Parallel/horizontal conversions- with, or against the tide of rational thought?
Offline I've met a number of people who have converted from one religion to another. In fact, this seems to be the primary source of religious converts today aside from birth- other religions.
When I hear of it, I'm always a little bit curious. Sometimes I think "well, that's *slightly* less crazy", and sometimes I'm blown away by how they've adopted an even more irrational stance.
When a Christian converts to Judaism, for example, I tend to think "Okay, back to the roots-- that at least makes more sense if we're assuming divine inspiration for the OT scripture, given the absurdity of the whole Jesus thing"
Likewise, when a Christian converts to Buddhism, Raëlism, or even Scientology (Christianity is pretty "up there" crazy metric-wise in my book).
In instances such as Muslim to Christian converts, I tend to scoff "Well, that didn't simplify anything at all", and Christian to Muslim converts are about the same.
Somebody went through all of the trouble of firing up his or her brain, and rejecting a religion, only to accept one of approximately equal absurdity? This seems to mark them, by my estimate, as even more crazy than they started out.
What are some of the more and less rational conversions you've seen?
Could you put a finger on what makes some conversions more rational, and others less?
Do you have a running list of religions in order of absurdity?
- Login to post comments
Hehe, I was christian(methodist), then wiccan, then eclectic pagan, then AS heathen. I find it perfectly rational, hehe.
ciarin.com
Your painting of Freya is quite good.
I'll break this down:
Methodist -> Wiccan
Definitely with the tide of rationality.
Wiccan -> Eclectic pagan
I would usually say that this is equivalent as it still involves magical powers, or even a loss of rationality, but I believe this transition was where you realized, or were realizing, that you didn't have magical powers yourself.
Normally ascribing something to gods or outside powers is less rational, but you did it because you determined that you *didn't* have powers, and yet held onto the belief that there still was something going on.
So, one thing stayed the same (belief in magical powers), and one thing became more rational (the realization that you didn't have them- which was the one thing that could be tested), so you ascribed them to an outside force, which was the only other logical place they could be.
Eclectic pagan -> AS heathen
Assuming you had lost the belief that you had magical powers prior to this, this represents a codification of the former belief. However, as you were codifying them into specific beings without objective evidence that those specific beings were behind it, this represents a small loss of rationality- a little against the grain.
That is, it seems like you went from a higher degree of uncertainty in what was behind them, to a lower degree of uncertainty.
However, this is making a number of assumptions about your beliefs as an eclectic pagan which may not be true.
It could be that your beliefs as an Eclectic pagan were very broad and accepting, and that they engendered contradictions by the acceptance of too many sources, so by culling them *down* to a more limited field you moved in the direction of more rationality.
I will assume that it's this later possibility of whittling down a pantheon rather than building one up- as you say you don't deny other gods, but simply have favored some.
Now all there is to it is to get you to assert that these gods aren't supernatural- that the powers you have witnessed are natural ones, either derived from ancient technology, or the xenobiology of the beings in question (or another equally natural source).
Then, perhaps, we might be getting somewhere.
It would come down to the question of why you give them these particular names, and why you call them gods, and not by another term.
I still believe I have magic powers. The reason I moved away from wicca is because I didn't agree with it's tenets, and I didn't like the history of it. I moved towards AS heathen(and roman recon) is because I favour my ancestry and I wish to bring back their beliefs and traditions, I find them very agreeable with my outlook on life.
ciarin.com
also, thanks for the compliment on my painting. I'm trying to do one of Woden, but Im'm having trouble finding a model. Plus all my oils are in MA, since I couldn't bring them on the plane, and I can't ship them. Gotta wait till I can afford to buy more. Might try doing a charcoal instead though.
ciarin.com
While I can appreciate the ethnocentrism for aesthetic reasons, disregard what I said about it being more rational; You've pretty much flat-lined (as far as increases or decreases) since leaving Christianity.
What magic powers do you believe you have? Not like Luminon-magic-pants? Please, say it ain't so.
I would advise against charcoal for reasons of wanting to see a more complete set which would be in a complimentary style. However, for Woden (and some of the others) charcoal would be easier to get the feel right.
If you do go with charcoal, I suggest that you paint with the eraser, rather than with the charcoal stick itself. Just blacken the whole paper, and go from there; it's going to be much more conducive to the grittier and more painterly feel you'll probably want. I'm not sure how much experience you have with charcoal, but it's more forgiving that way if you use good paper, and if you do it right, it feels like a deeper (physical depth) piece without the risk of being over-worked so easily.
