Is it just me, or is Individuality the opposite of Religion?

[Immortal Goat]

I mean, in my religion book at school, it condemns "individualism", and Catholics believe that if you do something against what the Pope mandates as religious truth, then you are condemmned to burn in hell for all eternity. They don't come out right and say it, but they say you cannot go to Heaven if you do not confess your sind, and only Catholics have confession, i believe.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I was not raised Catholic (though my father was) but in the christianity i was exposed to it was repenting that you had to do to get into heaven, not confessing.


Also, you are taking a narrow view on religion, you topic says Religion is the opposite of individualism, but your post has catholicism as the opposite of individualism.

[Immortal Goat]

I was just talking about what i knew. Is there any way for me to change the name of me thread now?

[AChimp]

Just edit it.

[VinceZeb]

Say that someone believes exactly what the Catholic church believes, but hasn't heard of the Catholic Church. They are an "individualist". Now, they join the Catholic Church and have not changed one view since they joined. Are they now not a indivudalist because they are part of a religious group?

[Bennett]

idiot

[kellychaos]

Assuming, of course, that there's no baptism, cathechism, confirmation and all of the forms ritualistic, dogmatic rites of indoctrination that heralds one's entrance into Catholic conversion. :rolleyes

[VinceZeb]

ok, bennet, kelly. Change Catholic church to Hindu.

Wait, what is that sound? The sound of two morons being proven wrong.

[mburbank]

No it's the sound of you passing the event horizon of your own stupidity. EVERY religion has speciffic precepts like the ones Kelly mentioned for Catholascism.

In fact, Hinduism has many, many, many, many more.

[Brandon]

ok, bennet, kelly. Change Catholic church to Hindu.

Wait, what is that sound? The sound of two morons being proven wrong.

...what the hell are you trying to say, Vinth?

Do you even know the first thing about Hinduism?

[VinceZeb]

No, my blood libel friend, you are the moron. If you can't even see where my point is going, then maybe you need to quit staying up so late at night in your Jewish vampire form.

Someone wanted to say that individualism is the enemy of religion. Now if someone who is an "individualist" has the exact beliefs of a preticular group, and then is associated with that group because of his beliefs, does that mean that they are now off the "individualist" scorecard.

I don't have time to buy crayons and construction paper, so that is about as simple as you are going to get it, Hebey.

[mburbank]

I'm guessing 'blood libel' is supposed to be some sort of reference to my being a Jew, but you should know it doesn't mean anything so you just look stupid saying it. Did you mean 'liable'? 'Cause then your sort of lurching toward a mneaning, as in Jews are 'liable' (onbligated by law) to drink blood, and then you'd just be missing the two verbs it would take to make sense.

I totally understand where you were going with your point (since points don't go anywhere by themselves). I was commenting on how ignorant your substitution of Hinduism for catholascism was, and how poorly it illustrates the point you were trying to go somewhere with.

As to your problem obtaining crayons, I bet if you ask your play therapist, he'd let you tke a box home.

[VinceZeb]

I shouldn't be suprised by Max's response. I guess what suprises me the most is that a woman found him male enough to marry... and to breed children.

[Bennett]

If someone had the exact beliefs of a particular group, i.e. Catholicism, Hinduism, etc., then that person would not be an indivualist. The point of the argument in question is that the beliefs of many religious groups are contrary to the concept of individualism. It has nothing to do with the group that a person associates with, it is the actual beliefs that are in question.

So the person would never be on the "'individualist' scorecard."

You've missed the point once again, and no doubt my explanation will do nothing to help you "get it." idiot.

[Brandon]

I shouldn't be suprised by Max's response. I guess what suprises me the most is that a woman found him male enough to marry... and to breed children.
When backed into a corner, all you have to do is insult someone's manhood, I guess.

[VinceZeb]

Bennett, can you possibly be a bit more intelligent? I mean, I know I am asking a lot.

The whole point of the story is that NO ONE is an individualist. NO ONE, period. Everyone has their set standards of behavior and beliefs that fall in line with some religion, group, or practice out there. But we are not robots. We are individuals and yet we are always parts of groups.

Now, if you don't understand that, I suggest you finish potty training and then come back.

[mburbank]

Vinth has now regressed from expression of sexual dominnace to excretory dominance.

In general, much of Frueds work has been disscredited, but there are still some textbook examples out there.

[Bennett]

"Say that someone believes exactly what the Catholic church believes, but hasn't heard of the Catholic Church. They are an "individualist". Now, they join the Catholic Church and have not changed one view since they joined. Are they now not a indivudalist because they are part of a religious group?"

