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.

[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]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.