Plenty of people go for non-organized religion. A number of beliefs are not codified so precisely. If you know someone who says they're a wiccan or a pagan, you don't know much about their specific beliefs or practices, just a few generalities (starting with the lack of an organizational structure, generally.) There's a LOT of room for variety there, with names of specific flavors that still don't tell you too much. In fact, I would venture to say that the absence of structure is a selling-point for a lot of people.
BTW, there's a bias exposed by calling it "disorganized religion", as if the only option for a religion without a hierarchy and a structure is anarchy. It definitely has a pejorative connotation. Saying a religion isn't organized is NOT the same as saying it's "disorganized"- although there's a few people proclaiming literally disorganized religions also (mostly discordians.)
Of course, in many cases, it's all in how you phrase the questions. I don't think I'd say I was "affiliated with organized religion" at this time, Neither am I spellbound by any of the people circulating ex-twi circles and claiming the chief seats there.
Yeah, obviously the term organized religion also belies the fact the English language doesn't have "a word" that properly captures the essence of what is meant.
Hence, it's left to people's minds to play word games (which is a valid thing to do) and pose (rhetorical) questions about disorganized religion.
Had a professor mention the quote, "it's about relationship, not religion."
IOW, it's a social concept... like having community w/people who (roughly) share the values and beliefs.
Which, IMO, is the bottom-line of what Victor Wierwille set up. His PFLAP class was a mechanism to tap what was already indoctrinated into young people, tweak it, make himself the guru, and go from there.
That is, whether he knew it or not.
It reaped him temporal (money, sex, and power) benefits even though he sold it as heavenly rewards.
Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity.
Victor and his sycophants play word games. It's foundational. Only a certain, precise, approved vocabulary will suffice. And only approved, often magically contrived, definitions are deemed accurate.
Three words were consistently derided while they were "teaching" me: Religion, Christian and Jesus. Theses words were rarely uttered at all, unless one had the urge to scratch an itch to scoff and disparage and condescend.
They insisted Wierwillian doctrine, TWI, and being within their "household" were NOT religious, rather, they were accuracy.
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition --
Religion
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
When I first left twi, I had the "don't say Jesus, only Christ Jesus," pounded into my brain for so long that I had a hard time just saying Jesus. Obviously we had mostly ignored the Gospels where primarily his "humiliated" name was used.
"Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity. "
On the other hand, I don't think organized religion, in and of itself, is necessarily a bad thing. If it's organized correctly, it can be both efficient and useful. In my old neighborhood, there's a Roman Catholic parish that has evening Bible studies and a number of programs specifically designed to help people (feed the hungry, etc.)
Walking into their parish and calling their activities "the folly in churchianity" would ring awfully hollow. The neologism "churchianity" isn't a very common word. In fact, it's not in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, nor is it in the Cambridge English Dictionary, nor Dictionary.com's database. (I did find it in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, with a note that its first usage was in 1837, but no mention of where it's found from that year.)
"a usually excessive or narrowly sectarian attachment to the practices and interests of a particular church."
It's definitely another pejorative term, and one whose use outside of ex-twi circles is probably not that great (otherwise the other big dictionaries would have heard of it.)
No, I'm not saying organized religion itself is necessarily a good thing either- I'm certainly well clear of it by any definition I use. But I am trying to make an effort to keep from blanket labels all around, or blanket accusations. Those were comforting-and easy- in twi. They were also wrong. In life, I've found they can usually be found more commonly the more error-ridden something is. I'll do my own thinking, thank you.
I'm not sure the usage of "churchianity" here was meant to refer to ALL organized churches, or just those that seem to be organized only for themselves or something along those lines. I've started a new thread to explore the subject.
"Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity. "
I don't think organized religion, in and of itself, is necessarily a bad thing.
Walking into their parish and calling their activities "the folly in churchianity" would ring awfully hollow.
"a usually excessive or narrowly sectarian attachment to the practices and interests of a particular church."
No, I'm not saying organized religion itself is necessarily a good thing either- I'm certainly well clear of it by any definition I use. But I am trying to make an effort to keep from blanket labels all around, or blanket accusations. Those were comforting-and easy- in twi. They were also wrong. In life, I've found they can usually be found more commonly the more error-ridden something is. I'll do my own thinking, thank you.
Well... okay then.
1) I do NOT see myself walking into anyone's parish, fellowship, church, or otherwise characterized religious practice/group and denouncing them. Whether it was Christian flavor, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or Pagan ...etc.
2) I made a statement of how I see the situation, disclaiming any knowledge of data or related statistics.
3) Christofascist activity, IMO, is abhorrent. Any person's personal religious practice is totally NOT my concern. i.e. freedom of worship being built into the fabric of American Constitutional order.
