial internal reaction was what I've heard in so many Evangelical sermons: a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' death and resurrection, and anyone who doesn't believe in that isn't a Christian. I fucking hate that indoctrination! It's times like this that I question why I'm still attending an Evangelical church!?!?

If it helps you any, the Catholic Church indoctrinates too. We have our creeds, and set prayers and the like. And probably a lot more I'm failing to mention.

I've found over the years, for myself anyway, it's some much less about what the particular doctrine is, or even what the official take on it is, it's much more about how you personally interpret it.

Something's, however, I don't see eye to eye with the Church on, so yeah....That's a bit different....But even that hinges on interpretation

On a separate, but related note, I know that for Christians the belief about propogating their belief stems from what's called The Great Commission. Basically in the Bible, Jesus says to his disciples, just before he ascends back into heaven after his resurrection, to go and make disciples of all nations. But this discussion on here has got me wondering whether the usualy view that the only way to fulfill that commission is active missionary work, whether that view is the only possible interpretation. I've never heard of any other Christian (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) questioning this before, but couldn't one interpretation be something along the lines of what Vlürch and księż believe: having a discussion among equals? Or another interpretation might be to approach things how I prefer to: not actively propogating, but only sharing my experiences if someone comes to me asking for help with their life. I don't know why Christians throughout history have interpreted this Great Commission as meaning to actively propogate the belief, to the point of forced conversions. Perhaps because of the usage of the imperative form of "go"?

Yeah, I remember discussing this to an extent in one of the classes I've taken. I can't recall if it was the New Testament course, or the Gospel of Matthew course (or both for that matter :lol: ). I'll be damned if I can remember much about it, it wasn't of much interest to me at the time.

I'll have to look into it though, as it is getting interesting.

księżycowy
Posts: 8295
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby księżycowy » 2017-01-27, 21:24


Right, after reading the article I realized I was confusing it for Apokalypse. Whoops.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 392
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-01-28, 13:28

dEhiN wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:I figured I'd read the Wikipedia article eventually anyway, but thanks!
dEhiN wrote:Eschatology basically is theology that deals with the last days; things like what's found in the Biblical book of Revelations, etc.

Oh good, so it isn't a native speaker of Spanish trying to say "scatology" and throwing in an extra h just because it's from Greek. :lol: :silly:

Lol, not as far as I know. I haven't looked up the etymology, though I say it as /eskətɔləd͡ʒi/ or [ɛskətʰɔləd͡ʒi].

I'd always thought "eschatology" was supposed to be pronounced /eskatɔlɔgi/ or /eʃkatəlod͡ʒi/, which is why I would've said something like [eskʰɑt̪oɫogʲi~iskʰæt̪oɫogi] or [eʃkʰɑt̪əɫod͡ʒi~iʃkʰæt̪əɫod͡ʒi]. "Scatology", on the other hand, as /skatolod͡ʒi/, so [skɑt̪ʰoɫod͡ʒi~skʲæt̪ʰoɫod͡ʒi]. I have no idea why random palatalisation happens when I try to speak English sometimes, since Finnish doesn't have palatalisation and I've been using English practically daily for a decade online, and it was the first foreign language I learned... maybe it's just the fact that I've never really had to speak it, so I tend to randomly hyperforeignise and simultaneously Finnishise my pronunciation. :lol:

And so the Random Religion Thread has almost become derailed back to being the Random Language Thread.

Koko
Posts: 5253
Joined: 2013-11-29, 6:50
Real Name: Jon Stockman
Gender: male
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Koko » 2017-01-28, 23:17

Anyone have tips on taoism and how i should best practice it? I understand the most basic principles, and have already really been living as a taoist without even knowing it. But despite the principle of simplicity, i still feel like there is something i am missing from it (even though taoism also teaches that there is no one way and shtuff).

kevin
Posts: 1417
Joined: 2012-03-29, 11:07
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)
Contact:

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby kevin » 2017-02-02, 22:00

Not sure if I should still reply after being away for a week and the thread basically having stopped. Anyway...

