Hello everyone, most of you know me and my situation. If you don't I'm almost 15 and an exemormon. Right now, I'm trying to decide which religion is correct. (Note- I'm sorta open to atheism) So far, I think I'm closest to Taoism, Agnostic, and possibly Christianity. I want to believe that Jesus was legit but theres a lot of dumb rules in Christianity. The reason I put agnostic is because I think there's something but I'm not really sure. Taoism I like because you can pretty much do anything and your committed to improvement.

So, out of all of these which is the most factually correct, and if theres any others please lmk.

Please consider none.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please consider none.


Yeah! Look at how cheerful all the atheists round here are.

There once was a user named Zeezy
Whose postings were silly and cheesy.
Each single brain fart
Made him think he was smart,
But shooting him down was quite easy.

Joe Rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ0-VeWMr-A

1:20 to 1:24

w/ Mormon friends:

"I don't think an ant can understand a cell phone and I don't think I can understand the universe"

"How do you get up in the morning?" "I like life!"

Exactly...

Picking a religion is like picking a disease.

Interesting, would you mind sending me some evidence against christianity?

The Dark Ages
The Crusades
Galileo and general anti-science
Various European wars
Salem witch trials
Sexual repression/hypocrisy
Defense of racism
Women as second class citizens
Homophobic

That's good for starters.

Surrender of individual moral judgment to religious leaders
Sexual abuse of children
Concealment of sexual abuse of children

Authoritarian control structures are going to have those kinds of problems because they can’t police themselves. Who will watch the watchers? Sects such as Unitarian Universalists are on the other end of the spectrum, good for those who don’t need micromanagement.

Read a short classic book, available anywhere about Christianity and the Bible. It is The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

I believe he wrote it while in prison in France from memory. He goes over questionable issues with the Bible which are still relevant problems with it today. This is the book that helped me buy a vowel about Christianity.

Good luck in your quest.

"Buy a vowel."

That's very good.

+hujo2:
Marrying a Captive Woman - In Other Words, Rape And Kill. Your god Yahooway finds this acceptable moral behavior
Deuteronomy 21:10
When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

