Quick Question on Religion

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.

Quick Question on Religion

Postby jocaypa » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:00 pm

How do you call someone who believes in the holy scriptures and is completely sure the christian god exists, but refuses to play by his rules?
I originally thought of anarcho-christianism, but the term exists and it's the wrong one
Any help would be appreciated, thanks!
PS: If nothing else, the same sentiment towards other religions would be okay. I don't really have anything towards Christianity as an example.
jocaypa
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:09 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby crayzz » Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:02 pm

How do you call someone who believes in the holy scriptures and is completely sure the christian god exists, but refuses to play by his rules?


Insane. This person would apparently have certainty in heaven and hell; the rules by which they are reached; the power that enforces those rules; the morality of said power's commandments; and yet deliberately and persistently chooses to commit what xe considers blasphemy, knowingly leading hirself to eternal punishment.

After a brief look around, non-conformist fits. I'd call this person a true non-conformist: not conforming for the sake of not conforming.
crayzz
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby pumpkincat » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:36 am

What you call them would depend on their reasons for disobedience. Some schools of Satanism absolutely do believe in the Christian god, but refuse to follow out of the belief that the actions the Christian god have taken are wrong, or even that the proposed omnipotence will come to an end, etc, etc. So a Satanist of one of these schools absolutely fits your definition; in fact, the refusal is a definite tenet of their faith.
pumpkincat
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:04 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby RyukaTana » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:02 am

crayzz wrote:
How do you call someone who believes in the holy scriptures and is completely sure the christian god exists, but refuses to play by his rules?


Insane. This person would apparently have certainty in heaven and hell; the rules by which they are reached; the power that enforces those rules; the morality of said power's commandments; and yet deliberately and persistently chooses to commit what xe considers blasphemy, knowingly leading hirself to eternal punishment.


So a person is insane for choosing what they believe is right, even if they will be punished for it? I absolutely believe that IF the Christian God does exist AND he is the being described in the Bible (minus the clear contradictions), then said God is evil. That entity absolutely does not deserve my worship, and I would choose to disobey him willingly, and be cast down, because I would never want to be at his side.

crayzz wrote:After a brief look around, non-conformist fits. I'd call this person a true non-conformist: not conforming for the sake of not conforming.


No, a non-conformist is not someone who chooses not to conform just to avoid conformity (I call those people 'anti-conformists' because they rarely fail to conform, they just conform to an entirely different moronic standard). A non-conformist (even by the definition you linked) is just someone who doesn't conform. Maybe they do it to avoid conforming, but that isn't a part of the definition and that's pretty much an idiotic reason not to conform.

I diss on conformity because the standard by which most people live deserves to be trashed. If everyone acted in a way I deemed positive, I'd happily go right along with it, though I wouldn't do so specifically to conform either.

pumpkincat wrote:What you call them would depend on their reasons for disobedience. Some schools of Satanism absolutely do believe in the Christian god, but refuse to follow out of the belief that the actions the Christian god have taken are wrong, or even that the proposed omnipotence will come to an end, etc, etc. So a Satanist of one of these schools absolutely fits your definition; in fact, the refusal is a definite tenet of their faith.


I've met a Satanist, and while she was a giant bitch, it was not her religion that turned me off to her. In fact, for the time we were able to engage in agreeable discourse, I found her religion to be rather interesting. If she 'worshipped' Satan at all, it wasn't a big part of her spirituality. In the end, I think there are too many branches, and the ones who choose to practice a form of Satanism that is actually spiritual (rather than the more showy stereotype that is probably more an angry, rebellious attempt at 'anti-conformity) are utilizing a name that is a pretty poor misnomer.

I'd guess (and this is just a guess) that the truth behind it is somewhere between using the name for shock value, and trying to create some fallen angel metaphor. The problem is that modern culture associates Satan with this inhuman, demonic figure, which is different from how most people utilize Lucifer, and most modern interpretations are pretty different from the way angels and demons were intended (not to mention that Satan originates from Arabic traditions, which place him as a form of djinn).
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby crayzz » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:07 am

So a person is insane for choosing what they believe is right, even if they will be punished for it?


Look at what I wrote (it would prevent confusions like this): "Insane. This person would apparently have certainty in heaven and hell; the rules by which they are reached; the power that enforces those rules; the morality of said power's commandments; and yet deliberately and persistently chooses to commit what xe considers blasphemy, knowingly leading hirself to eternal punishment."

