Welcome to Gaia! ::

In my cross religious discussions and my journey into the various faiths I have taken up I have started to notice something. I couldn't quite put my finger on it until last night. I was viewing an article about the origin of the Easter Bunny and I started to wonder why I was getting upset by this article. Though misinformation in general upsets me, this in particular made me very upset. I began to think of why I get upset by this and it hit me. I was starting to fall into the trap of using my religion as a sense of identity.

Now don't get me wrong, sharing a common belief stance among individuals is a very powerful uniting factor but I question the benefit of it when one uses it as one's identity rather than a stepping stone to come to understand one's self. The reason I see this as a problem is because it is belief. Belief is very mutable, corruptible, and unstable in my studies. Beliefs can and do change over time as new information becomes available. To have a belief be how one defines one's self and sense of identity, given what the nature of belief is, seems very counter productive to one's development and can lead to delusional thinking.

What I've noticed is that when one uses one's belief stance, "I am a theist", "I am a Christian", "I am an atheist", "I am a Pagan" "I am a Gnostic"... to define who one is this leads to, attachments for lack of a better word. A better word might be filter, where one sees, "the other", those that don't share the same belief stance as an attacker or a threat to their belief stance. This supposed threat is claimed to be a threat or attack to their beliefs but I doubt that they see this supposed threat on their beliefs but rather on their sense of self. To threaten those belief stances is to threaten one's sense of self and identity. So they not only perceive these attacks to be attacks to on their beliefs but attacks on their very identity.

Am I getting on the right track here or am I completely off?

This is why people throw such a tantrum when you tell them they're not Wiccan wink they've been defining themselves by this word.

Exacty so.The problem comes when statements like "I am a Heathen" become more than a simple descriptor, but a definition.
Yes, I'm a Heathen. However, I'm also an artist, a nerd, and a histroy buff. These descriptors are all a part of me. But none of then are me.

I don't know...on one level I can see why it'd be bad for your religion to define you, on the other, at least in Christianity, there is a certain demand that it be the center of your life. When you're Saved by someone, you owe them everything,and it does become personal. Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes there is some demands that it be the center of your life but does making it the center of your life change one's core self or enhance one's core self? Is one's identity destroyed by it or resurrected by it?

As regards to offering your life to someone that saves would depend on who your savior is. Is your savior a military commander that expects unquestioning loyalty from his/her followers or one that does not fear humble questions since s/he is the truth? Is your savior one who would tell you to destroy a town for not receiving you as his/her follower or would she/he rebuke you for thinking such things? Does your savior ask you to give up your treasures or does your savior expect that and much much more than you can possibly do even with his/her help?

Just some questions to think about.

And it doesn't help when those that are supposed to be helping those understand scripture and offering guidance take advantage of those seeking guidance and will exploit that to gain devoted followers to them or to a god of their own creation.

And there's no problem with that except when those beliefs are equated with the self, i.e. I am who I am because I believe such and such. When confronted with an experience that shakes such belief, if that belief is a defining factor of the self it will shake the self or at least the identity you have created.

In religious terms, it is often called a crisis of faith, which isn't a bad thing but just an uncomfortable position to be in since it literally shakes up the world or sense of order we have created in our personal understanding of things.

I don't get along with theist who are like that either XD.

You're supposed to be more yourself, not washed out by the religion.
I disagree with being enslaved to the group that shares your belief. There are definitely times when the church is off, like one woman felt the Lord called her to seek Him alone, and the church objected because she was good at leading their woman's group. She obeyed Him, and it definitely turned out for the best. If your a Christian, your allegiance should first go to God, and the church should be more a place where people can stand together in the Lord. No one should always expect the church to get it right though.

The this means that your religion is not your identity. Thus Christianity in general is not a target of this conversation.

Okay I'm lost at where your going with this.


I wasn't accusing him of such. I was just stating that if you have a savior that is ill-meaning why stay with him/her.



It seems you missed the point of my analogy so I'll speak a bit plainer. It seems you haven't seen this manipulative and self-destructive aspect that can exist within any belief system and this aspect can even be put into Christianity. The hypothetical savior that I was describing that demands unquestioning loyalty, expects more than you are capable of even with that said savior's help, and destroying towns that won't receive you is a Jesus and God that some (I'm not saying all) churches do actually teach and they will use Bible verses (often out of context) to support this view.

The analogy I was trying to get across is that there's no problem with Christianity just say aware of who your Savior is. Based on what you've described of your Savior is, he wouldn't want you to define who you are by your religion, so I'm failing to see what point, if any, you are trying to make