^^^^^Does the following sit with you well? Are you okay with killing entire families if you are on the side of the jewish god or getting your entire family and you killed if you are not a jew?

~~~~iceman9090

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Picking a religion is like picking a disease.

You don't have to be religious to be diseased.

I took comparative religion classes in middle school and high school. That was a good introduction to the major world religions. In college, I took a class in Jesus and the New Testament. It was interesting to learn about Christianity from a more scholarly perspective. I also took classes in philosophy and Asian art history (in which religious and philosophical beliefs play a huge role.)

All this to say that I would take your time about it and read widely. If you go to college, consider taking classes in which you can learn more about belief systems that interest you.

If I had to pick a belief system that is best at describing the world as it is, and how things work, I would probably go with Taoism as well. But bear in mind that finding the religion or school of thought that is "correct" is a holdover from your Mormon training. That seems to assume that one religion is "correct" and the rest are not. Instead, it could be that different religions have different insights to offer.

People have been trying to address the big questions of life for thousands of years. You might find a book like Joseph Cambell's "The Power of Myth" to be useful and enlightening. Read widely, and enjoy the journey, but don't feel that you need to choose (that's another remenant of Mormonism!)

Agree that learning about it from a scholarly perspective is interesting and enlightening. Learning that Christianity is cobbled together of older religions was quite an eye opener for me.

Zen Dudeism
The slowest growing religion on the planet.
https://dudeism.com/

Some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are certainly laudable, but Christianity as a religion? I don’t think so.

One thing that is pretty consistent among all denominations in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim family of religions is the concept of eternal punishment or eternal reward. In other words, infinite consequences for finite actions or inactions. If there is a god, there is no way such a being would be so infinitely unfair.

I have no desire to affiliate with any religion, but if I did, it would be something in the Hindu/Buddhist family. At least they only condemn you (or reward) you for one finite life.

You're 14. What's the hurry?

Life isn't a sprint.

For myself, the only real truth is that we just don't know.

I believe in trying to live my life as best as I can and to always try to be kind and helpful to people because we're all in this together.

No matter what we believe in, whatever the truth is will still be the truth.

Since we don't know what that truth is, we might as well just try to live our lives as best as we can.

You don’t need a religion. You have been programmed that Mormons were the true religion. But every one says it is the true religion. They are all wrong.

You can build faith in the universe or whatever. You can build strong positive character. You can live by the life values you find right. These are things people in their twenties do. They break away from the parents views and build their own views.

You do not need to follow anyone. Religions want to tell you how to live. You don’t need anyone to follow. Lead your own life. Believe in God or the universe or nothing. Do not follow others. Especially if you are required to pay money to follow them.

It take time to develop your character. Education is the key. When you get to college learn a little about everything you can, and then decide what you believe. In you teen years have fun. Try different sports, different hobbies, different skills.

Just chill about religion.

Thank you. These are my exact core beliefs, lead your own life. I want to be the wind, and not the leaf blowing in it.

If your top goals in life are getting rich and getting laid then why not start your *own* religion?

Hahaha too busy

I guess I'd just echo what other replies have suggested in that you are still very young, relatively speaking (we may not "feel" old or young in our heads, that's why its relative) and have a lot of learning and discovery ahead of you. You'll probably evolve and find yourself changing your positions a few times along the way.

So I'd also reiterate the suggestions to keep learning, reading, studying on your own, and don't expect formal schooling to give you everything, be prepared to go out and do you own work -- a lot easier these days with the Internet.

Maybe in a year or several, and after the whole pandemic thing has died down, you could physically check out some local groups or churches in your area and see how you like the people, if you're into that sort of thing. You can tell a lot about a religion from hanging out with its followers, more than you'd get out of just a book or website.

Taoism is about as straightforward as it gets (along with Zen, which was somewhat influenced by it) but it's more of a philosophy the way you get it straight from the texts, whereas the way it's practiced is more of a religion with strong animistic carryovers.