Vlürch wrote:There's nothing inherently mutually exclusive about beliefs that seem to contradict each other. Paradoxes are commonly used to describe how incomprehensible God is, and although I understand it's meant metaphorically and those kinds of things are intended to strengthen one's faith, the fact is that there is no 100% objective evidence of the existence of anything supernatural or spiritual.

So you mean that you could reasonably believe at the same time that "X exists" and "X doesn't exist"? That's certainly a stance that I hadn't expected. :hmm:

dEhiN wrote:Actually, a recent example of that indoctrination being triggered is when księż said he doesn't necessarily see accepting the Jesus dies for me as being "Christian". My initial internal reaction was what I've heard in so many Evangelical sermons: a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' death and resurrection, and anyone who doesn't believe in that isn't a Christian. I fucking hate that indoctrination!

I don't think this is a good definition, and anyway, I'm glad that it's not our job to judge who is a Christian and who is not.

But while I agree that many things are open to interpretation, I'm not sure what a Christianity without certain things like Jesus' death and resurrection should look like. It's like the core is missing. You'd also invalidate more or less the whole New Testament, because most books in it mention them or one way or another, so they would be in conflict. After getting rid of that, too, what's left of the Christian message?

On a separate, but related note, I know that for Christians the belief about propogating their belief stems from what's called The Great Commission. Basically in the Bible, Jesus says to his disciples, just before he ascends back into heaven after his resurrection, to go and make disciples of all nations. But this discussion on here has got me wondering whether the usualy view that the only way to fulfill that commission is active missionary work, whether that view is the only possible interpretation. I've never heard of any other Christian (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) questioning this before, but couldn't one interpretation be something along the lines of what Vlürch and księż believe: having a discussion among equals?

I don't see the conflict, having a discussion among equals is active missionary work in my eyes.

Also picking this quote, but really related to more postings before this: I should add that my view of missionaries is mostly based on what I know about the work the missionaries of my church do and about their organisations (though I know much more about their personal experiences than about the organisations). This also means that I've been talking about today in this discussion, and not about history.

In other words, I can confidently say that not all missionary work is bad (which is what the initial posting I had replied to basically said), but I can't make any claims about the entirety of it.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 392
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random language thread 4

Postby Vlürch » 2017-02-04, 5:35

kevin wrote:
Vlürch wrote:There's nothing inherently mutually exclusive about beliefs that seem to contradict each other. Paradoxes are commonly used to describe how incomprehensible God is, and although I understand it's meant metaphorically and those kinds of things are intended to strengthen one's faith, the fact is that there is no 100% objective evidence of the existence of anything supernatural or spiritual.

So you mean that you could reasonably believe at the same time that "X exists" and "X doesn't exist"? That's certainly a stance that I hadn't expected. :hmm:

Sure, although I was thinking more about the attributes and nature of God, the definition of what a soul is, what the meaning of life is, what's ultimately sinful and what isn't, etc. For example, whether He's strictly separate from creation and sits on a cloud somewhere watching things happen or whether He's an integral part of it that forms the essence of everything that exists and actively keeps reality from collapsing, if He's an undividable entity that's one of a kind or if there are thousands or even millions of gods, whether those gods are all the manifestations of one primordial entity or unique individuals, whether they're anthropomorphic or not, whether they're equals or have a strict hierarchy, etc.

The things we consider to be the most important questions regarding life and the universe that form the foundation of all faiths may not even be necessary concepts to God/the gods, whether they exist or not, and even the very question of whether or not any divinity exists may be rooted in human ignorance; for all we know, it could make no sense to be asked in the bigger picture because there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a grey area between existence and inexistence. It could be a spectrum, with fluctations like God existing at one point in time and being completely absent at another time, being only when He wants to be (if there even is such a thing as "want" when it comes to God — there's still no absolute certainty on whether we have free will or not, and if we do, what other animals do as well and which ones don't, so the answer to the question of whether God has free will or not may be completely beyond human understanding; maybe God has no need for free will, acting for the greater good no matter how destructive it may be at one point in time if the ultimate fate of the universe depends on some event taking place — it could even be that the reason some people believe in God and others don't, and that different conceptions of divinity exist, is that between life and death souls exist in the grey area between existence and inexistence and that some come to exist at a time and place when there is no god; that would mean that both atheists and deists could be universally right simultaneously in the "present".

