Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
Long Religion Short Secular Trade of the century https://x.com/phtevenstrong/status/1786507381188248034
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
you go to church?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
oh nah
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
okay so what's your thesis
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
at risk of putting a financial lens on a spiritual topic, especially before you've had a chance to respond to the above: where is your skin in the game? why are you sidelined on your own convictions? or is the tweet you've quoted not actually aligned with your belief? and if so, where do you differ from it?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
the tweet is marginal/adjacent to my beliefs but not necessarily aligned 1:1 i'm not pushing Christianity. or any religion to be clear. i don't consider myself advanced in my spiritual development to be doing that kinda thing. still a seeker.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
i think that's fair and valid no one should ask, but I'm gonna dump my opinion about this anyway: religiosity and spirituality are not the same religion is a forcing function for social connection, not connection to the divine. religious adherents connect to each other and develop a support network—THAT is their advantage in short: god is not what saves a congregation; congregating is. to intellectualize religion (as a concept) is to defeat it — in the worst way possible. the only way it works is a collective blinding. otherwise, there is no binding. spirituality is a separate thing. connecting to something larger than ourselves is difficult. arduous. it takes skill. religion, though, is lazy. automatic, even. in my view it's a shortcut to connection so, i don't doubt that the religious self-report as "thriving" but the spiritualists are seeking truth, not answers. a much harder path. long term, the religious encounter difficulty and rely on each other. the spiritual find it within themselves.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
couldn't disagree more. there's so much to say but a couple things: 1) actually i do agree that religiosity and spirituality are exactly not the same and i'm intentionally using them interchangeably. part of the reason being, again, idt most of us here are advanced enough in these subjects where this matters, and often they can stand in for each other, and sometimes the interchanging helps people get through psychological blocks. but in contexts where the difference matters, we should make it clear 2) religion CAN and often is a great forcing function for social connection but is primarily and objectively one of the best conduits for connection with the divine. not the only, to be sure. and i have no clue if it's the best. to think otherwise strikes me as absurd tbh. you simply just need to look at the history of religion. as complicated and messy as it is, it is also highly reliable as a vehicle. its fundamental function is to make the divine accessible (an insane feat)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
"objectively one of the best" "i have no clue if it's the best" again, where words matter, you're flagrantly violating the definition of "objectively" here. and, speaking subjectively, I didn't feel the divine until quite literally my first experience with spirituality outside of religion (the Tao Te Ching). instead, I felt shame and the weight of damnation. ie. God was everywhere in my church house, but there was no god to be found. and, outside of the tenets of the argument, I disagree with your stance on the grounds of dogmatism and logical inconsistency (a pitfall of my own argument! the irony! so rich!) you're advocating religion and claiming none for yourself. exactly what I'm doing. ah fuck. are you just me without the generational self hatred?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson
@dwayne
i'm a walking paradox if anything hehe but nah my advocacy of religion for me and for others is really about open-mindedly exploring and analyzing it again with our modern lens. i just don't want us to ignore what's in there because "we're so modern and smart now so we don't need that old shit". my advocacy is NOT about dogmatically taking it/them on. this is my real nuanced motive and essence of it (for reference, as it stands) re "objectively": i said it's objectively ONE of the best but admitted that i didn't know if it was THE best. lol.. i knew what i was saying 😉
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Caden Chase
@cbxm
lol, show me an objective quantification of spirituality that isn't based on subjective qualifications of reality overwhelming anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