Have you seen my charcoals on the art page?
the powers I have is the ability to fly, the ability to see the future, and the ability to cast spells.
ciarin.com
If any of those I've seen are charcoal (and it looks like a couple may be), you're making the mistake of using the charcoal as if it were a pencil. You need to draw with movement of your arm, and work the powder you're creating on the paper more with the blunt of your hand- in short, be more messy. You seem to be far too reserved with it; Unless I've seen the wrong images.
Please link me if I'm looking at the wrong thing here.
You are joking?
EDIT: I see the Harlequin Dane was fairly well done; your pictures over time definitely express some improvement in precisely what I mentioned. Still a little on the clean and reserved side, though.
I did these charcoals in high school btw. but thanks for trying to be my art teacher.
Here are the charcoals:
http://ciarin.com/artgallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=4
http://ciarin.com/artgallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-17
http://ciarin.com/artgallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=0
ciarin.com
The girl is what I was talking about in my comments. Different mediums behave in very different ways, and are benefited by very different tactics. Paint and charcoal are nearly diametrically opposed. The precision that makes your painting good is working against you in charcoal, which thrives in chaos.
Charcoal is easy to use, but hard to master; working backwards from black with a less precise tool could help you in this.
If you don't believe me, ask somebody else with experience with the medium. I don't like to make a habit of granting advice where it won't be considered.
hehe, don't be offended if I don't take your advice. I failed art in high school. I prefer doing things my own way.
Btw I'm ok with working backwards from black, I've used scratch board as well.
ciarin.com
That's alright, you'll learn by trial and error eventually either way. The real benefit of having access to those who have mastered (or at least partially mastered) certain mediums is being able to learn from their errors as well.
See my edit in the prior post, though; the Dane is going in the right direction (the bear in a very wrong direction).
Strive less for defining lines and more for suggesting shadow volumes- even if you only try it once. Just experiment, and you'll figure it out; don't assume that you can follow the same progression you did with painting, though- these are very different beasts.
Anyway, seriously: You were joking about your magical powers?
Edit:
Yes, it's kind of similar. Just don't be precise with the eraser, though. Think of it like shining a light, and gently highlight those areas the light touches to slowly bring out your subject. It's fuzzy; not like the strong contrast of a scratch board.
Let me assure that my style of charcoal has changed in the past 15 yrs. I can't show you anything more recent because most of my pieces are in MA in storage.
Do you think I was joking or being serious about my powers?
ciarin.com
You have said things before regarding the nature of personal supernatural powers- that is, that you previously believed in them, and liked the idea, but found certain aspects of it unrealistic (I may be paraphrasing badly), that leads me to believe that you are joking about believing that you have magic powers at all.
Insofar as that is not correct, though, one power is as ridiculous as another, so long as they penetrate into the realm of the supernatural.
yea I was kinda joking. I haven't learned to fly.....yet. I can see the future and cast spells though.
ciarin.com
I'm impressed by that Harlequin.
Could you tell us some more specific details about casting spells and seeing the future?
thanks.
not really.
ciarin.com
Yea, but I don't think most people change their belief due to some rational process, so I think our subjective opinion of the rationality of a particular religion is not applicable. These people are changing because a given religion makes them feel better, not because it is more logical. This thread is a good example, she did not change because she thought it made more sense, she changed because it stroked her ego (I don't mean that insultingly).
You might make a case for rational thought leading to liberalizing of a particular belief though, at least with Christianity and Islam. But I imagine, unfortunately, that is still mostly cultural.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Usually, maybe, but there can be an abandonment of a certain number of irrational assumptions.
For example, a Christian may assume:
Divine inspiration for OT scripture
Divine inspiration of NT scripture.
Divinity of Jesus, miracles by said Jesus, etc.
Converting to Judaism, said person might just throw the later two out, and work on being more consistent with the first one.
This seems like a rational direction to move in, if only because certain irrational assumptions (though not all of them) were thrown out.
Whether spurred for emotional reasons or not, the direction possibly more or less rational based on that, no?
Have you ever met anyone who did anything like that for those reasons? I imagine it must be fairly rare!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I believe that this is one of the justifications (people will generate a number of justifications for anything they do) that is found in nearly any conversion from Christianity to Judaism- it *is* one of the available ones, after all, so it would be silly not to use it if you were converting anyway (for whatever *real* reason).
I'd be very interested in hearing more first hand accounts, though.