Since spacetime has already come to be considered flexible by most physicists and the existence of alternate realities is beginning to be taken seriously in the mainstream, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to suggest that if souls exist and they aren't bound to physical space, each soul exists in every distinct universe at every time and that their transmigration has a pattern to it that causes them to influence the "destiny" of every other soul in a loop that spans all the way from the beginning of the universe to the end and that the "destiny" of each soul is predetermined in one universe while a parallel universe exists where everything is the exact same except in that in that one that one soul has no destiny while every other soul still does have one, and that the same applies to every soul and reality; in some realities souls may not exist at all, and that there are realities where any one particular individual soul exists without any other souls or where every other soul exists without any one particular individual soul.

If souls are bound to the spectrum of existence and inexistence, then this means that the number of existing universes is higher than the number of the smallest particles in all of those universes together since every particle is bound to interact with another at one point and whether souls are made up of anything and have mass or not, their existence or inexistence would mean that every particle in every universe would at one point interact with one soul and consequently there would have to be an alternate reality where that doesn't happen, because otherwise there would be irregularities and those could keep the "loop" from being complete, causing every reality to suddenly cease to exist as if they had never existed because every soul would "leak" out of existence into the realm of inexistence and out of God's reach; thus, it would make sense for God to be able to simultaneously exist and not exist so that He could restart existence out of inexistence.

Of course, it's impossible to imagine true nothingness where nothing exists, not even nothingness, so the idea that God could cease to exist and by doing so trigger existence to exist again is too reality-centric to necessarily be true. Maybe God doesn't have to exist or not exist in a way that's bound to any reality or a reality that transcends all realities, and His being could transcend the spectrum that has existence and inexistence at its extremes. Maybe no soul is bound to anything, and can freely move between the different realities and from one "body" to another (whether any lifeform on Earth or anywhere else in this universe or another, or divine), and there is ony one reality that's really real while all the others are different shades of unreality made up of the reflections of souls and their fluctation back and forth between existence and inexistence, becoming increasingly "navigable" to souls as their "light" and the light of the physical universe interact with one another, creating more realities that grow more real as more souls come closer to existence in them, bringing with them the different "colours" that make up reality.

We might not exist at all, except in the imagination of a single soul that neither exists nor doesn't exist, but that could exist and is fed some kind of existential energy by the reflections of souls that do or don't exist, leading to there being enough "being" and "not being" for something to appear to exist and for us to imagine our own existence and the existence/inexistence of everything else in this reality that may not even be real in relation to any other reality that exists or any other reality that doesn't exist.

I didn't bother typing up a lot of tangential stuff to connect all the ridiculously pointless stuff that could've had something resembling a point because the point that there could've been would've been that there is no point, not even to pointlessness, and by definition a point is only one point of a line or grid or another larger thing, so having a point is pointless in contexts like this. Still, my actual point is that even if none of what I just said makes sense, the concept of mutual exclusiveness may not necessarily apply to spiritual matters even at the core of the big fundamental questions.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you really waste your time. :wink:
kevin wrote:But while I agree that many things are open to interpretation, I'm not sure what a Christianity without certain things like Jesus' death and resurrection should look like. It's like the core is missing. You'd also invalidate more or less the whole New Testament, because most books in it mention them or one way or another, so they would be in conflict. After getting rid of that, too, what's left of the Christian message?

Not necessarily. There are countless ways to interpet things, and given how little is actually known for certain for obvious reasons, even most of what is considered set in stone as the only truth isn't always mutually exclusive with other interpretations that seem contradictory at face value. For example, even if you interpret the resurrection purely metaphorically, you can still believe that Jesus was crucified and that he died, which is what a lot of modern-day secular-first Christians believe, or that he was crucified but didn't die and instead survived and went on to travel spreading the fresh yet-unnamed Christianity himself, which is what some medieval sects and current random non-denominational Christians believe.

