Comments
DaisyDisaster wrote
Raised Southern Baptist, now getting into occultism and paganism.
boringskip wrote
Member of the Satanic Temple, but atheist. I was raised "christian" but it wasn't a big deal.
Random_Revolutionary wrote
Arent all "real" satanist atheist?
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.
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.
tamarack wrote
Big ups to my man Lucien Greaves. I really hope y'all's 12' tall Baphomet statue finds a home soon, so I can visit it.
elyersio 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.
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.
boringskip wrote
It's in the HQ in Salem :-)
boringskip wrote
O9A is a nazi group like Joy of Satan. Even the actual devil worshipers think they're jokes.
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.
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.)
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.
An_Old_Big_Tree wrote
Hooray for a productive conversation from different viewpoints that didn't devolve into a shitstorm!
:D
Good job everybody :)
tamarack wrote
Salem, Mass.? Fuck yeah! My partner and I are going there this summer!
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.
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.
ziq wrote
Nope. Organized anything isn't for me. I'm plenty spiritual, tho.