#i guess 'relationship to faith' might be more right? idk. 'philosophy'? 'spirituslity'? words are not very useful.

[thedreadvampy]

mind you I think it's dicy to make broad, wide-ranging statements about what any Entire Religious Group means to its adherents because like. if there's one thing I've learnt from the Quaker addiction to discussion groups it's that even if we all agree to the same stuff on paper, what resonates, what gets prioritised, how it's interpreted into practise, and why it's important are all intensely personal things that are WILDLY different person to person.

we're all different people with different inner and outer lives and that shapes our relationship with the divine and with faith in general. like a) there's not a singular right shape for faith to be and b) even if there was a singular external shape that was right for all of us - same framework, same rituals and actions, same philosophy - we would still all relate to it differently and it would be right for different reasons.

like I talk about religion and faith a lot in my regular life because I'm very interested in it (and because, embarrassingly, I've increasingly had to acknowledge that faith is a big part of my life. this is embarrassing in the same way that having feelings for my partners of over a decade is embarrassing. oh no. genuine and cringeworthy emotion. particularly cringe given that I have an abiding feeling that Having Spirituality is a bit woo and silly and gullible even though I have LITERALLY HAD A REVELATORY RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE). buuuuut. imo faith is one of those things you can only really talk about from a personal perspective.

obviously religion exists as a political and material force and we can talk about that in general terms. like you know. Eg the Catholic church is an organisation that exists, has organisational stances, and very clearly acts on the world and makes edicts as a religious body. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakerism) exists, has organisational stances and very clearly acts on the world and makes statements as a religious body. That's not personal, that's general. We can talk broadly, too, about the explicit unifying beliefs of any given faith group. For example: Christianity involves a belief in Jesus Christ, who is probably either the son of God or God in human form, having been killed and then resurrected. Not every Christian believes that, but it's a part of how Christianity self-defines. Similarly, Quakers specifically believe in the driving principles of living a life led by commitment to Truth, Justice, Peace, Simplicity and Sustainability, and in creating space within themselves to be moved by the Spirit to actions which are right. Those are explicit beliefs.

But. What those things mean - how they're interpreted, why they're important, whether they're literal, how they shape your actions and reactions, what's easy and what's challenging - those things are personal and not universal and are going to vary person to person.

In any conversation, we can talk about:

how I experience my faith

how you experience your faith

how we interpret each other's experiences

what other people have said about their faith and how we understand that

but there's not a Singular Correct Experience (and if there was, why would I be the One Person To Know About It?). and when we act as if there is one - as if any philosophy or religion is a strictly 100% unified shared experience - we're moving further away from having a useful discussion that develops our understanding of our own faith tbh

#red said #including atheism or agnosticism as 'faith' here tbh. bc they're equally diverse and nuanced. #i guess 'relationship to faith' might be more right? idk. 'philosophy'? 'spirituslity'? words are not very useful.