I need to clear this up because it frustrates me, since I get some prayer requests and asks about my denomination. The pictures I find do not reflect my personal values further than my aesthetic interest in the countryside, rituals, and myths. If the wooden shrines in central europe were shinto, buddhist, pagan, or else it would not change anything except the fact that they would be out of place unlike the catholic ones, and that's why they're here. The beauty in them is not because of one crucified god, but a human unity in preserving something in even sometimes desolate areas. The conquering of the perishable nature of these structures shows that someone so deeply cared for them. Someone always has to draw the woodworms out and light the candles. Whether the religion that drives this is true to me, is something else entirely. There are aspects that are beautiful, but there are equally as many gripes, and most dedicated believers probably would regard my views as absurd or too progressive in some areas (maybe except for st. Francis...). Connected with this though, is the function of shrines and temples, which are one of the only manmade places left today that reflect the need for quiet reflection and break the endless noise-stream of other human needs which civilisation oversupplies. Even the most dedicated of the anti-clerical saw this - Nietzsche accused christianity of hijacking ascetism and meditation as a christian-only activity, while praising its importance. I would not go as far as Nietzsche, but I believe that the destroyal of nature which naturally serves this purpose pushed the function over to religion. A beautiful church mimics the beauty of nature, which at some point shocked the people to the extent they had to make up polytheism to explain thunder. I appreciate the christian's eye for preserving beauty and stillness.
I do not believe in anything, even if I wished to, I am not the kind of person who is capable of it. Of course, one could go through the motions, but I do not condone pretending.
