Commentüs on: Food for Thought: Why are You a Christian (or a Buddhist)?

By: David M. Manes

David M. Manes — Sat, 03 May 2008 18:22:16 +0000

Perhaps someday in the future we will live in such a digitalized world and spend so much time in front of our computers that physical proximity will cease to be a macro societal factor, but that is not even on the horizon yet.

Yes, it is possible for just about anyone in this country to find their way to a blog or chatroom where they can interact with believers of other religions; however, very very few people actually do this. Even if they do make the effort to make contact with diverse viewpoints, they generally do it with an adversarial motivation, or at least with some sort of contrary presupposition in mind. Nobody can possibly be as influenced by their online friends as they are by the society in which they live.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:50:06 +0000

Societies are indeed becoming from interconnected and interdependent. Many of them shedding archaic practices for Western ones. However, simply because a society sheds themselves of their parochial practices doesn’t mean they abandon all culture unique to their region. I think social factors, such as religion and society norms, will fluctuate but remain relatively unique.

By: theGeezer

theGeezer — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:01:19 +0000

The more I think about this, I believe I could really expand the analogy into an entire “Theory of Societal Geology”. Just remember, you heard the term here first.
We could designate those who change religion as Metamorphics.
Those of a violent proselytizing bent as Igneous.
The principals of erosion and tectonic shift leading to wars as inertial societies collide.
I had better stop now before I get too deep and write the thesis in the blog response.

By: theGeezer

theGeezer — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:44:18 +0000

The point I was striving at is that in the past 30 years, the world has gotten incredibly smaller. What used to be “the system you live in” went from those you physically rub elbows with to become those you communicate with in real-time (or near real-time). The chance to exchange thoughts and opinions with others of a different religion in a timely fashion has increased exponentially in that time. I believe this has had a great impact on religion in general. I think this has had the effect of more tolerance and learning about different religions by those who have the technological access on a daily basis, as well as a chance to spread once insular beliefs to a much wider audience.
In the past, the majority of the population had no real practical exposure to other beliefs or societal conventions. Thus I believe societal homogeneity will generally continue to become more of a concretion than a strata. There will be more and more shrinking enclaves of an identical society bound together with an increasing quantity of those with wider exposure and modified beliefs.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:21:22 +0000

To answer your question, I suspect you’d be whatever religion you say you are. But I think that particular situation may be an exception, not the rule. Furthermore, whether or not you’re a Methodist or Presbyterian isn’t all that pertinent. They’re both Christians sects, in America — that’s the point.

I was addressing more the larger picture of the religious time and space complex. Depending on what time in the course of history and where in the world typically determines what you believe and who you believe in. These factors determine who you are — but they are only valid for you and the people that make up the system you live in.

By: theGeezer

theGeezer — Sat, 03 May 2008 04:46:34 +0000

While in college I took a Comparative Religions class that was taught by a Muslim married to a Hindu living in a Christian area. (No, even though a geezer, I didn’t personally get to talk to Mohamed, Vishnu, or Jesus…)
One of the thing I internalized in that class is the vast majority of people in the world will adopt the religion (or lack thereof) that they were raised under. I think that’s fairly obvious.
At least until they are of adult age and have a chance to be exposed to other religious choices via education (or the religion of their chosen mate).
But let me ask you a return question that I think is more interesting.

If you were a Christian until age 21, then dated, converted and married a Jew for 15 years before divorcing and renouncing that faith and becoming a Buddhist ascetic in a mid-life crisis for another 5 years and eventually chucking it all and became either an Atheist or Agnostic, what religion are you mostly?
Do you go statistically by years?

Another thing I believe has changed this whole issue radically in my lifetime has been the expansion and availability of instant communication and plethora of opinions available to everyone via the net.
My Prof was the first Muslim I ever met. His wife the first Hindu.
A teammate in college the first Buddhist I ever talked to.
Another the first Confucian.
I met and dated a Presbyterian (yeah, still a protestant Christian sect to which they were “predestined” to be), then met and married someone who was a Catholic (being of Irish background, this WAS another religion…) until she converted to also become a Methodist. No pressure, just exposure to both service on Sunday mornings.
I had to actually be in college with others from around the world to get this exposure. (Granted, growing up on a farm in the boondocks vs a city didn’t help) I had done enough reading to know a little bit about other religions, but had no real first hand exposure to them and adherents and proponents thereof.

This is something I feel is pretty much a requirement for someone to go through before they actually make a serious decision to change religions from that in which they were raised.
There are those with enough intellectual horsepower to make a decision strictly via solitary reading, but I believe them to be few and far between.
Many more choices are made for expediency. (My father-in-law had to convert to Catholicism or my mother-in-law would not marry him).
Or as another example: “Wow…. Far out man… We should like, all become Buddhists or something and then like, peace will be everywhere man…”
(Yeah, I WAS old enough to actually hear that said first hand…)