No, a person is insane for choosing to do what xe believes is wrong, knowing they will be punished for it. The holy scriptures directly state their moral superiority; to believe them is to believe in their morals. Had the question been about belief in scripture except for it's morals, then I would amend my answer to pumpincat's; satanism would describe such a person.

No, a non-conformist is not someone who chooses not to conform just to avoid conformity...


Well, actually they are. They're not the entirety of non conformists, by they are non-conformists.
crayzz
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby jocaypa » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:23 am

Yes, i agree. The motives for such a rebellion would be tricky to point down, but its not like anarchism where you're sure there's going to be repercussion doesn't exists so i didn't thought much of it. Perhaps a good cause would be a martyr-like view of the world, where those who want others to see the flaws in their god (keep in mind, the flaws are not on whether he exists or not; but rather on whether his rules are fair or not)
Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought Satanism was about opposing god, sort of like believing there's a power equal to him which can be "harnessed" through dark rituals and stuff (again, forgive my stupidity), whereas what i'm looking for is what anarchy is to an state (or all states, perhaps?), but with a god in the equation.
Indeed, non-conformist looks like a good term to pinpoint such a term, but not only the term has changed throughout the years to make it different from what it originally was (which was closer to what i'm looking for than now), but even then it wasn't motivated by a feeling of betrayal of the almighty, but a very real action by his representatives on earth, which although makes barely a difference, leaves enough space for it to grow as the idea itself grows.
jocaypa
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:09 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby RyukaTana » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:01 am

crayzz wrote:
No, a person is insane for choosing to do what xe believes is wrong, knowing they will be punished for it. The holy scriptures directly state their moral superiority; to believe them is to believe in their morals.


First, I strongly doubt that was the intended meaning of the OP, but they're free to contradict me on that.

Second, one can believe the Bible and what it says, and still accept that it is subjective. All that means is that the person believes that there is such a thing as 'Good' and they choose to be 'Evil'. Again, I don't remotely think that's what the original poster meant, because I can read between the lines.

crayzz wrote:
No, a non-conformist is not someone who chooses not to conform just to avoid conformity...


Well, actually they are. They're not the entirety of non conformists, by they are non-conformists.


I said that, and your statement doesn't contradict mine. 'A non-conformist is not someone who chooses not to conform just to avoid conformity' is still a true statement, because my statement implies that latter portion does not define the former. In the same way that I can say a vowel is not 'Y', but 'Y' is sometimes a vowel.

However, I'll correct my rebuttal to say that the qualifier 'true' that you used for non-conformist is either redundant or stupid, or both. Who are the 'false' non-conformists you're comparing said individuals to? People who just don't conform? They are, literally speaking, exactly as 'true' as those who are non-conformists for the sake of being non-conformists. You don't 'non-conform' harder than someone else, either you do or you don't. The people who are trying, usually aren't actually non-conformists, they are people who choose to conform to another cliche rather than the social norm.

* * *

@jocaypa

Satanism has a ton of forms, and only the stereotypes insist on 'dark rituals and stuff' (which is to say, like most stereotypes, said 'Satanists' exist, but that's not what it means to be one necessarily).

Anarchy means 'without rule', just as 'monarchy' means 'one ruler'. It refers simply to the concept that no entity or group should have power over any individual except that individual. How that is applied can go many ways (generally it refers to one of many organizational systems in which there is no ruler, but not necessarily no order or leadership, leadership being a completely different trait than rulership), and it could technically refer to God.

Non-conformist is a general term, I doubt you could find anyone that would associate it with God without being told to explicitly, in which case you remove the purpose of condensing that belief system down to a single word.

In the end, this is why I think it's stupid and pointless to try to condense complex ideas into single words. You aren't going to find a colloquially used word that refers to the belief in Christianity, and yet outright defiance of it. Even Satanism wouldn't cover it, since most people will assume you worship Satan and do evil rituals and summon demons and you'll have to explain to them that such is not the case (I'm guessing this isn't actually a word for you to describe yourself, but I'm using that implication here for the sake of simplicity).

For all intents and purposes, you can call it 'Fuckgodism' and call it a day, if you intend to discuss it with people you're almost definitely going to have to explain to them ahead of time what you're discussing anyway. If you feel a specific need to call it by its 'proper' name, I'd say you should start looking into schools of Satanism, but I'd prepare for a long trip down the proverbial rabbit hole, because the most common form of Satanism you'll read about is 'LaVeyan Satanism'.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby crayzz » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:12 am

Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought Satanism was about opposing god, sort of like believing there's a power equal to him which can be "harnessed" through dark rituals and stuff (again, forgive my stupidity), whereas what i'm looking for is what anarchy is to an state (or all states, perhaps?), but with a god in the equation.