4) IIRC, I have recently noted (on GSC) my belief that churches (and other religiously oriented groups) fulfill a legitimate social function in our society even when I am not interested in participating therein.
Recommended Posts
Rocky
Gee, I wonder why that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin2
Had a professor mention the quote, "it's about relationship, not religion."
He stated that the quote normally refers to a dislike of organized religion. He asked would anyone want disorganized religion?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It seems to me, before asking whether wants organized or disorganized religion, one must ask: What is religion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Plenty of people go for non-organized religion. A number of beliefs are not codified so precisely. If you know someone who says they're a wiccan or a pagan, you don't know much about their specific beliefs or practices, just a few generalities (starting with the lack of an organizational structure, generally.) There's a LOT of room for variety there, with names of specific flavors that still don't tell you too much. In fact, I would venture to say that the absence of structure is a selling-point for a lot of people.
BTW, there's a bias exposed by calling it "disorganized religion", as if the only option for a religion without a hierarchy and a structure is anarchy. It definitely has a pejorative connotation. Saying a religion isn't organized is NOT the same as saying it's "disorganized"- although there's a few people proclaiming literally disorganized religions also (mostly discordians.)
Of course, in many cases, it's all in how you phrase the questions. I don't think I'd say I was "affiliated with organized religion" at this time, Neither am I spellbound by any of the people circulating ex-twi circles and claiming the chief seats there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yeah, obviously the term organized religion also belies the fact the English language doesn't have "a word" that properly captures the essence of what is meant.
Hence, it's left to people's minds to play word games (which is a valid thing to do) and pose (rhetorical) questions about disorganized religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
IOW, it's a social concept... like having community w/people who (roughly) share the values and beliefs.
Which, IMO, is the bottom-line of what Victor Wierwille set up. His PFLAP class was a mechanism to tap what was already indoctrinated into young people, tweak it, make himself the guru, and go from there.
That is, whether he knew it or not.
It reaped him temporal (money, sex, and power) benefits even though he sold it as heavenly rewards.
Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Victor and his sycophants play word games. It's foundational. Only a certain, precise, approved vocabulary will suffice. And only approved, often magically contrived, definitions are deemed accurate.
Three words were consistently derided while they were "teaching" me: Religion, Christian and Jesus. Theses words were rarely uttered at all, unless one had the urge to scratch an itch to scoff and disparage and condescend.
They insisted Wierwillian doctrine, TWI, and being within their "household" were NOT religious, rather, they were accuracy.
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition --
Religion
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
penguin2
When I first left twi, I had the "don't say Jesus, only Christ Jesus," pounded into my brain for so long that I had a hard time just saying Jesus. Obviously we had mostly ignored the Gospels where primarily his "humiliated" name was used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity. "
On the other hand, I don't think organized religion, in and of itself, is necessarily a bad thing. If it's organized correctly, it can be both efficient and useful. In my old neighborhood, there's a Roman Catholic parish that has evening Bible studies and a number of programs specifically designed to help people (feed the hungry, etc.)
Walking into their parish and calling their activities "the folly in churchianity" would ring awfully hollow. The neologism "churchianity" isn't a very common word. In fact, it's not in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, nor is it in the Cambridge English Dictionary, nor Dictionary.com's database. (I did find it in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, with a note that its first usage was in 1837, but no mention of where it's found from that year.)
"a usually excessive or narrowly sectarian attachment to the practices and interests of a particular church."
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Churchianity. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 18, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/churchianity
It's definitely another pejorative term, and one whose use outside of ex-twi circles is probably not that great (otherwise the other big dictionaries would have heard of it.)
No, I'm not saying organized religion itself is necessarily a good thing either- I'm certainly well clear of it by any definition I use. But I am trying to make an effort to keep from blanket labels all around, or blanket accusations. Those were comforting-and easy- in twi. They were also wrong. In life, I've found they can usually be found more commonly the more error-ridden something is. I'll do my own thinking, thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not sure the usage of "churchianity" here was meant to refer to ALL organized churches, or just those that seem to be organized only for themselves or something along those lines. I've started a new thread to explore the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well... okay then.
1) I do NOT see myself walking into anyone's parish, fellowship, church, or otherwise characterized religious practice/group and denouncing them. Whether it was Christian flavor, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or Pagan ...etc.
2) I made a statement of how I see the situation, disclaiming any knowledge of data or related statistics.
3) Christofascist activity, IMO, is abhorrent. Any person's personal religious practice is totally NOT my concern. i.e. freedom of worship being built into the fabric of American Constitutional order.
4) IIRC, I have recently noted (on GSC) my belief that churches (and other religiously oriented groups) fulfill a legitimate social function in our society even when I am not interested in participating therein.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.