User:The Ungovernable Force/Poll

Ok, so I decided to start a page where I can hold straw polls to get people's opinions on various things, either related to wiki or not. Right now, I want to know what religious text people think I should read. I personally lean towards a mix of agnostic atheism, strong agnosticism, and I just saw the term "spiritual agnosticism" on the agnosticism page and that sounded sort of good as well. I also lean towards a somewhat animistic way of thinking. Basically I have trouble believing, and in fact dislike the concept, of God(s/ess/esses) as actual beings with any kind of power that control things. I have less of an issue with "god" defined from a pantheistic (or maybe even a panentheist) viewpoint.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be "find the religious or spiritual text you think will fit my beliefs best." As an anthropologist, I just want to get exposed to some ideas that I may or may not agree with, but that I hopefully haven't had much exposure to yet. In other words, the Bible or Torah probably aren't great options since the society I live in, America, is flooded with those ideas. The Qur'an might be ok, but I still would prefer to get away from a monotheistic view. Perhaps some of the Vedas, or some other Eastern thing. Any ideas? BTW, this poll is non-binding as I have the right to choose not to read whatever most people think I should. Also, please give reasons as to why you think I should read the text you propose. Thanks!  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Support
ok, i've had a few beers, so i hope i don't make a mess of your poll. i very much recommend reading The Alphabet vs. The Goddess by Leonard Shlain, and Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. The first is basically this guy's case for the idea that the written language has increased patriarchy (by altering the way our brains function) in every culture it's touched. at the same time, it's a rad history of the world, and it's ("major") religions. to add a little more, it kinda goes through the history of religions, and they were changed once they either came into contact with highly literate societies, or how they changed once they were written down. talks about christianity, islam, confucianism, buddhism, and tons of other stuff. i definitely can't feel that every single point is proven to unquestionable lengths, but all of it is very interesting to think about. Snow Crash is a cyberpunk novel that touches on a lot of interesting things having to do with how language and religion have affected the world, and how people function because of them.

I'd support reading Snow Crash but as a highly interesting and highly fictional treatment of religion (and anarcho-capitalism!) rather than actually being educational beyond showing some relationships between religions and between religious dissemination and other kinds. Skomorokh incite 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
meh, i don't oppose reading ANYthing. it's all interesting in some way. even the Book of Mormon.

Neutral
i suppose i'm kinda neutral on folks reading things like the bible or the koran, as that shit seems to just seep into everybody's psyches whether they like it or not. bleecchhh.

Comments
hopefully, i'll have some more ideas tomorrow, as i find religions just as fascinating as they are disturbing/unbelievable/mind-numbing/and terribly influential. Murderbike 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Support
This book is pretty good at supporting any kind of individualist spirituality. it reads like poetry and is full of symbolism. the basic point in my opinion is that everyone reaches spiritual enlightenment in their own way. yes (band) based their awesome song "close to the edge" on the novel, it's not punk but it kicks my ass. Amirman 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite what the back cover might lead you to believe, it's not a knock-off biopic of the Buddha. This book was one of the formative spiritual experiences of my youth, but it's translated prose might be a bit simplistic for an adult audience. VanTucky 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
First, this work associates ideas and attitudes with Siddhartha which have little (prior) to do with him. If Hesse's ideas had merit, they would not need to be supported by such misappropriation. (He might, of course, have needlessly engaged in such deceit, but one should be moved to a position of greater distrust.) Second, like Demian and Der Steppenwolf, I found this book to be shallow, middle-aged fantasizing. There are no real insights hereïn, only cheap wish-fulfillment. —SlamDiego 08:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
Trite pseudo-spiritualizing mixed with a notion that heterosexual female lust is repulsive. —SlamDiego 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
Personally, I call myself a Confuciust (sp?), not heavily though, as the only thing I have to base myself off of is this book; but all it is a collection of quotes and stories, and that along I believe makes it somewhat interesting to read. It basically exhibits the moral code that Confucius tried to adhere to in his life. Fephisto 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
Called '____ of change" I believe. It's the basis for Taoist beliefs, and Confucius mentions that y'all should read it in The Analects.  Fephisto 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming from an ex-Daoist, I totally support reading this text because it is filled with great ideas.--Ghostbear616 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you read classical Chinese, your impression will be at least somewhat based on the translation you choose. I recommend the star translation. It has a break down character by character and his own translation that preserves the beauty of the text. Ixtli 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I fourth this motion. I recommend browsing a few different translations to get a feel for them. 80 or so can be read at http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/_IndexTTK.html.

If you read no other religious text, let it be this one. I would strongly echo Ixtli's caveat on translations though. Skomorokh incite 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I honestly prefer the Zhuangzi, this one is good too. Owen (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Support
The greatest narrative about the power of spiritual redemption ever written. Sometimes just hacking though it can be exhausting (especially if you pick a bad translation), but doing so is a calculated and powerful way of bringing about a real empathy for the protagonist's transformation. It may be a little too Christian-focused at the end. But for me (a confirmed atheist) Dostoevsky was a far more interesting Christian than your modern variety of evangelical. It's about the nature and power of suffering (the all-encompassing Buddhist idea of suffering, not just the physical) to redeem, and the way cool but somehow bizarre Christian existenialism. Check out the article. VanTucky 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
Truth is not determined by polling, and sometimes everyone really is wrong. But too often people reject the most common viewpoint without proper examination, because of a romantic desire to "take the road less traveled," or an aversion to conventionality. People naturally yearn for significance, and a misapplication of that yearning can manifest itself as a prejudice against convention.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world, being dominant on four of the six inhabited continents, and growing on the other two. There are good reasons for that, but chief among them is the fact that Christ really does intervene in people's lives in profound and miraculous ways. C.S. Lewis is, perhaps, the most influential Christian apologist of the 20th century, and Mere Christianity is his most famous work.

BTW, I assume that you have some familiarity with the Christian Bible. If not, you should probably read a bit of it before diving into Christian apologetics. I'd suggest starting with one or more of the synoptic gospels (Matthew/Mark/Luke), and John, and a couple of Paul's letters (perhaps 1 Corinthians & Galatians), and at least part of Proverbs and Psalms. NCdave (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)