It might be that you're looking for a philosophy rather than a religion, so consider that as well. Philosophy is more of an individual pursuit, whereas religion seems to be mainly a group effort, fwiw, which is where a lot of the problems come in.

> Taoism is about as straightforward as it gets

Taoism is straightforward? How exactly is the Zhuangzi "straightforward? How can it be when it does not rely on vocabulary and grammar to convey its messages?


------------------
> but it's more of a philosophy the way you get
> it straight from the texts, whereas the way it's
> practiced is more of a religion with strong
> animistic carryovers.

Can you indicate a single verse in any of the Taoist classics that shows "animistic" influence?

Maybe he's talking about the Tao of Pooh.

Giggling. . .

The Pooh abides.

I would look at Bahá’í.

Usually the best religion is the one you grew up with. It’s not really the religion, it’s how you practice it. Like any relationship, you get out what you put in. That means leaving Mormonism because a relationship with an abusive partner is bad for you. That bitch will never love you, she only wants your money.

The other reason I don’t return to Mormonism is the people. I can’t stand them. I mean, they are nice enough but their mentality makes me want to self trepanate.

That doesn’t make your relationship with Christ less real. They can’t take that away from you. The Christ archetype is baked into every human. The gospels illustrate the archetype, not an actual historical figure. A mythology was created to deal with the difficulties in handling that abstraction.

So, prayer is still useful as a way of connecting to your divine self and setting intention. Meditation is a practice that’s been scientifically proven to have benefits. If you can’t sit still, any physical activity that doesn’t require much thinking can be meditative. Washing dishes, mowing, etc.

Agreed, I love that analogy

I don't know about all the Taoist classics other than the Tao Te Ching basically, but that fits into the philosophical aspect of the teachings rather than the popularization. I'm going off the Wiki entry which explains ...

-----

"Taoism draws its cosmological foundations from the School of Naturalists (in the form of its main elements—yin and yang and the Five Phases), which developed during the Warring States period (4th to 3rd centuries BCE).

Robinet identifies four components in the emergence of Taoism:

1 Philosophical Taoism, i.e. the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi
2 Techniques for achieving ecstasy

3 Practices for achieving longevity or immortality
4 Exorcism.

Some elements of Taoism may be traced to prehistoric folk religions in China that later coalesced into a Taoist tradition. In particular, many Taoist practices drew from the Warring-States-era phenomena of the wu (connected to the shamanic culture of northern China) and the fangshi (which probably derived from the "archivist-soothsayers of antiquity, one of whom supposedly was Laozi himself"), even though later Taoists insisted that this was not the case. Both terms were used to designate individuals dedicated to "... magic, medicine, divination,... methods of longevity and to ecstatic wanderings" as well as exorcism; in the case of the wu, "shamans" or "sorcerers" is often used as a translation."

---

So essentially I would put anything beyond point 1 (philosophical Taoism) as in the religion category as practiced in temples and so forth. Just taken by itself in its minimal form I'd tend to call it a philosophy.

Interesting. We can discuss this.

The wiki entry confuses some things. Taoism definitely inherited some ideas from previous traditions: Yin-yang, the five phases, the four elements, etc. But those were high-level philosophical concepts that informed Confucianism and some other schools as well. These were elite philosophies, quite different from the various folk religions.

Taoism evolved through two stages, both of which are confusingly called "Taoism" in English. The first was the philosophical school represented by Laozi and Zhuangzi and Liezi and termed Taojia. There is no evidence that Laozi and Zhuangzi existed let alone that they participated in any folk traditions.

Chinese folk religion shared some elements of Taoism due to their common origin in the Autumn and Spring Period as well as the Warring States era, but Taoism remained an elite ideology until the entrance of Buddhism into China. Buddhism radically changed China, displacing both elite Taoism and the shared common traditions. What was the difference and why did people prefer Buddhism? Because it had an afterlife and a sense of salvation which the earlier traditions lacked.

From this point on, Taoism transformed into something much closer to a folk religion and became known as "Taojiao" to differentiate it from the earlier philosophy "Taojia." Increasingly the focus was on alchemy, tricks for prolonging life, magical powers, and homeopathy (like eating rhino horn, pangolins, etc). So the elite philosophy was Confucianism, the popular religion was Buddhism, and Taoism (Taojiao) became a sort of mystical eremitic practice.

So the points in your description with which I'd quibble are the notion that philosophical Taoism had any noticeable animistic influences or practices and the proposition that Laozi was involved in anything like that. The other observation I'd make is that the original Taoism was very esoteric. Zhuangzi, for instance, conveys his fundamental message through homonyms and sounds since he contends that language and logic cannot comprehend the Tao. The "inner chapters" of Zhuangzi are much closer to real Taoism than Laozi although virtually impenetrable in any secondary languages.

