Your Thoughts on Religion and Philosophy

Hello.

What are your thoughts in religion and philosophy? Discuss your opinions, thoughts and questions here.

Do not create conflict please. It would be great to have an openminded discussion about topics that will cause strong reactions in many people.

Enjoy.

Very simply put: I look at religion and philosophy objectively, trying give all views a fair shot. I try to cast aside personal emotions when considering different perspectives of religions and stances (e.g. I don't automatically assume that Christianity is more credible than Norse mythology, like practically everyone else seems to).

Avoiding a human-made convention and therefore becoming unnatural?

Born into Christian faith in a secular society and family, I was expected to go through the rite of confirmation around the age of 15. In this region, this rite is of a higher importance than it seems to be in most other places. Not for religious reasons, however, but for the presents (which average to a total of almost 7000 USD), for tradition and for not being that weird kid in class that doesn't follow social conventions. While the standard is for most non-Christian teenagers to go through a humanist variant which is also acknowledged as following social convention, I chose to stay home sleeping in and playing video games as I heard the church bells ring from a crowded area visible from my hilltop childhood home. I thought this was a fairly logical decision, equal to both Christian and humanistic confirmation, so I was surprised when fellow teenagers refused to believe me when I said I didn't go through the rite. Even more surprised was I when I heard a friend of the family say I was going to get even more money than a confirmant for my birthday from them because of my will to "make a stand", even though I had no such thing in mind. I merely didn't believe in Christianity objectively, nor do I felt like being part of a non-theistic community based on an ethical stance. This especially considering many teens I know who are members there don't actually know much about it, and basically just call humanism the atheist's choice instead of religion. For my friends and fellow teenagers, Christianity or humanism were seen as the "standard" forms we are born into. I, however, felt that the standard is as naked as the newborn baby. The standard stance for me to take was to not become a member of any society, because what natural law is it that dictates human-made social and religious conventions are always logical standards?

The words myth and mythology, and objectivity while considering them

Some people feel offended because I prefer the expression "Christian mythology" over "Christian faith", which actually are synonymous. From The Free Dictionary's website:
"myth, definition 1. a. - A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.-
"mythology, definition 1. a. - A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes."

Many associate "myth" with "fiction", although that assumption probably typically derives from people seeing heathen mythologies (such as Norse mythology = Norse faith = Norse religion) as obviously fictuous. Me, however, trying to give different religions the same shot, raise the same questions to e.g. Christianity as to e.g. Norse mythology. If you try to look up two translations of e.g. Völuspá, you'll see that the translators have different opinions on the literal meaning of some words and expressions (particularly heiti, when one word is used instead of another, and kenningar, which is a sentence being rewritten as a highly poetic metaphor). Confusion like this can also be seen in the translations of Bible, such as relating to the reference of the nephilim, which people seem to have split opinions on. There are also some really confusing parts of Christian faith, such as that of Hell. If I remember correctly, there's not a single reference to Hell in the early translations of the Bible: instead Christianity had the same as its ancestor Judaism: Gehenna. Gehenna is eternal nothingness, without any references to burning pits of torture. A burning afterlife can, however, be found in Norse mythology. While some (einherjar) went to Valhalla, many went to another place, called Helheim, ruled by the bipolar Hel, daughter of Loki. I consider this a good study of my objective studying of religion. While many I know wouldn't even find this fascinating and wouldn't question their faith at all because of it, just letting it slide, I wanted to investigate further. So I realized, while reading up on them, that Jehovah's Witnesses, which are a Christian denomination, do not believe in Hell whatsoever. Jehovah's Witnesses started out as a Bible study group, and they found several things that Christianity and the Bible did not agree upon. One of them was Hell. So Jehovah's Witnesses denounced Hell completely, going back to the roots and taking in Gehenna as a fact instead (this going back to the roots has led to Jehovah's Witnesses being one of the restorationist denominations within Christianity, restoration meaning "bringing back into existence", in this case meaning bringing back the Bible's true into Christianity). After discovering these things, I felt like I had enough background knowledge to question my teacher (which is more interested in her subject than the average teacher). She seemed happy that I had read up on this, and told me that it would indeed be difficult to find references to Hell in the Bible. We also talked some more about why it would make sense that Hell is in the Bible instead of Gehenna, so I could use some knowledge about Christian imperialism I learned in History class as well, though I this post is already way too long so I won't start talking about it unless someone asks at any point.

You might feel that the objectivity above might have seemed more sympethatic with irreligion than with Christianity, but I feel like that's how it usually is when someone's objectivity "goes against the grain". I didn't really write much about objectivity regarding Norse mythology other than its equal objectivity with Christian mythology, but that's because of how much easier it is to question its logic. Do we live on a flat, round surface with a sea at the outer edges? No. Therefore the Norse worldview doesn't agree with the actual one... Religious doubt ahoy.

How do you feel?
How do you do things?
Do I seem like I already lean towards a perspective, or do I lean along with where objectivity leads me?
Should I do anything differently?