"ok, bennet, kelly. Change Catholic church to Hindu. "

"Someone wanted to say that individualism is the enemy of religion. Now if someone who is an "individualist" has the exact beliefs of a preticular group, and then is associated with that group because of his beliefs, does that mean that they are now off the "individualist" scorecard. "

Sorry Vince, I don't see where your posts try to make any mention of the fact that no one is an individualist. You've missed the point and now you're trying to insert one that is completely irrelevant. Of course nobody has a completely unique set of ideals, of course we all fall into aspects of one group or another, that is beside the point.
What is being said, is that the beliefs of religious groups do not focus on individuality (with the exception perhaps of the redemption/salvation of the individual, but this is only obtained following their outline).

Now if you wanted to debunk this whole conversation by originally saying that, "it doesn't matter, because no one is a pure individualist," it would have made more sense but still been slightly irrelevant. The fact that you didn't pursue this route attests to your lack of communication skills, and/or the fact that you're trying to back out of the hole you backpedalled into.
I'm guessing it must be the former, because we all know you are, "SO MSART," and that you, "TALK GUD."

edit: I'm back from potty-training

[Protoclown]

VinceZeb has been mercifully spared from the ravages of intelligence.

[kellychaos]

... and thrown into the blissful pot of ignorant souls without an individualistic view. You're Moral Majority Merit Badge is in the mail, Vinth.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Religion" is garbage.

Each of us is to have our own "individual" relationship with GOD.

[mburbank]

But suppose my relationship with God (and I have one) does not include a Christ?

If your 'individual' relationship with God as He is Pleased to Reveal Himself to You contradicts mine, as He is Pleased to Reveal Himself to Me, so what?

Isn't your certainty that those of us who have no Christ, let alone Jesus as Christ, are Hellbound based on your place as an individual within a very speciffic branch of the Christian Religion? If not, what was all that yammer a few months back about who was a real Christian and who wasn't? If religion is garbage, is there any such thingas a real Christian?

Or by 'religion' do you just mean the major, organized, heirarchical world religions?

[Ronnie Raygun]

Max, your path is no different than mine.

My opinion is that "religion" almost always gets in the way.

And yes, I believe that you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior before you can see the father in heaven.

[Sethomas]

Then why not believe in Purgatory, wherein one may learn to accept Christ post mortem? Granted most of us have had a chance to know Christ from our world experiences, what about the people who were raised too far seperated from the Christian world to ever have such an opportunity?

What was spoken of in the first post was the sin of anathema. That is, if you deliberately hold opinions contrary to the teachings of the Church, you actively remove yourself from it. In essence, it's simply a matter of your deciding to not be a true Catholic. As a Catholic, I'm free to believe whatever I want about history and science, but my religious beliefs must not violate the tennants of Catholicism. Like, I can choose to believe in the Big Bang and Evolution instead of the Hexammeron and the Garden of Eden. The fun enters into play for things like this: I don't believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve, nor do I have to. But I do and am required to believe in the doctrine of Original Sin.

So yeah, I think Catholicism allows for plenty of room for individualism. But in the end, it boils down to the question of whether or not you want to be Catholic. Simple as that.

[mburbank]

Is that your personal interpretation of your individual realtionship, or divine revealtion and true for all?

See, I think any precept that is judged by an individual to be true for all, wether they see this as part of their relationship with the divine, is departing individuality and entering religion.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Is that your personal interpretation of your individual realtionship, or divine revealtion and true for all?"

Both

"See, I think any precept that is judged by an individual to be true for all, wether they see this as part of their relationship with the divine, is departing individuality and entering religion."

Just because two or more people come to the same conclusion, doesn't mean that "religion" has anything to do with it. If you are trying to say that I embrace "religion" you are dead wrong. I embrace Jesus Christ and disregard man's traditions.

Now, ask me about man's traditions.

[mburbank]

I think you have a highly specialized deffinition of religion that suits you personally in that it allows you to think you're not a part of it.

I think when several million folks shre the exact same personal relationship with God, and that they tke this personal relationship to be contain absolute truths which negate the validity of other folks 'personal relationship' with God, that's religion.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


I don't see anything here that doesn't fit what it is you (or I for that matter) are involved in. Just because you reject speciffic practices of speciffic rfeligous groups, and refuse instruction from their heirarchy, does not take you off religions hook. Religion is personal OR institutional.


I believe that sincere and dedicated contemplation of the divine as it enters into and instructs ones life is valid. God is infinitely complex and there are (and have been) many ways to experience communion with God.

A famous rabbi was once asked how much of the Torah he could teach while standing on one foot. "All of it" he replied, balancing. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". returning to both feet, he finished, saying "All the rest is commentary."