Well, that's what some Christians think of satanism. There are several forms, one of which is what you describe. There are several variants of what pumpkincat describes. Modern satanism is almost always some form of moral dissent to christian morality, usually without the belief in satan (those that do mention him tend to think of him as symbolic rather than a real power).

Indeed, non-conformist looks like a good term to pinpoint such a term, but not only the term has changed throughout the years to make it different from what it originally was (which was closer to what i'm looking for than now), but even then it wasn't motivated by a feeling of betrayal of the almighty, but a very real action by his representatives on earth, which although makes barely a difference, leaves enough space for it to grow as the idea itself grows.


True, non-conformism has lost it's meaning within religion. Still, there's no reason we can't use that definition; we just need to be clear which definition we're using to avoid confusion.

Do you have any particular motivation in mind? You mention feeling betrayed, but I'm not sure if you want narrow down your hypothetical to that motivation or if feeling betrayed was just a possible motivation.

However, I'll correct my rebuttal to say that the qualifier 'true' that you used for non-conformist is either redundant or stupid, or both.[1] Who are the 'false' non-conformists you're comparing said individuals to?[2]


1) "True" is a bit of personal slang on my part; after all, I specified that such a term is what I would use, without prescribing that. As a true jazz musician plays jazz for the sake of playing jazz, a true non conformist refuses to conform on for the sake of not conforming. It speaks to the motivation of the person in question.

2) Do you really want me to go into my linguistic peeves? We can; I doubt it would be helpful to do so.
crayzz
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby Bramble.Chappell » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:05 pm

jocaypa wrote:How do you call someone who believes in the holy scriptures and is completely sure the christian god exists, but refuses to play by his rules?


A Christian? Acknowledging (at the very least to ourselves) that we are not living up to our own moral standards (and keeping that in mind when considering how we treat others) is a core aspect of the faith.

On the other side of it, people who believe most Christian tenets but hold resentment or antipathy toward God sometimes have an attitude of having "cut ties" with God over some perceived moral disagreement with Him. An example I remember was a teenage boy who said he couldn't worship a God that didn't love his brother, who was gay. In my opinion, things like this stem from some inconsistency in one's beliefs, usually caused by oversimplification of the concepts surrounding that inconsistency. (The above example could be used to illustrate perhaps half a dozen such potential inconsistencies that might have brought it about.)
"If you could understand it, you wouldn't label it 'mad'."
Bramble.Chappell
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: Quick Question on Religion

Postby Deepbluediver » Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:30 pm

RyukaTana wrote:So a person is insane for choosing what they believe is right, even if they will be punished for it? I absolutely believe that IF the Christian God does exist AND he is the being described in the Bible (minus the clear contradictions), then said God is evil. That entity absolutely does not deserve my worship, and I would choose to disobey him willingly, and be cast down, because I would never want to be at his side.

I think there's a difference here. Even in the bible they make a point of bringing up how when someone swears loyalty to Satan, loyalty is still a virtue by itself, and the sign of a good person. If you act evil merely to spite god, then that's not insane, it's just evil. If you act as a moral person but are agnostic, atheistic, or just don't like how Allah/Jaweh/Jehovah/whoever administrates things, then depending on various interpretations you wouldn't end up in hell anyway. Though the meaning of paradise is probably different for different people, and if His presence truly caused you pain, then a loving god would not demand you be at his side, even if it in turn caused Him sorrow.

This is really getting very into the religious minutia, but my understanding of hell is that it was a punishment for Lucifer and the other fallen angels not because it was fire and brimstone, but because it was apart from God, and that anyone who wasn't wholly evil could be unhappy in the presence of the almighty.

crayzz wrote:After a brief look around, non-conformist fits. I'd call this person a true non-conformist: not conforming for the sake of not conforming.

Hmm....tricky to be sure, but I'm not sure I see it that way. If you purposefully try to go against the tide, then your direction is still being determined by society. A non-conformist would have to be someone who had no interest in anything society dictated as right or wrong, being entirely self-absorbed. Their behavior might coincide with other people's on occasion, but with a large sample-group it would effectively be random. That's my take on it.
Deepbluediver
 
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests