techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,695
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
02 Feb 2009, 2:36 am
04 Feb 2009, 5:15 pm
04 Feb 2009, 5:20 pm
04 Feb 2009, 6:01 pm
04 Feb 2009, 7:09 pm
Orwell wrote:
I'm Presbyterian. I went through the normal angsty adolescent atheist phase before accepting Christianity.
I could say I went to the adolescent atheist phase, sort of speak, in my teenage years, I remember some people in church saying that it was just a phase, I didn't fully recovered,
however, to some degree perhaps, I tend to meditate more about these things now than I was before in those immature years.
Last edited by greenblue on 04 Feb 2009, 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
04 Feb 2009, 7:10 pm
anna-banana wrote:
and as far as not participating goes- I have no choice but to participate since Catholic church robs me of my taxes, no matter if I belong to it or not.
You have to serve God this way at least, wether you like it or not
04 Feb 2009, 9:12 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:17 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:19 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:21 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:23 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:25 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:29 pm
Hector wrote:
I suspect that in this day and age if you were to take the institution out of religion, it would eventually die out. You can already see it happening in many more "developed" countries where religion has become more of a niche interest.
I've always been curious about whether this trend will necessarily continue; in particular, looking at the very long run, we see the trend that two things correspond with very low birth rates: wealth and atheism. American secular liberals have below replacement fertility, while good old fashion fundies have babies galore.
On the other hand, I assume upward mobility correlates with poorer retention rates of religiosity, wo we might expect a balancing act. I wish I had some actual data on this
04 Feb 2009, 9:29 pm
04 Feb 2009, 9:32 pm
04 Feb 2009, 10:53 pm
twoshots wrote:
Hector wrote:
I suspect that in this day and age if you were to take the institution out of religion, it would eventually die out. You can already see it happening in many more "developed" countries where religion has become more of a niche interest.
I've always been curious about whether this trend will necessarily continue; in particular, looking at the very long run, we see the trend that two things correspond with very low birth rates: wealth and atheism. American secular liberals have below replacement fertility, while good old fashion fundies have babies galore.
On the other hand, I assume upward mobility correlates with poorer retention rates of religiosity, wo we might expect a balancing act. I wish I had some actual data on this
Religion is the "primitive" man's psychology. The places that have lost their religion have been replaced by psychiatry.
Jung thought religion was very psychologically useful:
Quote:
If we try to see such a situation with the eyes of the believer, we can perhaps understand how the ordinary man can be liberated from his personal impotence and misery and endowed (at least temporarily) with an almost superhuman quality. Often enough such a conviction will sustain him for a long time and give a certain style to his life.
It is commonly assumed that on some given occasion in prehistoric times, the basic mythological ideas were "invented" by a clever old philosopher or prophet, and ever afterward "believed" by a credulous and uncritical people. It is said that stories told by a power-seeking priesthood are not "true," but merely "wishful thinking." But the very word "invent" is derived from the Latin in venire, and means to "find" and hence to find something by "seeking" it. In the latter case the word itself hints at some foreknowledge of what you are going to find.
It is commonly assumed that on some given occasion in prehistoric times, the basic mythological ideas were "invented" by a clever old philosopher or prophet, and ever afterward "believed" by a credulous and uncritical people. It is said that stories told by a power-seeking priesthood are not "true," but merely "wishful thinking." But the very word "invent" is derived from the Latin in venire, and means to "find" and hence to find something by "seeking" it. In the latter case the word itself hints at some foreknowledge of what you are going to find.
Quote:
Goethe's Faust aptly says: "lm Anfang war die Tat [In the beginning was the deed]." "Deeds" were never invented, they were done; thoughts, on the other hand, are a relatively late discovery of man. First he was moved to deeds by unconscious factors; it was only a long time afterward that he began to reflect upon the causes that had moved him; and it took him a very long time indeed to arrive at the preposterous idea that he must have moved himself his mind being unable to identify any other motivating force than his own.
These inner motives spring from a deep source that is not made by consciousness and is not under its control. The one thing we refuse to admit is that we are dependent upon "powers" that are beyond our control.
It is true, however, that in recent times civilized man has acquired a certain amount of will power, which he can apply where he pleases. He has learned to do his work efficiently without having recourse to chanting and drumming to hypnotize him into the state of doing. He can even dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposes to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. The motto "Where there's a will, there's a way" is the superstition of modern man. Yet in order to sustain his creed. contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by "powers" that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names.
A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he is unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factor's insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master.
These inner motives spring from a deep source that is not made by consciousness and is not under its control. The one thing we refuse to admit is that we are dependent upon "powers" that are beyond our control.
It is true, however, that in recent times civilized man has acquired a certain amount of will power, which he can apply where he pleases. He has learned to do his work efficiently without having recourse to chanting and drumming to hypnotize him into the state of doing. He can even dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposes to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. The motto "Where there's a will, there's a way" is the superstition of modern man. Yet in order to sustain his creed. contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by "powers" that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names.
A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he is unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factor's insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master.