Thanks for being willing to discuss this amazing topic. I agree with you that Taoism in its simplest form and Buddhism are good religions if "practiced" individually rather than in organized, hierarchical fashion.

The other
> observation I'd make is that the original Taoism
> was very esoteric. Zhuangzi, for instance,
> conveys his fundamental message through homonyms
> and sounds since he contends

This is fine exegesis by someone clearly conversant in archaic forms of Chinese. When you refer to homonyms, are you referring to tonal variants (quasi-homophones) or homophones which do not vary tonally?

Both. Also words that are nearly homonyms, having for instance the same consonants but different vowels.

The text of the Inner Chapters, which are the most probably genuine ones, is an indirect expression of the Tao, Nature, and reality. But those passages are extremely difficult to understand literally and capable of multiple interpretations, which is why translations are so profoundly inadequate. There is no way to convey the range of interpretations in a different language and probably even in modern Chinese.

One of the "tricks" of the Zhuangzi is the use of particular vocabulary with particular sounds so that as one struggles to read the text literally, the sounds reinforce principles that are external to the text. To offer some examples, some passages use with unusual frequency words sounding like "one" or "unity," implying a sense of universality; other passages use words of various tones that sound like "harmony;" still others sound like variants of "virtue" or "morality" or "heaven" or "the Way." So subconsciously the reader begins to sense that there is a cosmic harmony into which the individual should try to merge.

As xxMoO intimates, like Buddhism and its mantras or even Japanese Koans, these ideas or senses become the focus of intentional or unintentional meditation. In a sense, then, Zhuangzi goes beyond the written word. Whereas the more accessible Daodejing is internally inconsistent, saying basically that "The Way is indescribable but I will now describe it," Zhuangzi is closer to "The Way cannot be described in words, now let me point you in the right direction through indirect means" like stories that provoke certain images and sounds that resonate emotionally.

Much of this is of course lost in time. It was so arcane that it didn't really enter the folk consciousness, which is one of the reasons that Buddhism later supplanted Taoism. It is even harder to comprehend today since the pronunciations of the key words have changed over the millennia. So just as students of Tang poetry must go back and reconstruct some of the pronunciations to restore the rhymes, so too must the reader of the Zhuangzi use variants in Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and other languages whose lexicons were influenced by classical Chinese to reconstruct the original sounds.

I frankly don't think anyone today will ever fully understand Zhuangzi. The ancient commentaries reveal that even contemporarily there was no consensus regarding many passages, and since then the definitions of some of the key terms as well as their sounds and even tones have changed. So even the greatest scholars will never get all of the meaning, all of the nuances, in that remarkable book.

Taoist art is fascinating as well. You have the large, intricate landscapes in which you have to look hard for the ant-sized humans, a good sense of where the long-ago Taoists ranked humans in the scheme of things. You also have the mandatory inclusion of a mistake in every painting, because nature is not perfect and (therefore) neither are we.

Contrast that with Medieval European art history, in which you look at so many paintings of Jesus and the Madonna that you want to scream with frustration. I remember sitting through a semester long course and being so thoroughly bored that finally, midway through, seeing Giotto's more "modernistic" take on the Madonna was something of a relief.

> Taoist art is fascinating as well. You have the
> large, intricate landscapes in which you have to
> look hard for the ant-sized humans, a good sense
> of where the long-ago Taoists ranked humans in the
> scheme of things. You also have the mandatory
> inclusion of a mistake in every painting, because
> nature is not perfect and (therefore) neither are
> we.

Confucian-inspired gardens are perfectly balanced, symmetrical things reflecting the notion that the cosmos is orderly and the emperor plays a central role in maintaining balance in this world as in the supernatural realm. Taoist art, as you note, is asymmetrical with humans achieving their greatest virtue/beauty as part of the greater cosmic unity. So yes, putting humans at the center of the picture would in Taoist terms represent a demotion of people in an unnatural state.

No prizes for guessing which philosophy was more attractive to political authorities.


-----------------
> Contrast that with Medieval European art history,
> in which you look at so many paintings of Jesus
> and the Madonna that you want to scream with
> frustration. I remember sitting through a semester
