Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zetice | Hacker News Reader

Eh, it's genuine as long as you subscribe to their set of beliefs. This may not be a problem for you, but for folks who care about reality, it could be more difficult.

The difference between this and say, a rec soccer team, is that it's an all-or-nothing endeavor. You can't "casually" become a Jehovah's Witness (or any other religion), you have to decide that your entire life is aligned to those principles.

I'm not knocking it (here, anyway), but I would hesitate to join a religion to make friends.

View on HN

There are quite a lot of varying degrees of casual believers in religion. I grew up in a family of Christians/Catholics who never go to church, rarely say grace, have never personally read the Bible, but still believe in God/afterlife/etc and have personal beliefs that are molded from religious teachings.

I know at least for the Christian based religious groups I'm aware of, you don't even need to share faith to be part of the community.

Believe it or not, they don't get into fist fights when they meet someone of another faith either.

For Jehovah's Witnesses specifically, this could not be further from the truth [0], and for Christian groups generally, you beg the question here by ceding one must believe in that religion's concept of a deity/afterlife/etc. Such a belief is extremely hard to come by if not raised in that religion, and even harder if you're attached to reality's cause-effect relationships. Not impossible! But hard.

And you're right; warring religious groups don't use fists...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_congrega...

Citing a disciplinary rulebook is not citing reality.

Yeah it is, when you’re talking about being a “casual” Jehovah’s Witness.

That’s not a thing. They’re probably among the worst examples of religion as a hobby.

And the bible is... what exactly? :)

This is a stupidly glib comment. The poster meant that the reality of life as a Jehova's Witness cannot be gleaned from looking at some document of the religion, and I think you knew that, but decided to take a shot at the Bible anyways because you've been acculturated to think that dunking on religion is both correct and acceptable.

It should be acceptable, why not?

Even non-believers have had their beliefs shaped in part by experiences with religion. In the case of joining a religious community, adhering to the dogma is usually important, let alone preferred.

I also have known "Catholic-lite" adherents, but they ultimately identify as Catholic. Anyway some of the minor sects don't take the distinctions between theirs and others lightly.

> it's an all-or-nothing endeavor

I don't know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses but certainly there are a lot of religions that are comfortable with people coming by out of curiosity and/or participating sporadically.

I think that's how most people do it.

They're referring to what happens if you join the faith, and then leave it: Defellowshipping, aka shunning.

I googled the word and the first google hit tells me that if I am following those rules, it's not cool for me to say hello to someone in that state of being.

Yeah, JW are, to put it mildly, nuts. They also outlaw blood transfusions. They literally expect you to just die if you experience any sort of trauma.

That's right, we choose not to accept blood transfusions. But, "literally expect you to just die if you experience any sort of trauma." is outright wrong. We strongly value life! We spend a lot of time and resources to understand transfusion alternatives, of which there are many, and we each individually make the decisions as to what types of treatment we will accept.

If you want to find out what we actually believe: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnes...

Let me ask you a direct question, and I hope you'll respond directly.

Lets say all of those "transfusion alternatives" demonstrably fail, and someone has two choices left: Transfuse or Die; you might phrase that as "Transfuse or Pray", but either way...

...What then? When all other options are exhausted, the prayers aren't working, and your last chance to live involves transfusions, are they permissible?

They aren't. That's where a strong future hope comes in, and the desire to follow God's laws over all else.

That doesn't make it easy, but if one truly believes something, shouldn't they be be willing to make sacrifices for it? People don't think twice about giving their life for their country, so why would somebody be any less convicted?

A country is a real thing. What if someone truly believed in Santa Claus and was ready to sacrifice their life believing that will save Santa/follow his teachings? Would you think that's ridiculous?

Now replace Santa with God, this is what atheists believe...

Travolta lost millions of dollars on Battlefield Earth. That's commitment!

> But, "literally expect you to just die if you experience any sort of trauma." is outright wrong.

How's this: "literally expect you to die if you're in need of a blood transfusion to survive". Seems pretty much in line what what you espouse.

Would JW like to outlaw transfusions? Like, do many of them believe it should be illegal, like many catholics believe birth control should be illegal?

No, we don't impose our beliefs on others, and we stay out of all politics. We respect everyone's right to choose for themselves.

Ah thanks, didn't realize JW do not vote! Interesting!

   but I would hesitate to join a religion to make friends.

Agreed. That isn't what I suggested. I answered the question asked. Nowhere did I say somebody should attain to becoming a JW to have more friends. That's the exact wrong reason in fact.

So is “community” or anything else OP asked about, if you aren’t capable or comfortable with disregarding reality.

My mum some years back got involved in a church (as a non religious person).

She somehow ended up giving talks at church events and got invited to speak out of town (she would talk about subjects such as helping refugees etc).

Eventually though she felt like she was being excluded in subtle ways and being asked to give too much of her time.

I also went to a couplebbible reading events some years back (free food lol) as my gf used to be religious and wanted me to go along.

Everyone was nice, food was good, but I couldn't get over how everyone in the group would listen to a story (which would literally make zero sense) and swallow it down as if it was a bed time story.