[Isaac]

Most very religious people I've met, are highly indoctrinated, and are definalty not individualist, most people of a formal religion are not individuals...and why is the difference between Athiesm and Satanic Worship, so damn hard to comprehend?...I know thats unrelated...

[Sethomas]

Too many people use faith as a crutch. Having an organized religion just makes it easier for them.

And Ronnie, Max does have a point. Just because your religion isn't institutional or doctrinal doesn't mean it's not a religion.

[Immortal Goat]

What madness have I started?

to answer your question, Isaac, the reason that people cant distinguish between Atheism and Satan worship is because people find one to be as bad as the other. Atheists, in their mind, are Hellbound anyway, so they think that they may as well be Satan worshippers.

[ranxer]

has anyone seen 'the devils playground' ? a movie about the amish.. one line stood out to me.. it was an amish preacher who said "individuals are the problem" ie people breaking out into experimentation threatened the whole.. i think the amish are interesting and the movie helped me confirm that to me religion is a form of population/social control.. now i'm not saying that is bad, i'm an athiest and have my own view of what is sacred but would like to find a common ground for all people and all religions to agree on so we can ensure our future.

as far as this thread is concerned i'd agree(for what its worth) that religion in general is anti individual.. so there's two extreems.. er one anyway.. amish are nearly unbending to the group mind tradition.. what's the other religion that is too adoptive? i don't know but id like to better understand how religions define accepting the individual.

if yer wondering what this athiest thinks of religion i'm all for it if it accepts my right to exist and values my ideas as part of the whole in regards to what is sacred.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"I think you have a highly specialized deffinition of religion that suits you personally in that it allows you to think you're not a part of it."

I guess that's how one might see it from the outside looking in.

"I think when several million folks shre the exact same personal relationship with God, and that they tke this personal relationship to be contain absolute truths which negate the validity of other folks 'personal relationship' with God, that's religion."

You just hate my belief and wish to argue with anything I say. Stop the hate, Max. Other people's relationships are none of my concern. Mine is one on one, not one on a million.

"I don't see anything here that doesn't fit what it is you (or I for that matter) are involved in. Just because you reject speciffic practices of speciffic rfeligous groups, and refuse instruction from their heirarchy, does not take you off religions hook. Religion is personal OR institutional."

This does not apply to me............."2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". And that's what I was refering to when talking about "religion". I don't consider anything else to be "religion". Anything truly spiritual is a "relationship". And that's quite different.


"I believe that sincere and dedicated contemplation of the divine as it enters into and instructs ones life is valid. God is infinitely complex and there are (and have been) many ways to experience communion with God."

I disagree. GOD will not conform to us. We must conform to GOD.

"A famous rabbi was once asked how much of the Torah he could teach while standing on one foot. "All of it" he replied, balancing. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". returning to both feet, he finished, saying "All the rest is commentary."

A famous preacher was once asked how one could get to heaven. "Repent and ask Jesus Christ to be your savior", he replied. "GOD will take care of the rest."

I think it's silly to say that "Do unto others........" is the only thing worth mentioning. There are no words to describe how stupid that is. Especially since you have done it yourself, Max.

[Sethomas]

Stop the hate, Max.

:lol

[AChimp]

A famous preacher was once asked how one could get to heaven. "Repent and ask Jesus Christ to be your savior", he replied. "GOD will take care of the rest."
That reminds me of that "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" bumper sticker. :lol

I don't really see anything wrong with faith, but it's a symbol of mental bankruptcy. To believe in something just based on its merits and what other people tell you seems like such a cop out to me.

Now, if everybody analyzed the facts and came to the same--or at least similar--conclusions, then there might be something to it. But, since there's such a broad spectrum of faiths in the world, it's obvious that there's no "correct" choice and therefore faith just becomes something that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling at night.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"I don't really see anything wrong with faith, but it's a symbol of mental bankruptcy. To believe in something just based on its merits and what other people tell you seems like such a cop out to me."

Chimp, you won't understand it until you experience it.

"Now, if everybody analyzed the facts and came to the same--or at least similar--conclusions, then there might be something to it."

Not everyone is going to allow Christ to save them. That doesn't mean Jesus isn't the savior of man. It just mean's that some men have made a bad choice.

"But, since there's such a broad spectrum of faiths in the world, it's obvious that there's no "correct" choice and therefore faith just becomes something that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling at night."

There's a crap load of fakes out there which makes it more difficult for people to make the right choice. Mankind gave Satan the power to do so. Faith doesn't give me a fuzzy feeling at night. I am comforted when tragedy strikes however because I know GOD has a plan and I have faith that it's perfect.