> long course and being so thoroughly bored that
> finally, midway through, seeing Giotto's more
> "modernistic" take on the Madonna was something of
> a relief.

There may be a parallel here with the Plato-Aristotle debate. The former was interested in perfection, "ideals," rather than the imperfect examples one encounters in the real world whereas Aristotle thought it was the flawed, idiosyncratic individual that was most interesting.

Great moniker, btw.

Well I guess you know more about Taoism than I do. I've only read the Tao Te Ching, in various modern English versions. It's pretty basic and I'd probably recommend it to huju2 or anyone just starting out on their path of discovery who isn't ready to get too deep into the technical stuff.

Maybe another point is figure out what exactly you're looking for or what needs you need to be filled. Are you looking for social contacts, networking, friends, future mates, social activism, or something more introspective and individualistic to suit your personality. Then work from there.

> the Tao Te Ching. . . I'd
> probably recommend it to huju2 or anyone just
> starting out on their path of discovery. . .

I agree with that.

Here is a suggestion.

Find God/Source/whatever first!!!! Then ask them what religion you should join!

I have a 'strong belief' in the 'divine' and a strong belief --- none of the 'man made churches are true'. Why play horseshoes ---- close is still wrong.

If you can't find God first ---- why go find a religion??

However, I have no problem with someone that wants 'community'. Pick whichever 'community church group' you want but I would not believe their doctrine until after you find 'God' first!

I would research, ponder and pray (or do something similar) to find God. Maybe, first apply that to 'doctrines' then to God. I do believe if you seek you will find or give up! Good luck!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2020 11:45PM by spiritist.

I'm working on a religion centered around time and working to have a core tenant be something to do with time travel....I know it to be true.... You have already accepted this belief in the version of the future I am most traveled in. So, I'm also recruiting Tima Apostles as I call them... You want to sign up? Get in on the ground level. you keep 8.25% commission oof believers you sign up. Heck of a belief and deal.

God is a man-made concept. So far there have been about 25,000 gods conjured by man since God of Thunder debuted. Since then we've had Zeus and Hera, Osiris and Isis, Muslim God, Christian God, Vishna, Dugga, Krishna,Odin and Coaticue. And don't forget Quetzalcoatl.


You may notice that Gods evolved at the same rate as man as if mankind was making them up to suit their own purposes or something. Zues was great for the Ancient greeks but doesn't work too well nowadays. Odd that. Throwing people in volcanos to get good crops is no longer necessary now that we understand meteorology.

We've gone from blood sacrifice to appease the gods, to temple ceremonies where you promise to sacrifice yourself DIY. Or, we did in the temple in my day. Even Mormons evolve-----very, very, very, sloooooooowwwwly.

Don't let anyone tell you that Atheists are angry or evil or all alike, or anything else. Most are just people who just have no good reason to believe the unbelievable.

The show and book 'American Gods' was brilliant. I'm fasting and praying for season 3

Gods need us more than we need them.

In school today we study ancient Greek mythology or ancient Roman mythology. The religion of the ancient Egyptians lasted for thousands of years.

At the time, this was the religion of the people. They certainly didn't see it as mythology. It was their religion. They believed in their gods and they practiced their religion.

I'm sure that, at the time, they couldn't imagine their religion and their gods just disappearing into history, but they did. Same with the Vikings, or the Celts, etc.

I don't expect Christianity to be any different. I fully expect at some time in the future for children to be studying ancient Christian mythology. It may be difficult to imagine right now, but I've no doubt that it will happen someday.

I was reading a fictional book based on the Pompeii disaster. The story of Pompeii has interested me for many years because the ancient Roman culture mirrors our own modern culture in many ways. In the story, a woman goes to Zeus's temple to worship, and I was much struck by this. Different time, different god, but the same human impulse to petition a deity for favor and help.

Along with you, I wonder about Christianity's future. The reason that Hinduism has survived for thousands of years is its flexibility. I don't think that Christianity is that flexible. And the increase in people who do not identify with any religion tells me that the Christian myth is not resonating as it used to.

I have to wonder what is next, as I am not sure that many humans are prepared to exist in a religious vacuum.

Or you could move to Connecticut, go to Yale, become Episcopalian, meet lots of WASP Old Money to finance your endeavors, move to White Plains, NY, join a country club, and become the next Jay Gatsby.

"The Great Gatsby" is a cautionary tale.

For that matter, so are bios of
Bernie Madoff
Peter Nygård
Jeffery Epstein.

Just saying, "success" does not always end well. That might be more worth studying that your average religion.