Religion is weird.

> Religion is weird.

I think it's fair to say that there are people who:

{believe | disbelieve} x {true things | false things} x {for good reasons | for bad reasons}.

Deciding what's true can be a challenge.

> Deciding what's true can be a challenge.

It's not too hard when you hear ridiculous stories and treat them as if they were to happen today.

The one I remember from the church event was about a big guy that couldn't be subdued and then ended up breaking through chains.

So many questions from a single statement. Everyone else literally sat there and didn't blink an eye.

> It's not too hard when you hear ridiculous stories and treat them as if they were to happen today.

Maybe it hinges on which parts of the stories you imagining happening today.

E.g., if Jesus rose from the dead next week, I'd find it pretty thought-provoking. If he were merely crucified but stayed dead, I'd cross Christianity of my list of plausible world views.

I.e., a lot really depends on whether or not those miraculous events actually happened.

> if Jesus rose from the dead next week, I'd find it pretty thought-provoking. If he were merely crucified but stayed dead, I'd cross Christianity of my list of plausible world views.

In today’s environment, how would you evaluate the truth value of a claim like that? It seems like the only way to 100% convinced of the truth would be as a first-hand witness, unless there was some kind of detailed and airtight evaluation.

Maybe the foundation document for the next world religion will be a 100-page paper that definitely establishes causality.

Yeah, good point. We're definitely in an age of super-powered disinformation.

As a believer - thanks for the insight! Normative acceptance of bizarre claims must feel odd. I guess there is a passing familiarity with some of these stories in some of these communities that means they are either unexceptional or at least, not the “main game” as supernatural beliefs go — but that must have felt strange!

Most faith communities I’ve been part of have had some form of space for questions and encouraged discussion about stories they have heard. I’ve found probably 1 in 10 people would start a discussion about this and maybe half would engage with it, suggesting community is a big part of the draw but also that for a significant minority, community is centred on some of these “big if they were to happen today” events.

I do think wrestling with our reality to understand the nature of the world is a pretty powerful force for creating meaningful relationships! But this depth can also be uncomfortable or abstract at times.

Religion is a special kind of thing that's quite different. It isn't like a philosophy or believing vaccines don't work. It's a structure of your reality.

Once you learn that parables may exist and are never literal, but can still impart wisdom, it makes more sense.

Religion wouldn't be a problem if people understood the difference between descriptive and prescriptive text. Churches don't teach this.

The fundamentalists don't teach it, many do.

I was involved in multiple churches for over 20 years, none of them taught it, none were fundamentalists.

JW are all or nothing, but lots of other religious communities accept various degrees of unbelief: various Jewish denominations, Quakers, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Western-style Buddhists, etc. Catholicism is officially all or nothing but if you're born into it, there are a lot of liberal parishes where you're not expected to actually believe it. There was an Episcopalian meme circulating in the 00s where it showed a picture of the controversial liberalizing American Archbishop with the text "Don't believe in that crap? Neither do we."[1] That's pretty standard among mainline denominations.

[1]: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/apropos-of-episcopal-p...

You don't have to subscribe to their set of beliefs. They are not telepaths, they don't know whether you actually believe or not.

For that matter, it's debatable whether or not the believers actually believe things. They probably wonder themselves sometimes. They don't often make a big deal out of it, if they do find themselves no longer believing... and there is a conceptual framework built into the religion (that of "loss of faith").

Like the ancient religions, being willing to perform the rituals non-cynically is really the only requirement. You and everyone else already perform dozens of non-religious rituals and think nothing of it. What's a few more?

I mean, don't do it if you don't want to. But don't pretend the option's not open to you. Even if there's a clever believer there that somehow reads your mind, you're not unwelcome at most of these places even then.

Religions are very different. Imagine Islam vs. Buddhism for example. The GP point is a valid one: fellowship alongside a shared set of core beliefs is invaluable. The problem is not all shared beliefs have equal merit.

I could be a white supremacist and find great fellowship with other white supremacists but this would be destructive in the long run, in the short term to others due to my prejudice but in the longer term to myself because those beliefs are objectively abhorrent. But not all shared belief systems are abhorrent.

Instead, groups of people for centuries have found camaraderie exploring what it means to follow a certain historical figure, Jesus Christ. Looking at his teachings you can see that this will lead to vastly different outcomes than following a Joseph Smith, a Muhammad, a Richard Dawkins, etc.

> Eh, it's genuine as long as you subscribe to their set of beliefs. This may not be a problem for you, but for folks who care about reality, it could be more difficult.

Sounds like any friend/social group that has strong political beliefs too? Was enlightening to see this in 2016 when I shared I didn't vote for Hillary. Heaven forbid I voted libertarian, was like having a scarlet letter on my chest.

Not related, as politics are a disagreement about forms of reality. Religion necessitates you believe in something beyond reality.

Also good for your friends, they were right.

>I'm not knocking it (here, anyway)

>but for folks who care about reality

You tried

Religious cults prey on the weak. Their entire recruitment ethos is based around offering vulnerable people help in times of need.

Nobody joins for purely the social aspect. "All or nothing" is fairly accurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com