OP is original post or poster, and would be the first person/post in this thread. Unfortunately this thread has gone so far off topic it currently serves no function other than to amuse some and enfuriate others.
These last few posts are interesting and learned and I don't doubt there's much to be uncovered in the psychology of religion. However, if the goal is writing religious characters effectively, I'm a little worried about the trend toward analysis leading us toward the seriously flawed portrayals I've often seen. You can't experience or portray a thing artistically while remaining outside and above it, looking at it through a microscope; you can only take it apart. If a writer feels himself to be above religious people and understand their motives better that they do themselves, he may give us a brilliant analysis but he's not going to give us a breathing character. To write a good character you have to identify with them on some level. I've sometimes been offended by stereotypes of religious people in books and movies simply because they were cardboard evil fanatics. Oh, well, that's just going to happen, and anyway some fanatics do exist. But I've also been very, very jarred by some attempted sympathetic portrayals. Characters who acted like no one would ever act or who felt like no one would ever feel. Because the author simply didn't know how religious people act and feel, so he/she took an atheist and stuck some religious veneer on him. I guess I don't know for certain but it seemed to me to spring from the idea that "no one could really believe this stuff." It jarred me because I sensed that assumption, and know it to be untrue. Allegro, I don't know if you care to answer this just now and I'm sorry for being nosey, but I've grown intrigued by your comments about Jesus and would be interested to know your view of him beyond what you've said already. How do you know what you know of him, what got you interested? Do you think he believed in God? As far as the original poster goes, I think we may be waiting for Godot...
I think that's because you don't understand the topic. The thread seems completely on target to me and that's because I believe that few to no one actually believes their religion, and there is no real religion. To keep it simple, I believe that more people brush their teeth more consistently and believe the same info about it, than they follow the "laws" set down for them by the being that's supposed to control the universe. The discussion here has been about whether or not there is a religious character that needs to be researched or is it the case that reaserch is impossible since no two people follow a religion in the same way. So, according to that, we're right on target.
Perhaps we shouldn't presume to know the OP's intentions, given that we are not the OP. Basically he/she very broadly asked for info on religion. These discussions are interesting and potentially informative, but it's not clear whether it's what the OP wanted to know or not. Frankly, it's not really our job to say whether this is or isn't off-topic. Either the original poster will pipe up and say, "no, I wanted to know this," or a moderator will decide the thread is no longer useful and close it. I don't remember anyone specifically saying or not saying that the question was about how to make the characters religious, but I'm not the most careful reader in the world, so it's possible I missed something. Allegro is incorrect that "research is impossible since no two people follow a religion in the same way." I don't deny that everyone has his own beliefs based on his own personal experiences. However, I deny that it deems research "impossible." By that logic, research on virtually everything is impossible. I want to write a story about the Nazi regime and the implications of censorship; no two people seem to agree on the precise implications of censorship or what exactly the history means about human nature. Does that mean I shouldn't research? No. In fact, it means I need to research more, lest I completely misinterpret everything about the event. The more points of view there are on a subject, the more the facts need to be researched to be understood. In any case, it is necessary to understand at least basic concepts of a religion to write a book in which the characters are religious. If I were to write a story about Mormons and inadvertently had a scene where the congregation went out to a bar after their sermon, most of my LDS friends would not be happy with me! My book, however remarkable it may be, would not receive a lot of respect from anyone in that case. Research is always possible. If you go to the library and search the religion section, how many reference books will you find? If you google it, how many pages of information--both academic and personal--will you find? It takes some weeding out, but it's "possible."
I think I understand the topic much more than you're giving me credit for. And I can say without any hyperbole that we have gone far off topic. The OP was specifically asking for more information on various religions, from an objective speaker, for the purposes of learning about them. Since then we have seen: 1)Proponents of one faith debating with proponents of the same faith/other denomination/no faith over how best to interpet one holy book out of many. 2)Individuals accusing another of not understanding a given faith or holy book because they did not reach the same conclusions as them. 3)Snarky, off-color remarks, ad hominems, and comments that are borderline inflammatory. While it can be said that there is much to learn from religion by watching how infantile certain people can behave when discussing it, it can be argued that it is not the best or ideal way. Short of putting words in the OPs mouth I think it's fair to say this is not exactly what they intended if somewhat inevitable. As far as the comment that no one believes their religion, I believe the comment is a quite bold claim, and not the kind of comment to be made lightly, or at least without some kind of evidence. I think that what is much more demonstrable and likely is that individuals most often do believe what they say they believe. If not, there would be no need for the word hypocrite. You may argue that no believer is a believer if they behave violently when so many holy books denounce violence. I can easily bat away that slow ball by pointing out that any given percentage of a faith does not represent the whole faith, that all holy books teach different things, and that any writ can be interpretted any number of ways. Even within one faith there are many possible sects or denominations, and even in a single congregation you are likely to find two members who value different doctrines. Your assertion that there is no religion is an absurd statement. The approach you take to make that assertion is an absurb one. Your conclusion that any research of religion is impossible or futile or worthless is an absurd one, and incidentally, far beyond the context of what the OP was asking for. For if the author felt so and made it so clear he/she would not endeavor on a futile task in the first place. QED
I've made my argument and no one has countered it, and so it stands. You can't write an accurate book about something so diffuse.
Just because an argument is not "countered" does not mean it stands. Personally, if someone came up to me on the street and said, "Hey, did you know the world is flat?" I think I'd keep walking without countering. Does that mean the argument "stands?" No, I'd say it fall pretty flat. Frankly, I'm not sure what that statement "there's no religion" is getting at. Even if you're giving me one of these neo-definitions about breaking down labels and that religion means something different to everyone and etc, I still can't bring myself to agree. Just because we have different views about religion doesn't mean there's no such thing. For the Americans among us, being "American" means something different to every person. Does that mean there's no "America"? Well, I've been living here for 19 years, so I'd hope that's not the case! Writing an "accurate" fiction book is nonsensical anyway, since fiction is by definition a lie. However, it's possible to write an informed book, which would involve exactly what the OP is trying to do: learn the basics of the dogma and practice and talk to real people who consider themselves part of that religion. Frankly, I don't like the assumption that "you can't write an accurate book about something so diffuse" not because it isn't true, but because it invites the assumption that there's no way to write an inaccurate book. This is incorrect. There's perhaps no right way to do it, but there are plenty of wrong ways. What if I wrote about Catholics who had priests that got married and I meant it to be accurate? What if I wrote about a Mormon church that had a coffee bar inside?
I'll counter: There is religion. I'm more against religion than for it myself, but I can tell you from first hand experience that religion exists.
If you guys think that I mean there is no religion literally, then I don't know what to tell you. I stated and gave examples about how it's diffuse across all the individuals that supposedly follow it. If each individual is doing something different yet states they're all doing the same thing, then they're kind of doing nothing. In addition, we know that most people in the west get up and brush their teeth in the morning, and that's a completely artificial activity, so we know that people are capable of doing the same activity based on a set of concepts. So, are the mass of religious people doing that regarding the dictates of the creator of the universe? Not from my observations. As a person who lives in the US, I have never met a person who is christian in the same way as I've met a proper tooth brusher. So, if most don't have the same conception of ideas that are written in black and white, and they don't follow most of the clear laws, then can you say they are that thing in anything but name only? No. Getting back to the OP, he can write two kinds of stories. The first is a corny one where he researches the details of a religion and has the character perform perfectly. The second is where he learns a little about a religion and has the character practice it in a random shotgun pattern. That's my suggestions for the most natural approach.
Which is why I could never be a Christian. There's a lot of people in this world that need to be put to sleep.
I know no one cares, but here are my positions: 1) If you define religion as 99.9999% of people do, it exists. For the 0.000001% of the population that believe that religion is defined as the EXACT following of a religious text, then I guess there isn't. But everyone seems to THINK they follow their text accurately, and I don't know who we are to say they don't, given the trillions of ways there are to read any given text. 2) The Bible can support the death penalty; it's called the Old Testament. Perhaps the New Testament read literally can't, but given the amount of killing that has gone on under the label of Christianity, it "can" support the death penalty...it just probably shouldn't. 3) If the OP decides to write any kind of religious character at all, it is necessary to do some research on religious dogma, practice, hypocrisies, discussions, and so on. The fact that most religious people don't follow their doctrines "exactly" as they are supposed to does not change this and in fact makes it necessary for the research to be more thorough. If I make a Mormon character who drinks coffee when no one is looking, I still need to know why the Mormons believe caffeine is a bad substance and why my particular character has come to the conclusion it doesn't matter. 4) Almost nothing in any text is ever "black and white" when it must be applied to real life. The writers of the Bible (whoever they may be...because God himself certainly didn't take a pen in His hand) could not envision every conceivable circumstance. Did they consider what would happen if a deranged lunatic attempted to take over the world and in the process decided to murder 6 million men, women, and children for the mere reason that they were Jewish, Gypsy, or homosexual? I doubt it. And in this circumstance, might it not make sense not to love your enemy, but rather to love and protect your Jewish neighbor? I submit that it is impossible to follow any religion to the letter no matter how much we might want to; thus, there is no need to be derogatory about various interpretations--the United States judiciary system recognizes that there is no such thing as a false belief or a false religion, and I think we should do the same.
Maybe writers shouldn't talk religion. This thread is painful, on many levels. I include myself in adding to the pain. OP, can you please take away painful item #1, and fix your incorrect spelling of religion?
Well, it's been interesting, but I think I should sign off now. I was hoping we could talk about a few other things besides the debate over whether the OP's question even ought to be answered, but if that is not going to happen I have pretty much said all I personally have to say on that one. I'm not sure that writers shouldn't talk religion. But it certainly does seem to be a flammable subject. I wonder if maybe we shouldn't talk religion online, where everything seems to get so much hotter. (My husband points out that one reason for this is that you're basically debating in public... so anyone who contradicts you has contradicted you in public, etc. It's a good point. I think the lack of a human face to look at has something to do with it too.) To be quite honest, I was refreshed by the OP's tone of openness and interest and was truly looking forward to a discussion of religion that was not an angry debate but a sharing of experiences, and I'm now feeling pretty disappointed. Such exchanges are possible though uncommon and I very much enjoy them. I think it was foolish of me, though, to imagine they were possible online. Plus the OP has flown away. I even PMed him over a week ago asking him to come back in and have heard nothing; I think he has chosen, for one reason or another, not to engage with this after all. Allegro, I know you have a great deal of life-experience to back up your assertion that no one really practices the words of Jesus, but I wonder if you might be open to the possibility that there are some people out there who are at least genuinely trying. If you are interested in the possibility, I'd like to recommend to you http://cimarronline.blogspot.com/2004/05/paul-munn.html. It's the story of a man who left the Navy because he was starting to understand Jesus' call to peace; who went back and turned himself in when he started to understand Jesus' call not to run away from the consequences of your choices, good or bad; and who then gave away his savings and went out on the road with no money because it was the only way of life he could see at that point in which he could really follow all of Jesus' words. (And yes, I married him.)
I care what you think! What you wrote here seems like the definition of a mass delusion. Interestingly, Spinoza talked about that in a round about way stating that religion is a "product of the mind" and so a real thing no matter what anyone says. Although I can't disagree with him about that his ideas aren't typical of most people.
I believe that people try and it's completely fine to try and fail in that religion. Even I think about the sermon on the mount, and info about social behavior from the Talmud very frequently. I've also included a lot of Zen and Taoist ideas, which are very Christian I don't even remotely believe that anything from the Bible existed, but that doesn't diminish the ideas. Perhaps that provides some insight.
Hey guys. So I think perhaps you've missed my point. I'm not looking to see what you think of religion in general or inparticular. I don't want to hear how you feel about religion in general. I would like it very much if the only people who posted any information on this thread to be people that can offer some insight to me about thier personal faith. Thank you and please have some respect because I believe you are civilised and intelligent people so it would be nice to see you writing that way. Bastion
My post has 2 parts: 1) I'd suggest reading history books about the formation of the Ottoman State to understand the evolution of Islam into the modern day. Then read critics of said books. 2) My personal faith is cloudy to me, its still something I have to work out. I was forced to church from an early age, later on I stopped going, and while I have Christian tendencies and beliefs I reject them with spite -- but they're unconscious beliefs and values. The best way to describe me would be "militant atheist." I harbor an unhealthy amount of anger at anybody who tries forcing their beliefs on anybody else, I believe that established religious institutions which define morality for a majority of people should be abolished because it affects who our politicians and other lawmakers are, and I despise any opposition to scientific advancement.
We host free weekend spiritual retreats for people who normally couldn't afford them, especially people coming out of homelessness and addictions. We're supported for this by donations, and we live with a Christian intentional community that kindly lets us use their facilities for hosting the retreats... when we're not doing that we also participate in the work in the farm & bakery owned by the community. Although technically they don't pay us, they just give us donations according to what they can afford. The reason for that is a long story involving things Jesus said, probably too long to go into here. I should probably leave it at that, though, b/c this isn't strictly the topic of this thread! But thanks for asking.