[AChimp]

Well, hot damn! I'm convinced now! :rave

Christianity is the correct choice because it has a clause to explain why all the other ones are wrong. :bestthread

[mburbank]

"I think you have a highly specialized deffinition of religion that suits you personally in that it allows you to think you're not a part of it."
-Me

"I guess that's how one might see it from the outside looking in."
-Nalds
Now you're pulling a Vinth. In the English language, words have agreed upon meanings meanings. You are choosing to use the word 'religion' to describe things other than your personal relationship with God. That's got nothing to do with 'outside' or 'inside', it has to do with you attempting to bend language to suit yoiur needs, which is purely semantic and foolish. You define yourself as rejecting 'religion' and cling to to that deffinition without realising you misused the word.

I understand what your saying. You feel your one on one relationship is divinely inspired, it's relationship with Dogma is causal, and that your direct relationship supercedes any collective traditions even if they coincide with your beliefs. I get that. Your quarrel is with the dictionary.

I think your need to see my asking that you respect the meaning of word as hate is fairly unchristian. I try, in my way, to get you to express yourself more clearly. Clear expression is worthy goal.

For instance:

" There are no words to describe how stupid that is. Especially since you have done it yourself, Max."
Naldo

Honestly, sincerely, I have no idea what you're getting at with this two sentence structure. Especially since I've done what? Done unto others? Disocvered there are no words to describe? Used words to describe 5that which there are no words to describe?

I find your desire to see me as hateful and/or hating curious. I would be interested to see evidence, and iof a slightly better quality than your previous, absurd contention that I 'hate' what America stands for. I can quote things you've said that are full of hate, particularly your desire to see more scoff laws shot in the face with rubber bullets.

I think there is a measure of covenience in you seeing hatred in me.

Vinth sees the refelction of his own seething hatreds when he looks at me. Is that your explanation?

[kellychaos]

This does not apply to me............."2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". And that's what I was refering to when talking about "religion". I don't consider anything else to be "religion". Anything truly spiritual is a "relationship". And that's quite different.


I disagree. GOD will not conform to us. We must conform to GOD.



Somebody needs to read Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance"

[VinceZeb]

Maybe he just thinks you are a fucking punk, Hebey.

[kellychaos]

Maybe he just thinks you are a fucking punk, Hebey.

Vinth hates Max because he's too moronic to be properly self-loathing.

[mburbank]

"Maybe he just thinks you're a Vinthism Vinthism, Vinthism."
-La Clambake.

Probably not. Naldo's reasoning is very simple, but it's reasoning, not just gut reaction nd deffensiveness, like yours. My guess is

A: He has a reason, it's just misguided and unexamined
B: He finds your casual ethnic slurs far more offensive than I ever will
and
C: The last thing he wants is confirmtion from the likes of you. I think both you and he would do well to examine the company your views afford you.

[mburbank]

" Jew, Jew, Jew, I don't care, you Jewish Jew, Jew."
-Vinth

[Bennett]

Maybe when Tom Cruise's next movie comes out, we can have
I-mock stage a battle between the Catholic Samurai and the Scientologist Samurai.

[Anonymous]

The whole point of the story is that NO ONE is an individualist. NO ONE, period. Everyone has their set standards of behavior and beliefs that fall in line with some religion, group, or practice out there. But we are not robots. We are individuals and yet we are always parts of groups.
I actually agree with that. Huh.

[Immortal Goat]

I do not believe that no one is a individual. I do fall into a group of people, but i do not agree with EVERYTHING they do, and most people are the same way. A person can consider themselves Republican and yet have some liberal views, and the same goes for religions. If I had to say what belief I follow, it wouldn't be a religion at all, but rather a mindset. I am a transcendentalist. Vinth, I know that is a big word, but it isn't hard to understand. It means I THINK FOR MYSELF!! As should everyone.

[Anonymous]

Vince bashing is reserved for the smart people, IG.

[Immortal Goat]

I happen to be a smart person, Chojin. I consistently score up around the 97th percentile on placement tests and ACTs. That means that only 3% of the people in the country are smarter than me. Where does that leave people like Vinth?

[Sethomas]

The ACT doesn't measure intelligence, smart one. By the way, a score in the 97th percentile means that only two percent scored better than you; the third percent scored the same.

That I have to point that out to you makes me wonder what exactly those numbers reflect.

[Immortal Goat]

ok, so i kinda screwed up on that part. i know that the ACT doesn't measure intelligence, its just measuring how much i actually know. and as for the 2 or 3 % thing, im just going by how the scores were explained to me as a kid.