The mainstream Islamic belief is that he was ascended before being crucified (ie. lifted by God to Heaven alive), and less common but still common is the belief that he was crucified but ascended before his death; IIRC some relatively big denominations of both Christianity and Islam lean on that interpretation, but I'm not sure which ones or if it's actually the official doctrine of any.

When you get into the beliefs of obscure syncretic sects and non-denominational Pan-Abrahamism, there are so many things that range from things like decades passing from his death to when he was seen by anyone because he was reborn as a baby and had to grow up, to stuff like being resurrected by Lazarus because when Lazarus was brought back to life by Jesus, he gained the ability to bring people back to life as well, and Jesus having been a time traveller or other crazy shit. I find those and most other less mainstream interpretations ridiculous, but as someone who believes moral compromises and spiritual paradoxes to be the best foundation for peace and peace being the ultimate goal of humanity, and rambling about shit that makes Time Cube look like the work of a respectable scientist, I may not be the best judge on what's ridiculous and what isn't.

The two most mutually exclusive views, that Jesus died and was resurrected and that he didn't die and was ascended, are logically mutually exclusive, but if it's agreed that God was directly involved and that God works in mysterious ways, both could be true in the most paradoxical way: he didn't die but was resurrected while at the same time he died and was ascended — his physical body died and was buried, while his soul went to Heaven and then God put it back into his body. You could even argue that the opposite happened at the same time, ie. his physical body taking the "qualities" of his soul and his soul taking the "qualities" of his physical body, so that when his body was buried, it was his soul and when he was ascended, it was his body. Doesn't really make any sense to interpret it like that, but who knows what actually happened beyond that no one will ever actually know what happened. I don't get why people argue about the details, but different people have different boats and all that.

I know that's not how the saying actually goes, but I think it sounds kinda cute compared to "different strokes for different folks", which sounds like something a porn director would say to people who wonder why he filmed a group of men making love to a boat and "whatever floats your boat", which sounds like the boat in question would rather drown than have random guys getting off to other guys getting off on it.

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 392
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-02-07, 23:40

I don't care if everyone calls me insane and overprivileged, that internet cutting off making me sad is a first world problem, but there's a 100% correlation between me doing something I believe is somehow "sinful" and my internet connection cutting off. Every time I pray when that happens, and think about what my sins have been (no matter how insignificant they seem like (for example today when I was talking with my mum about writing (she writes stuff like poetry and short stories, which I'm also interested in doing) and I used Nietszche's most famous quote as an example of something that I would never feel right in my heart to say/write even ironically (and ironically saying it, since I quoted it)) and asking for forgiveness), when I'm done with recognising my sins as best as I can, my internet connection goes back to normal and I feel like it's thanks to God. Like, I know that sounds incredibly narcissistic and everything, to pray to be able to use the internet instead of praying for world peace or something, but my world is really small; I have no social life outside the internet, I spend all day learning languages mostly online and everything, so for me not being able to go online is a big deal. It's definitely a first world problem, but it's the one thing that can really make me feel like shit and make me question everything, take my mind off whatever else.

The reason I feel like it absolutely has to be God (or an angel or whatever) that first cuts off my internet and then fixes it is that it always takes exactly as long as it takes me to thoroughly contemplate what I've done wrong recently and what I can do to not do it again. Sometimes minutes, sometimes hours, sometimes days, once or twice it's even taken a week or longer, but every single time it's the exact minute that I have the "ohhhhhh that's what I did wrong" moment that the internet works again. There's just no other explanation, at least not one that would satisfy every aspect of the thing; it could be the wire being shit, sure, but that's just the physical part of it.