A while ago, I mentioned that my wonderful father-in-law was a happy athesist. He thought that death was it--period. Then, after he died, he came to me in a dream and told me that he was in a wonderful place, and that heenjoyed watching the rolling hills of greenery within his sight.

At it would appear, it is not the religion that gets you into heaven so much as it is the quality of the person.

If the religion, more or less, follows Jesus' "Golden Rules"--do unto others as you would they do to you", I don't think the religion you belong to is as important as is one's behvior.

Protestant Christians do not believe in a one true church other than the body of believers found across all denomininations. The Christian church is the body of believers not an institutional entity. That is how I understand it.

hujo2:

Maybe another point is figure out what exactly you're looking for or what needs you need to be filled. Are you looking for social contacts, networking, friends, future mates, social activism, or something more introspective and individualistic to suit your personality. Then work from there.

(reposted because I posted it under the wrong reply ... dang old forum)

xxMo0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe another point is figure out what exactly
> you're looking for or what needs you need to be
> filled. Are you looking for social contacts,
> networking, friends, future mates, social
> activism, or something more introspective and
> individualistic to suit your personality. Then
> work from there.

I strongly second this suggestion.

If you are going to feel comfortably "at home" with your choice, then you need to identify what--specifically--you are looking for.

When I was growing up, I was taken to all kinds of Christian churches, by neighbors (mostly)....and the "released time" classes my Mom selected for me when I was in elementary school were "nondenominational [generic Christian]" in nature, and were held in a Congregational church which was familiar to me because our down-the-hill neighbors had previously taken me to Sunday services at that church.

[I won't go into the non-Christian parts of my childhood, because I'm pretty sure you are looking for a connection to something specifically Christian.]

What I could not have verbalized back then was that, for me personally, I need a strong intellectual component--and this was lacking in all of the Christian churches I [in essence] "sampled," [including Unity School of Christianity (which was, at that time, the main religious focus of my mother and my maternal grandmother)].

Unity aside, I found the Congregational, First Christian, Baptist, and Lutheran churches of my childhood to be very skimpy when it came to intellect: history, philosophy, whatever.

I also did some "sampling" of Catholic services (via some of my school friends) and Catholic books (borrowed from friends)--but Catholicism turned out to be not a good fit for me either.

Try to identify what YOU (even if it is right now below your level of awareness) are looking for--and once you identify those needs, you will then have a kind of conscious, personalized schematic for determining which specific Christian denominations might be a good fit for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2020 07:50AM by Tevai.

Try meditation. It's real and it helps. Find a decent, non-cultic meditation group.

Religion is like a museum of human explanations and approaches to life. You may not learn anything about universal truth while studying religions, but you will learn a great deal about human nature-- and possibly about yourself.

I aghast at a world that has accepted a "myth du jour" system so systemically that the automatic question is "Which religion?" rather than "Why religion?" or "What the hell! Religion?"

Matt 7:16 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.…

It's saying, what kind of fruit does the religion produce? Are people's lives improving, is their happiness increasing? What kind of fruit is the religion producing in your life? Good fruit, or evil fruit?

On a less serious note, have you considered the Jedi religion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

+beanhead:
"It's saying, what kind of fruit does the religion produce? Are people's lives improving, is their happiness increasing? What kind of fruit is the religion producing in your life? Good fruit, or evil fruit?"

==Why do you need religion to improve people's lives? Couldn't you build a water filtration plant so that people won't get poisoned by microbes? Couldn't you study nature to figure out that you need a water filtration plant?

I'm using the water filtration plant as an example.

~~~~iceman9090

It is natural to want to put down roots in a belief system.

Let Joseph Smith and Mormonism be an example of what not to be.
Joseph was confused about which religion to join too. He then was told by an angel to join none of the churches and to instead start a polygamous cult himself so he could get fame and power. Now everyone has involuntarily praise him in their religion.

The point is take your time and build on what you feel is right for you. Lots of religions out there see what fits and lastly take it with a grain of salt as you would a new diet. The point is to better person at the end of the day than when you started, not to fund a real estate empire. Good luck!