[Anonymous]

Congratulations on being a paragon of wisdom to your middle school peers. I loved how you referenced some official documentation to prove that you aren't stupid. Most people would have just not been stupid to prove that, but I can tell you're different.

And I suppose it's that difference that puts you in the top 3%.

[Immortal Goat]

Your sarcasm fails to amuse me, Chojin. I just don't like being called stupid.

[ItalianStereotype]

you're going to get along here just fine.

[VinceZeb]

IG, most of the people in this world do think for themselves. You, however, believe they don't just because they choose to believe in a certain faith or political structure. I'm Catholic because I was once an atheist and fell out of my faith and I didn't like the feeling of life being worthless. I knew life wasn't worthless, and I knew my faith was correct. I always think for myself. But the whole statement of "Think for yourself" is just a cliche that the young among us use to look intelligent.

[mburbank]

So when you say "I think for myself", you're just spouting a cliche to make yourself look intelligent?


I gotta say, it's not working so well.

[VinceZeb]

Trust me, lightning will strike you for saying "I'm Jewish" a lot quicker than it will strike me for saying "I think for myself".

[mburbank]

The statistical chances of lightning striking me are certainly far greater than the chance that you will ever learn English.

The chances of it striking either of us because of something we said are zero. It might appear as if lightning struck you on account of something you said, but trust me, it would just be a combination of relative elevation and the plate in your skull.

[VinceZeb]

If I did have a plate in my skull, at least it would be protecting something that has value, unlike your situation.

[mburbank]

You don't have a plate in your skull? It must be that Boortz mouthpiece attracting the lightning.

[mburbank]

"Yeah, well, your mouthpiece is jewish and in a jewish mouth on a jew getting in the way of yourself eating of the Jewish food which jews eat!"
-Clammy the Clambin' clam.

[VinceZeb]

Sorry if I agree with someone and I think others should see/hear what he has to say. That doesn't make me a mouthpiece. By your own words, that would make you a Communist mouthpiece.

[kellychaos]

Trust me, lightning will strike you for saying "I'm Jewish" a lot quicker than it will strike me for saying "I think for myself".

I don't think that God smites people anymore ... at least in the Biblical sense. She's more subtle nowadays. You know ... cursing them with low intelligence ... stuff like that.

P.S. Isn't "thinking for one's self" what the apple was supposed to represent in the "Garden Of Eden"? Seeing as that's in the Old Testament, that would put you and Max on equal footing; therefore, his Jewishness trumps your slow-witted apple eating. Just sayin' :)

[VinceZeb]

You refer to God as a woman, Kelly, and you wonder why I think you are a limp-wristed wuss.

[kellychaos]

You refer to God as a woman, Kelly, and you wonder why I think you are a limp-wristed wuss.

Actually, I purposely did that because I knew it would piss you off. I don't see God as man or women ... or any human form at all, really. I think that it's not only vain of we humans to pigeon-hole God like that, it dimishes my view of God's omnipotence. I see God as more of a spiritual energy/force that has the dichotomy of being both within us AND that which permeates all which is outside us.

[AChimp]

God probably enjoys taking the form of a fat, black lesbian psychic. IF God exists at all. :blah

[kellychaos]

God probably enjoys taking the form of a fat, black lesbian psychic. IF God exists at all. :blah

You see right through me at times, Achimp. :/

[Immortal Goat]

I never said that people in a particular religious structure do not think for themselves. What I meant by starting this post is that people in a religious structure should question the foundation of that structuer and come to their own conclusions about it being right or wrong. They should NOT, however, follow a religion just because that is how they were raised, THAT is brainwashing, THAT is conformity, THAT is what I condemn.

[Anonymous]

i'll condemn your FACE

[The_voice_of_reason]

i'll condemn your FACE\

Almost a month and that's all you could come up with?

[Anonymous]

I'm allowed to bump threads because I'm better than you fargots.

[The One and Only...]

Who the fuck cares? Believing something just because it's different and is individual is idiocy. Believe what you want to believe, and don't give a shit about whether someone ever believed the same.

[Anonymous]

Excuse me, but this thread is about how bad Goat sucks. You're off-topic.

[kahljorn]

heh.
I find it ironic somebody says it is "Non-individual" to be religious. You think everyone should fit into your ideals of an individual, how would that be individual? Kitty face.

[kellychaos]

heh.
I find it ironic somebody says it is "Non-individual" to be religious. You think everyone should fit into your ideals of an individual, how would that be individual? Kitty face.

Grrr ... I'm not awake enough for paradoxal irony! >:

[kahljorn]

It's not paradoxical, my statement ended in a question. Feces sling. It needed to be said, regardless.