Like, I know it sounds paranoid and like I'm schizophrenic or something, since in a way it implies that God "talks" to me, but I don't hear voices or anything and I don't even feel like I get any "clues" other than the internet cutting off and sometimes other electrical things or whatever, but it's what gets me to calm down in my mind and go over what I may have done that I shouldn't have done for whatever reason. I don't care if you call me absolutely batshit insane and tell me to kill myself (even if that's against the forum's rules), since I'm aware of how insane I sound. I just feel like I have to post this somewhere, and this forum is one of the most important sites I use, so yeah. I hope I'm not offending anyone, and that this doesn't sound too preachy or whatever, I'm not trying to tell anyone they should take this seriously or pray/meditate more or whatever, just that for me personally it's something I forget to do and then get reminded to do by my internet cutting off for as long as is necessary for me to "clear my conscience" of even the smallest things, if that's the right way to put it.

User avatar
dEhiN
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2013-08-18, 2:51
Real Name: David
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby dEhiN » 2017-02-08, 6:12

Vlürch, there's nothing wrong in believing in that. I used to have a similar sort of belief and association with my watching porn. I think the main thing is that it's what works for you, and makes sense to you. I know atheists who would try and find some other explanation, but I think nowadays I try to live and let live: if you've got an explanation that works for you, go with it.
Follow my TAC 2017 here.

(N)  (en-CA) | (B2)  (fr) | (B1)  (pt-BR) | (A2)  (es-CO) |
(A1)  (ja) (ko) (sv) (ta-LK) | (A0)  (de) (fy) (hi)  (hu) (id) (it) (oc) (oj) (pl) (ro) (sq) (tl) (tr) (zh)

User avatar
Freak
Posts: 3
Joined: 2017-02-11, 19:47

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Freak » 2017-02-11, 20:59

I call myself agnostic, but I'm also fascinated by some religious concepts. Recently I've been thinking more and more about using Christianity or some other religion as a tool to escape from my own ego and find inner peace :para: :ohwell:

User avatar
Varislintu
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 15244
Joined: 2004-02-09, 13:32
Real Name: M.
Gender: female
Location: Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Varislintu » 2017-02-17, 13:03

Vlürch wrote:I don't care if everyone calls me insane and overprivileged, that internet cutting off making me sad is a first world problem, but there's a 100% correlation between me doing something I believe is somehow "sinful" and my internet connection cutting off. Every time I pray when that happens, and think about what my sins have been (no matter how insignificant they seem like (for example today when I was talking with my mum about writing (she writes stuff like poetry and short stories, which I'm also interested in doing) and I used Nietszche's most famous quote as an example of something that I would never feel right in my heart to say/write even ironically (and ironically saying it, since I quoted it)) and asking for forgiveness), when I'm done with recognising my sins as best as I can, my internet connection goes back to normal and I feel like it's thanks to God. Like, I know that sounds incredibly narcissistic and everything, to pray to be able to use the internet instead of praying for world peace or something, but my world is really small; I have no social life outside the internet, I spend all day learning languages mostly online and everything, so for me not being able to go online is a big deal. It's definitely a first world problem, but it's the one thing that can really make me feel like shit and make me question everything, take my mind off whatever else.

The reason I feel like it absolutely has to be God (or an angel or whatever) that first cuts off my internet and then fixes it is that it always takes exactly as long as it takes me to thoroughly contemplate what I've done wrong recently and what I can do to not do it again. Sometimes minutes, sometimes hours, sometimes days, once or twice it's even taken a week or longer, but every single time it's the exact minute that I have the "ohhhhhh that's what I did wrong" moment that the internet works again. There's just no other explanation, at least not one that would satisfy every aspect of the thing; it could be the wire being shit, sure, but that's just the physical part of it.

Like, I know it sounds paranoid and like I'm schizophrenic or something, since in a way it implies that God "talks" to me, but I don't hear voices or anything and I don't even feel like I get any "clues" other than the internet cutting off and sometimes other electrical things or whatever, but it's what gets me to calm down in my mind and go over what I may have done that I shouldn't have done for whatever reason. I don't care if you call me absolutely batshit insane and tell me to kill myself (even if that's against the forum's rules), since I'm aware of how insane I sound. I just feel like I have to post this somewhere, and this forum is one of the most important sites I use, so yeah. I hope I'm not offending anyone, and that this doesn't sound too preachy or whatever, I'm not trying to tell anyone they should take this seriously or pray/meditate more or whatever, just that for me personally it's something I forget to do and then get reminded to do by my internet cutting off for as long as is necessary for me to "clear my conscience" of even the smallest things, if that's the right way to put it.


