"Apostate Prophet" (re)Becoming Religious

Apostate Prophet17 hours ago

posted this: For 10 years, I was an atheist and agnostic. For 2 years, I have been searching.

Today, I have been accepted as a catechumen in the Orthodox Church, on my way to becoming a baptized Christian.

 --
My thoughts about this:

Your journey belongs to you.

If a religious culture, ... defined by a religious narrative, ... and given subjective value via social and psychological utility ... is what you decide is the best of all available paths for your journey, ... then I am happy for you; just as long as you aren't hurting anyone with it (or because of it). "For two years, I've been searching" means that for two years, you've felt you need something for your journey ... beyond what skepticism can provide. And to be honest, I feel the same way, generally. But I feel more drawn to Native American/Indigenous spirituality, ancient Stoicism spirituality, and panpsychism. My conscience wouldn't allow me to become a Christian. But when I say this, I don't mean that my conscience is necessarily superior. That just depends on the specifics of each version. Being "the Orthodox Church" ... is the very same claim that all rival Christian factions make for themselves. #Marketing.

But this doesn't matter to me. Just so long as your version isn't: * indoctrinating children, * preaching a literal hell, * teaching that everyone needs to accept that your conceptualization of "Jesus" died for them "or else" risk violent consequences, * infiltrating governments, * supporting right-wing politics, * colonizing societies, * putting women a tier below men on a social or "spiritual-authority" hierarchy, or * demonizing (or morally devaluing) LGBT+ persons, atheists, the sexually liberated, etc. ... then I would say "So far as I know, I am *not* their moral superior". I am incompatible with all of the Christianities (plural). But I'm only morally superior to *most* of those factions. In theory, I'm on a (roughly) equal moral footing with super-progressive (and non-literal) versions. In any case, I honestly don't know the specifics of your version. So I can't say anything about it. Is your version a moral-authoritarian version? I could never psych myself into moral-authoritarian dogmas. Yielding to those = allowing other fallible men to function as "God" over me. But again, this is a matter of incompatibility, for me. If someone wants to worship other men as "God" (while pretending that they aren't), who am I to say they shouldn't? I don't sit in judgment of people who practice spiritual BDSM. Those are their knees. I don't sit in judgment of people who lick the boots of other men's authority. It's their tongue. Joining a religion is always primarily a selfish act. However,

everyone has to be selfish at times, to survive and to thrive. I am not the arbiter of balance. Nobody is. Granted, anti-religion activists have some ethical lines they won't cross. And I happen to agree with them about those lines. Or, at least, most of those lines. And yet, I'm also pretty sure humanity will go extinct in my children's lifetime. And your relationship with religion will likely have no effect on how quickly that happens.

If you're happy, and **if** your version isn't hurting anyone, then I'm happy for you. Whereas, if your version IS hurting people ("in the name of Love"), then I WILL sit in moral judgment over it and you. However, I won't feel deeply personal about it. Because your life isn't about me. Also, I still won't give you any direct/personal grief about it. Because that never really remedies anything.