A Religion With No Skeletons in the Closet

[ThatNickGuy]

So, I've been thinking lately about religions. For example, I've started going to this place that I thought was a yoga class, but it's actually a yoga spiritual practice, focusing on the meditative aspects of it. I think it's based out of...Hinduism? With Vishnu and such? Anyway, I find I'm kind of enjoying it, because while I'm spiritual in nature, I don't really believe in any organized religion.

Part of it is due to the fact that most of them have bad histories. Christianity, with the Crusades, the witch trials, the KKK. Muslims, with older history of fighting, along with today and the bad name that extremists give it.

So, I guess my question is this: is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I can't think of any horrible acts ever committed in the name of buddhism.

Well, except for self immolation.

 

[Philosopher B.]

I was gonna say 'the Church of Pesci' but then I remembered this:

 

[@Li3n]

I can't think of any horrible acts ever committed in the name of buddhism.

Well, except for self immolation.

Well the chinese say something very different about Tibet, but they're not the most trustworthy source.


But looking for a religion on the basis of whether or not it's been used to justify abuses is not really the way one should be approaching one's spiritual life.

Oh, and if you're gonna choose one of the more established ones, do try to find out what the official dogma really is instead of just listening to what your local representative says...

 

[AshburnerX]

I can't think of any horrible acts ever committed in the name of buddhism.

Well, except for self immolation.

Well the chinese say something very different about Tibet, but they're not the most trustworthy source.


But looking for a religion on the basis of whether or not it's been used to justify abuses is not really the way one should be approaching one's spiritual life.

Oh, and if you're gonna choose one of the more established ones, do try to find out what the official dogma really is instead of just listening to what your local representative says...[/QUOTE]

Some of the stuff the Chinese say about the Tibetians is true. They DID have extremely harsh justice system and the priesthood essentially lived like kings while their people lived in squalor, in fear of being punished by them... and the quality of life for the common people HAS risen under Communist rule. Whether or not this justifies them essentially kicking out an independent head of state/leader of a faith is up for debate, and it DEFINITELY doesn't justify their systematic attempt to control the minds of the people there.

And for the THIRD TIME I post this video.

 

[strawman]

I don't really believe in any organized religion...Part of it is due to the fact that most of them have bad histories.

The idea that a given organized religion is bad because of what its people have done in the past implies the belief "God will not allow his true followers to commit evil." There are all sorts of interesting ideas that necessarily follow such a belief, but the bottom line is that you may want to explore this a little further.

Another thing worth considering is the definition of a religion. You talk about Christianity and Islam as though there is one version of each. If you only take the top 5 categories of religious belief in the world, then you will undoubtedly find something distasteful about their past. If you break it down into the top 1,000 religious systems (many of which are Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, etc) then you'll find some that are so new that there either aren't skeletons, or they haven't come to light yet.

 

[HCGLNS]

So, I guess my question is this: is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

Pastafarianism

 

[strawman]

So, I guess my question is this: is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

Pastafarianism[/QUOTE]

As you are undoubtedly aware, piracy and FSM go hand in hand, so there are a ton of skeletons in that closet. Nice thing about FSM, though, is that they embrace their piracy, so at least they are self consistent.

 

[HCGLNS]

So, I guess my question is this: is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

Pastafarianism[/QUOTE]

As you are undoubtedly aware, piracy and FSM go hand in hand, so there are a ton of skeletons in that closet. Nice thing about FSM, though, is that they embrace their piracy, so at least they are self consistent.[/QUOTE]

FACT: Pirates never hurt or injured anyone.

All references to the contrary are lies made up by right winged media hate groups trying to sour the world in their own image.

 

[Eriol]

If somebody can find the "cheesepuffology" comic from Pearls, please link it. I can't find it. My spelling may be slightly off too.

 

[SpecialKO]

So, I guess my question is this: is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

Pastafarianism[/QUOTE]

You know, I am not a fan of the lengths the Pastafarians went to when they split off from Orthodox Spaghettism. I grant, the narrow dogma that salvation can only be reached through Spaghetti just seems overall discriminatory, but switching the spaghetti in the shrimp scampi to linguine when no one was paying attention is just not done, and its had an undeniable long-term effect.

 

[Chibibar]

Sadly Tibetan is part of Buddhism so they do have skeleton in the closets I personally can't think of anything.

 

[HCGLNS]

The great flour shortage was truly a dark period, but the important thing to remember is that nobody that matters was injured or hurt during the wheat wars.

 

[SpecialKO]

True dat. It was very impressive how King Arthur dominated the field so decisively. He may not have won the war, exactly, but he solidified his hold on his piece of the pie.

 

[Piotyr]

I don't think any religion (or even the absence thereof) will cause every one of its followers to not do anything wrong or be wrong in some way. I think that's the wrong way to look at it, really.

In addition, there is a huge disconnect between the teachings of a religion (specifically Christianity and Islam, here) and what people will do and claim to be in the name of said religion. Hell, even within Christianity and Islam, there are many different branches that continue to argue and fight with each other in the supposed name of their religion.

All a follower can really do is agree or disagree with the teachings, and strive to live their lives as an example of the teachings. But the results have to be taken on an individual basis, as the actions of one shouldn't necessarily reflect on the beliefs of all.

 

[Espy]

I don't think any religion (or even the absence thereof) will cause every one of its followers to not do anything wrong or be wrong in some way. I think that's the wrong way to look at it, really.

This ans what Adam said. If this is one's basis for ""choosing a religion... well... I got bad news for you...

 

[Rob King]

It seems to have already been said in more words, but here I go.

is there any religion out there that does not have any past, negative history?

No.

Organized religion is what happens when spirituality hits social creatures. Whatever social groups can do, organized religions will do.

I'm not sure what else is out there, but if you want something uncorrectable, I can tell you definitely that Christianity is not for you. I believe that the age of the institutionalized church is ending, but that won't make scandal and skeletons go away. Christianity is necessarily social, and where millions gather into thousands of groups, eventually one (or many) of those groups are going to do something wrong.

All that said, you'll be hard pressed to be disappointed by the Quakers.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Nixon was a Quaker...

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Nixon was a Quaker...

He claimed to be Quaker, his actions discredit him from actually being one.

 

[Cajungal]

I agree with not choosing a religion based on what the crazy radicals/people in power do. You can still cherish the positive aspects of the religion and how they make your life better. One thing I heard about Hinduism once is that they're generally more accepting of other religions. I don't know if that's doctrine or just culture, but I remember hearing that in one of my religion classes--that they accept that there could be many different ways to feel spiritually fulfilled, or something like that. Maybe someone can confirm/deny. If that's true, then I'd consider it a plus.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I'd tell you, but we're not supposed to proselytize.

 

[Iaculus]

I'd tell you, but we're not supposed to proselytize.

Quiet, you.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I should clarify something. But first, thank you for all the responses so far.

I'm not, by any means, disregarding all religions that have a negative stigma attached to them. I do realize that there are dozens, probably hundreds, of different sects each with their own particular beliefs or practices. Unfortunately, it's the extremists, such as the 9/11 terrorists or the KKK that give said religion a bad name. Maybe I should have worded it to say if there's a religion that doesn't have a violent extremist part of its history.

 

[Vrii]

It's still an awful basis for such an important choice.

Imagine you were thinking about moving to a different country. You're asking your friends for recommendations, and you give them a list of qualifications to ensure that they're thinking about the kind of places you'd like to live. "It has to have warm weather, because I don't like the cold. Low crime rate, affordable, quality internet, and a decent population of people who share my interests".

So far that all makes sense. You want to find something that you'll be comfortable with and able to enjoy, where things will line up to your likes and needs. Then you slap this on: "Oh, and there can't ever have been a war fought there, or a serial killer, or any sort of dictatorship...I'm not comfortable with the idea of being associated with any of those things, even if they're hundreds of years in the past and have absolutely no bearing on life there now."

It doesn't make sense. You're trying to make a serious, life-defining choice on the basis of how other people have warped the images of religions. You should be looking at the tenets or ideas behind the religion, or the sorts of actions and beliefs they encourage, or doing research to find out if you actually, I don't know, believe in what they teach? Not trying to cherry pick to find the religion where nobody can think anything bad about you for it.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I agree with not choosing a religion based on what the crazy radicals/people in power do. You can still cherish the positive aspects of the religion and how they make your life better. One thing I heard about Hinduism once is that they're generally more accepting of other religions. I don't know if that's doctrine or just culture, but I remember hearing that in one of my religion classes--that they accept that there could be many different ways to feel spiritually fulfilled, or something like that. Maybe someone can confirm/deny. If that's true, then I'd consider it a plus.

That is pretty much right. Like Buddha is not a god to Buddhist, but he is to some Hindus.

 

[Dave]

Nixon wasn't the Quaker. It was actually Winters, but it turned out even he wasn't one.

 

[Rob King]

I agree with not choosing a religion based on what the crazy radicals/people in power do. You can still cherish the positive aspects of the religion and how they make your life better. One thing I heard about Hinduism once is that they're generally more accepting of other religions. I don't know if that's doctrine or just culture, but I remember hearing that in one of my religion classes--that they accept that there could be many different ways to feel spiritually fulfilled, or something like that. Maybe someone can confirm/deny. If that's true, then I'd consider it a plus.

That is pretty much right. Like Buddha is not a god to Buddhist, but he is to some Hindus.[/QUOTE]

So (and this is a completely innocent question) is the whole class-division of Hindus NOT a part of Hinduism, or is it the division a relic of Indian culture/influence? I'm honestly curious.

You would think I should know this shit since I'm moving to a majority-Hindu country in less than two months, but I guess this is a starting point ...

 

[@Li3n]

The idea that a given organized religion is bad because of what its people have done in the past implies the belief "God will not allow his [STRIKE]true[/STRIKE] followers to commit evil." There are all sorts of interesting ideas that necessarily follow such a belief, but the bottom line is that you may want to explore this a little further.

Adding "true" to the follower bit kinda works against your point there...

I'd tell you, but we're not supposed to proselytize.

Hey, that's my line... go get your own.

Some of the stuff the Chinese say about the Tibetians is true. They DID have extremely harsh justice system and the priesthood essentially lived like kings while their people lived in squalor, in fear of being punished by them... and the quality of life for the common people HAS risen under Communist rule.

So they where basically like the majority of countries that didn't have massive social changes take place in them at around that time...

 

[wana10]

Nixon wasn't the Quaker. It was actually Winters, but it turned out even he wasn't one.

well done dave

 

[Dave]

Nixon wasn't the Quaker. It was actually Winters, but it turned out even he wasn't one.

well done dave[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU!!! God I thought nobody caught that!

But here's my serious answer to Nick:

No. And the reason that no is the answer to your question is because in any organization where someone has to be the leader it will eventually corrupt due to Human greed and drive for power. Each religion started fine but was bastardized by those down the road trying to solidify their own power base. Same with sports organizations, governments, PTAs, Scout troops, etc. No organization is exempt. The real question for these organizations is whether they can weather the badness and stay viable and reject the dark side. Some organizations learned how to do this and have been stable for years. But the bigger the organization the harder it is to keep the skeletons from said closets. It's just too impossible to completely oversee.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I agree with not choosing a religion based on what the crazy radicals/people in power do. You can still cherish the positive aspects of the religion and how they make your life better. One thing I heard about Hinduism once is that they're generally more accepting of other religions. I don't know if that's doctrine or just culture, but I remember hearing that in one of my religion classes--that they accept that there could be many different ways to feel spiritually fulfilled, or something like that. Maybe someone can confirm/deny. If that's true, then I'd consider it a plus.

That is pretty much right. Like Buddha is not a god to Buddhist, but he is to some Hindus.[/QUOTE]

So (and this is a completely innocent question) is the whole class-division of Hindus NOT a part of Hinduism, or is it the division a relic of Indian culture/influence? I'm honestly curious.

You would think I should know this shit since I'm moving to a majority-Hindu country in less than two months, but I guess this is a starting point ...[/QUOTE]

Hinduism has thousands of deities. It is like dozens of polytheistic religions that share several basic gods, but is more of a local religion.

There are even Monotheistic and Atheist sects.... a very complex religious system that has constantly evolved for over 5 thousand years.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Nixon wasn't the Quaker. It was actually Winters, but it turned out even he wasn't one.

well done dave[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU!!! God I thought nobody caught that!

But here's my serious answer to Nick:

No. And the reason that no is the answer to your question is because in any organization where someone has to be the leader it will eventually corrupt due to Human greed and drive for power. Each religion started fine but was bastardized by those down the road trying to solidify their own power base. Same with sports organizations, governments, PTAs, Scout troops, etc. No organization is exempt. The real question for these organizations is whether they can weather the badness and stay viable and reject the dark side. Some organizations learned how to do this and have been stable for years. But the bigger the organization the harder it is to keep the skeletons from said closets. It's just too impossible to completely oversee.[/QUOTE]

Why's everyone hating on Nick?

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

Why ask that? Would you prefer people to give him an answer that there's a religion made of candy and unicorns?

I don't see any hate, just reasoned responses stating that adopting a religion based solely on it being free of "skeletons" is silly.

 

[Hailey Knight]

That'd be not hating on him. So quit hating on Nick. We're all persecutory.

 

[Dave]

I didn't realize we were hating on him. I thought we were answering his question.