If I try to "world-build" in my head a universe in which supernatural stuff happens to try to relate to this I think this would somehow jive better if you believed a house elf was doing this to you. Because if you are talking about God, as in the Christian omni-God, then it's just weird that he's currently for example letting children starve to death or end up as house or sex slaves but cares to monitor your minor naughty thought processes and mete out little figurative slaps on your wrist over them.
Det finns ingen
tröst. Därför
behöver du den inte
(Gösta Ågren)

User avatar
Vlürch
Posts: 392
Joined: 2014-05-06, 8:42
Gender: male
Location: Roihuvuori, Helsinki
Country: FI Finland (Suomi)

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby Vlürch » 2017-02-18, 23:46

dEhiN wrote:Vlürch, there's nothing wrong in believing in that. I used to have a similar sort of belief and association with my watching porn.

I used to feel bad about watching porn, but that was mostly not for religious reasons as much as it was thinking that my mum would kick me out of the house for it and that my dad would kick my ass if he found out. As it turns out, that impression couldn't have been more wrong; I don't remember how the conversation started or how it turned to porn, but my mum said that even she has watched porn and that it's normal and that there's nothing to be ashamed of about it. My dad's reaction was more or less the same when the subject of porn came up somehow when we were talking about something.

God being against porn or anything sexual in general makes no sense to me, mostly because most people are naturally sexually attracted to other people and everyone has some form of sexuality. If God didn't want people to masturbate, then masturbation wouldn't be a thing; I know that argument can be used as a slippery slope to justifying rape, murder or war and even genocide, but like I said earlier, I don't believe God's morality is the same as human morality and the fact that even different human cultures have different societal norms for morality and different individuals within societies have different morals... well, you know, it kind of proves that morality isn't universal, and religions have tried to control people's morals throughout time with often disastrous effects...
Varislintu wrote:Because if you are talking about God, as in the Christian omni-God, then it's just weird that he's currently for example letting children starve to death or end up as house or sex slaves but cares to monitor your minor naughty thought processes and mete out little figurative slaps on your wrist over them.

That's exactly why I said I know it sounds insane and overprivileged, but I don't care. Maybe God has nothing to do with it, but if He truly is omnipotent and omnipresent and truly works in mysterious ways, it's not that ridiculous to believe what I believe.

For what it's worth, though, I don't consider myself a Christian and have never done so, except when it's the only possibility; if a Christian asks me if I'm a Christian with the implication that me not being a Christian is bad, I'll call myself a Christian for that moment. Same goes for a Muslim asking me if I'm a Muslim with the implication that me not being a Muslim is bad, so I'll call myself a Muslim for that moment. I wouldn't call myself a Jew under any circumstances, though, although I guess in an inclusive Pan-Abrahamic way it would be kind of antisemitic to imply that if I'm a Christian and Muslim, I'm not a Jew as well... but the Bible says something about it being bad for people to call themselves Jews if they aren't really Jews, so... I mean, I don't really take the Bible literally, but still. It's also different since Jews are an ethnic group with their own cultures and languages and everything, and not anyone can just convert to Judaism.

User avatar
TheStrayCat
Posts: 2378
Joined: 2010-12-23, 11:49
Real Name: Max
Gender: male
Location: Evanston, IL
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby TheStrayCat » 2017-02-19, 0:12

Vlürch wrote:but the Bible says something about it being bad for people to call themselves Jews if they aren't really Jews, so... I mean, I don't really take the Bible literally, but still.


Doesn't the Qur'an say anything about people pretending to be Muslims when they actually aren't? :)
Native:  (uk)
C1:  (en-US)
B2:  (es)
A1:  (fr) (hr)

księżycowy
Posts: 8295
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Gender: male
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Random Religion Thread

Postby księżycowy » 2017-02-19, 0:20

What does taking the Bible literally (or not literally) have to do with a passage such as that?


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest