Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

7

indi wrote

Born atheist; never disinformed.

But I was raised in a very Christian society. I had to say prayers every day in school, had to go to multiple Bible study classes a week (my parents were atheists too, but they couldn't not send me, or there would have been hell to pay, pun intended - worth it, though: I even learned how to study the various Bibles with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew concordances), and was harangued about religious stuff at just about every opportunity (for example, when I started playing music with my friends, the music teacher at school pulled us aside to warn us of the dangers of Satan in pop music, and even gave us a book on backmasking - also parents of friends often arranged sleepovers with pretty transparent intentions of taking me to Church Sunday morning). None of it stuck. I don't look back on it with anger or outrage. Their intentions were good; everyone thought they were "saving" me.

So: atheist, but I could quote chapter and verse at ya like the goddamn Pope if I wanted to.

2

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

That's awesome. I (also atheist) have been trying to get into the bible, but to no avail. But you, you know thine enemy.

6

Dumai wrote

raised in the church of england, converted to quakerism in adulthood

ancestral ties to judaism that i feel like acting on sometimes. but converting to judaism takes literal years and i need to know more about it first. for now quakerism is a pretty comfortable spiritual home for me

6

ziq wrote

Nope. Organized anything isn't for me. I'm plenty spiritual, tho.

5

parshuram wrote (edited )

Born in the agnostic Hindu family where my family never insisted on going to Temple like any fixed routine. i have visited many religious pilgrimages which for me has already been a time of bonding and sight seeing. I have no correct idea about my religion, but it looks like free market sprituality where every one is allowed to follow any avatar (in millions) of some God and if that falls short we worshipped nature (trees, animals, ocean,rivers, mountains) and sometimes completely different religious ideas like dargahs,sikh-budhist-jain temples , sufi and whatever you could think of. Personally i will like Hinduism if i have to choose consciously or better no shit at all.

5

sudo wrote

I am an atheist, and always have been.

5

ConquestOfToast wrote

Not spiritual at all but recently got a bug up my ass to explore occultism. So I'm sure that's going to be a fun rabbit hole for a bit.

4

boringskip wrote

Member of the Satanic Temple, but atheist. I was raised "christian" but it wasn't a big deal.

2

Random_Revolutionary wrote

Arent all "real" satanist atheist?

2

indi wrote

While it's true that the most popular flavours of modern-day Satanism just think of Satan metaphorically, there are a lot of very real, non-atheistic, Satan-worshipping religions, like The Order of the Nine Angels.

1

boringskip wrote

O9A is a nazi group like Joy of Satan. Even the actual devil worshipers think they're jokes.

2

indi wrote

Yes, that's why they're so fresh in my mind (Nazis being in the news these days; Satanists, not so much). But they do believe in a literal Satan, and venerate him.

I know there are other groups that literally worship Satan, but my knowledge is mostly just about Canada and the UK, so I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

1

boringskip wrote

99% I'd say, but I've met some theistic satanists. I'd prefer they call themselves Luciferians but they seem like decent folk. Quite a few in the Satanism room on Matrix.

4

amongstclouds wrote

I spit on organized religion but also practice Zazen and have a soft spot for most eastern schools of thought.

2

Dumai wrote

i'm not trying to be rude or anything but i do wonder what people mean sometimes by "organised religion" if zen buddhism doesn't count as organised

2

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I decide to pick and choose what is beneficial to me. If something doesn't work for me I don't get hung up on the details.

I am the only individual that can decide what is beneficial to me or not. I am not seeking an outside authority but one from within.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

sure thing, but it strikes me that if you're practicing a meditative discipline established by the doctrine of the zen priesthood then you're absolutely a part of an organised religion. unless you're just practicing zazen without any interest in its social context... in which case you're not practicing zazen, you're appropriating and completely misconcieving it (sorry to be harsh, i'm sure you're not actually doing this but i'm just trying to make the point here)

picking and choosing from different traditions without an awareness of their cultural and social context is a dangerous game, i hope you'll agree! i'm not saying you're definitely being appropriative but this is how appropriation happens.

anyway my broader point is i'm not exactly sure where the line between organised and disorganised religion is. even highly individualised spiritual practices have to originate from some socio-cultural enivornment, and while i would definitely like to see less hierarchy and dogma in religious practice, i'm not sure how folk religions that get lumped into the "disorganised" box are any less social systems than the abrahamic faiths, for example.

2

indi wrote

I've always thought the term "organized" is pretty useless. It was coined in a Christian context - and particularly an American Christian context, which was all about a slew of different Christian denominations coexisting - and Christianity is by and large all about organizations and official hierarchies and whatnot. With most Christian denominations, one actually has to take some active measure to join the congregation - usually being baptized. And there is almost always an official dogma, with a sanctioned leader or group of leaders to specify it and make ruling on applications of it, and functionaries at various levels with various powers to teach and enforce it. Generally speaking, if you're a Christian, you have a clear and explicit dogma you're supposed to believe in - supplied by your sect - and any deviation from that dogma is heresy. (This has become less true in modern times, as a lot of people have become "unaffiliated Christians"... still Christians, still believing at least basically the same dogma as many/most churches... just refusing to be beholden to any Earthly religious leadership, preferring a direct line to God instead.)

But those ideas don't really apply to most other religions. You're slamming into the limits of the term here, with Buddhism. Most forms of Buddhism are not particularly rigidly defined, and variation in the dogma is not only tolerated, sometimes it's encouraged. Zen in particular is all about eschewing dogma and finding your own path. Most forms are also quite comfortable coexisting with other beliefs, within limits, which is why you get crossovers with Shinto, and things like the Triple Religion. (All this is especially true for the more modern schools of Buddhism.)

If someone is practising zazen, I'd say that's pretty much practising some form of Zen Buddhism (possibly the Japanese form, whose name I cannot recall at the moment). Picking and choosing what works is the whole point of it. If sitting straight-backed in a full-lotus with your hands in a mudra doesn't work for you, but stretching out on a couch with your arms behind your head does, then the latter is not "wrong". Similarly, if the sound of a waterfall doesn't relax you and help you clear your mind, but some melodic death metal in the background does, then go ahead and put on the Amon Amarth. Rejecting authority and finding your own way is really the whole point of Zen Buddhism.

If someone rejects the label, that's fine; labels can still apply even if refused. It makes no sense in any case to talk about "organized Zen Buddhism" or being "affiliated" with Zen Buddhism. (I think the term "(un)affiliated" is also pretty useless outside of a mostly American Christian context.)

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

your picture of christian history is pretty generalised; which, fair enough, it would have to be if we're talking about a tradition roughly 2000 years old, but it's a little too one-dimensional. if zen buddhism, a religion with a socially recognised clergical hierarchy, an established liturgical tradition, and a rich doctrinal background doesn't count as organised, then i can easily think of a few notable protestant christian demoninations that wouldn't fit the bill either. plenty of churches have strictly congregationalist polities! quakers who practice waiting worship, -- like me -- don't even have any ordained clergy (our numbers are pretty small so i'll accept we don't fall under your 'generally", but i really wouldn't appreciate any implication that we're less christian because of this)! anyhow, zen doesn't exactly discard written doctrine as much it seeks to transcend it -- you'll know christianity has attempted something pretty similar from the very beginning of our tradition if you know your pauline hermeneutics.

it's a plain fact that the dharmic traditions, buddhism included, have historically demanded far less exclusivity then the abrahamic faiths, but there's a fair distance between living and growing within several traditions and plucking a particular practice out of its cultural context as an outsider, which i have to say, is pretty common in western (white) buddhism. but i'd say "picking and choosing what works for you is the whole point" is, at best, hugely misleading. ask your average zen teacher if abusing substances is compatible with zen. go on, do it! they didn't accept the fifth precept for nothing.

edit: nevermind dumai, of course evangelicals practice baptism, god i'm embarrassed about that -- i meant they don't do infant baptism or view baptism in general as an initation into christendom. it's very symbolic and not at all essential for their soteriology, to the point that many of them allow unbaptised believers to partake in communion, and a lot of baptist churches don't require baptism as a prerequisite to church membership. brainfart/oversight on my part.

1

indi wrote

your picture of christian history is pretty generalised....

Oh yes, I freely admit I was speaking in very hand-wavey terms, and focusing particularly on the major American denominations and ideas of what Christianity broadly "looks like" to the average English-speaker. I wasn't really trying to make a point about the nature of Christianity or Christendom, I was just trying to get at the idea of "affiliation".

The idea of "affiliating" with a church or religious group is very much a Western, and mostly American, idea, probably going back to all the inter-denominational strife and endless "schism-ing" in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. I'm constantly amazed at how well most Christians can identify their particular branch of Christianity (reminds me of that famous Emo Phillips joke); that's not something adherents of most other faiths can do. (I wasn't even a Christian, but I knew to say I was "Anglican" to some people and "Pentecostal" to others to avoid headaches.) While some strains of Zen Buddhism do have "official" hierarchies, that stuff is only of interest to the most devout - mostly the people intending to become part of the hierarchy themselves; most adherents would look at you confused if you asked them how to "join" their religion, and probably answer with something vague like: "You just sorta... do it."

I don't deny Zen Buddhism is a religion; it undoubtedly is. I just don't agree that the concept of "affiliation" makes as much sense with it as it does for most forms of Christianity.

For sure there are plenty of Christian denominations that don't really fit the standard mould, but are just as much Christian.

As for baptism, it's not usually something that's required to join, but it's often part of the process - especially if you're not coming from another Christian tradition. And if there's not a literal baptism with water and all, a lot of traditions have the notion of a "metaphorical" baptism - baptism by the Holy Spirit (such as with Pentecostals) - or they talk about being "born again", or "accepting Jesus into your heart" or whatever. There isn't always a literal, physical joining ritual, but there's almost always the idea that you need to "do something" to really join the congregation, and there's a some kind of delineation between people who are "in" and people who aren't, whether taken seriously or not.

I have to describe these things in very hand-wavey terms, because there are so many different forms, and many churches will happily welcome new members right off the street (if only to grow their numbers, or in the hope of fully converting them later) and don't really take the literal word of what's in their theology all that seriously (for example, allowing communion to the unbaptized). Covering all the various practices in anything but the vaguest terms would be too much. Much easier to just generalize what the biggest denominations (Catholics, Pentecostals, etc.) do, and hand-wave away the less common variations.

1

amongstclouds wrote

Your commitment to religious authority is worrying.

1

amongstclouds wrote

Ikkyū

Chögyam Trungpa

Here's two examples of very iconoclastic masters.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

i could think of a few equally heterodox christians. i don't know if i could name anyone who thought exactly like simone weil or ivan illich in general, let alone among their fellow catholics. and i'd bet you most of what they wrote would be shocking to most christians.

but uh... i really try not to commit to religious authority. i belong to a denomination that was forcibly suppressed for much of its early history, in part because it rejected authority as such. but i don't think either of the buddhist masters you mentioned would deny that zen is transformative, that it demands a change in you, and i think that kind of flies in the face of this very casual "picking and choosing what works for me".

2

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I'm assuming you know very little about Zen?

2

Dumai wrote

i know a bit. if i've made a mistake then you can say so!

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

amongstclouds wrote

Practicing Zazen, and sitting with yourself in silent illumination IS Zen. No one else can tell you who you are. To depend upon the 'priest' is to betray your true face.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

sure, of course zazen and zen in general are pretty individualised as far as these things go -- doesn't change the fact that you are practicing a meditative discipline established by the organisation of the zen priesthood.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Zazen isn't just an individual practice. Sitting has the power to see beyond the delusions that are constantly pummeling us both personally and on vast social scales. Someone who is using Zazen to just get rid of stress or figure themselves out are not properly sitting in silent illumination.

Zazen itself though is nothing special. Tbh, this all goes so far beyond words I'm not sure why I'm getting this worked up. I just hope you understand how long I have dedicated myself to understanding. I've practiced Zazen for over ten years and will admit my first 2-3 years was full of delusions. But after constantly practicing this sitting finally cultivated my unique understanding of Dharma. I don't know anything at all, but I am confident in my practice and understanding.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh i do understand that, and i specifically tried to avoid bringing it into question because there was no way for me to know either way unless you said so. but if you are as devoted to dharma as you clearly seem to be then i don't see how you're "picking and choosing" and "not getting hung up on the details". there's probably a lot said and done by other practitioners of zen that you disagree with, but that'll be because of your dedication to zen as you understand it, right? it doesn't seem to be the case that you simply find some part of the tradition distasteful vis-a-vis individual attachments. you tell me if i'm wrong.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

The only way I can word it without writing a whole novel is that my current understanding is due to my practice, but that sounds close, in that this is just my understanding.

All parts of the tradition and it's history are important but there is so much beyond just the mere words and images. It's just one part of something totally outside of rational understanding. To explain it's history and the structure is important at first. You need stability and a firm base. Then comes the point where that base has to be demolished or you are no longer being you but something else entirely.

1

amongstclouds wrote

To quote Linji: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! Meaning if you find the Buddha outside of yourself then it's not the Buddha.

1

amongstclouds wrote

It's much more complex. If you go back and read the conversations between master's there are endless disagreements. There is also the sheer number of schools that sprouted up based on local religions and beliefs.

Siddhartha himself said not to believe anything anyone says even if it's the Buddha itself. Zen goes far beyond hierarchical notions of dogma.

3

Dumai wrote

cool! i agree. but i think radical christianity pretty easily does that too. i probably wouldn't be a quaker otherwise.

and if we're talking about endless disagreements and multiple sects and schools of thought... anyone who has ever even begun reading christian theology knows christians love disagreeing with each other. endlessly. it is basically one of our favourite things to do! any tradition that could encompass both the catholic left and the most conservative of reformed calvinists is pretty clearly at war with itself, lol.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Also sorry if I came off as aggressive. I've gotten kind of use to people on Raddle being jerks, but you never are. ❤

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Hooray for a productive conversation from different viewpoints that didn't devolve into a shitstorm!

:D

Good job everybody :)

3

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Grew up evangelical Christian and owned it for almost 15 years(late 20s). Eventually my mind’s “immune system” deleted it and I’ve been so happy since.

3

trashcan wrote

I'm agnostic. I was raised in a very conservative household in various Christian denominations and it was awful for me. I see the benefit religion can have for people, but that turned me off to organized religion.

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Was raised hard-core mormon. Went to early-morning seminary every day before school, went on a 2 year mission. Happy atheist now.

1

Cosmicsloth42 wrote

I was born catholic, and I was pretty religious up until middle school. Then I became a militant atheist. Nowadays I identify more as "spiritual" (I'm that asshole) I don't really like the idea of omnipotence and really don't like organized religious structures.