All religions

[Michael]

There will always be a religion of some kind as long as there are humans here. They need to have something to believe in besides themselves.

I often wonder what will happen when death via the aging process is eliminated? If people have little fear of dieing of old age, can stay young and healthy, why worship anything? (Oh course some people will worship something because it's probably written into their DNA - but for 99% - I'd think no).

 

[Avatar]

There are plenty of problems besides dying and old age. Religions are also tended towards solving psychological problems not modifying reality.
How to be rich, how to be poor, how to be happy. how to be sad, where to look for peace, how to find adventure, purpose and bliss.

 

[Michael]

I suppose you are right - but don't most people deal with those issues by themselves or maybe get the advice of a friend or someone who knows about the particular issue at hand? I'd think very few people would turn to a religous book for guidance?!? Maybe just a priest?

 

[Avatar]

I don't think we're a model for a particulary healthy society - undirectional and with no common goal that's above the primitive economical.
Religion theoretically has the potential capacity and the tools to educate people and make them into fully functional members of the society.

There are very many people with psychological problems and the rate is increasing (I've been told this by several psychiatrists), many just have no idea how to be adults and walk past the classical Freudian triangle, so they are grown ups, parents and leaders with mentality of children.

Truth to be said most people can't solve their own psychological problems, and even more so solve the problems of others.

Of course todaay we have the problem that western religions have degenerated and "lost their way", but that's another topic.

 

[Hapsburg]

Religion = ideology ?

In many ways, yes.
An ideology is a particular set of philosophical principles, and ideals which one holds in high regard.
My view of religion is simply that religion is taking an ideological form of one's philosophy into a form of devotion.

So, really, religion is summarised best as an ideology that one is devoted to.
In that case, really, religion can be nearly anything. From political and economic, to metaphysical, to ethical, or even aesthetic philosophy.

 

[Enmos]

In many ways, yes.
An ideology is a particular set of philosophical principles, and ideals which one holds in high regard.
My view of religion is simply that religion is taking an ideological form of one's philosophy into a form of devotion.

So, really, religion is summarised best as an ideology that one is devoted to.
In that case, really, religion can be nearly anything. From political and economic, to metaphysical, to ethical, or even aesthetic philosophy.

In that sense, where is the need for a supernatural being and worship of such a being ?

 

[Hapsburg]

Metaphysics is an aspect of philosophy, correct?
Theology, and the concept of Deity, serve as an "easy way out" of crucial questions pertaining to metaphysics.

 

[Enmos]

Metaphysics is an aspect of philosophy, correct?
Theology, and the concept of Deity, serve as an "easy way out" of crucial questions pertaining to metaphysics.

So you say there is no real need, it's just lying to oneself.

 

[Hapsburg]

Not necessarily. It's impossible to know whether that "easy way out" is the right answer.
It might be more complex than that, but the inherent idea of Divinity might be correct. However, there's an equally possible chance that it is incorrect, and that true believers are deluding themselves. It is impossible to know for sure.

Personally, I view it as unnecessary to believe in a transcendent and autonomous deity figure with a personality, and that if (big "if" here) there is a Divinity, it is immanent and part of everything, rather than a single conscious being.

 

[Enmos]

Not necessarily. It's impossible to know whether that "easy way out" is the right answer.
It might be more complex than that, but the inherent idea of Divinity might be correct. However, there's an equally possible chance that it is incorrect, and that true believers are deluding themselves. It is impossible to know for sure.

Personally, I view it as unnecessary to believe in a transcendent and autonomous deity figure with a personality, and that if (big "if" here) there is a Divinity, it is immanent and part of everything, rather than a single conscious being.

I disagree, the chance of 'the easy way out' being correct is much much smaller than the chance of it being incorrect.
I still don't see the need for a supernatural being and worship of such a being ?

 

[Hapsburg]

Neither do I. That's why I don't literally worship any deities.
I venerate and respect the archetypes and ideas behind the divinities in Paganism, but i do not believe that they are literal beings.

 

[Enmos]

Neither do I. That's why I don't literally worship any deities.
I venerate and respect the archetypes and ideas behind the divinities in Paganism, but i do not believe that they are literal beings.

Are you a pagan then ? Well sort of ?

 

[Hapsburg]

Yes. Look at my user title, it's a fairly big hint.

The good thing about neo-Paganism, especially eclectic traditions, which are inherently syncretic, is that it affords a wide range of theological views. This is because Paganism is more of an umbrella term for a broad spectrum of traditions, or beliefs.
My personal views fall within an atheistic view of a mix of Germanic and Celtic paleopaganism. I do not literally believe in the gods; rather, I view them as archetypes of an idealised figure which they represent.

For example, the god Odin in Germanic paganism, to me represents an ideal King or ruler. The horned god of Celtic paganism, Cernunnos, represents to me, an idealised father or fertile husband. On the other hand, the chief goddess of Celtic paganism, Beira, represents an ideal mother figure, and the Norse goddess Freya is an idealised huntress figure, the ideal of the "working woman".
The mythological figures make good role models, but I do not believe they literally existed as gods. They may have existed as ancestral tribal leaders to those peoples, though, and were subsequently deified by tribal consensus, thus immortalising their deeds for future generations to follow.

 

[Enmos]

Yes. Look at my user title, it's a fairly big hint.

The good thing about neo-Paganism, especially eclectic traditions, which are inherently syncretic, is that it affords a wide range of theological views. This is because Paganism is more of an umbrella term for a broad spectrum of traditions, or beliefs.
My personal views fall within an atheistic view of a mix of Germanic and Celtic paleopaganism. I do not literally believe in the gods; rather, I view them as archetypes of an idealised figure which they represent.

For example, the god Odin in Germanic paganism, to me represents an ideal King or ruler. The horned god of Celtic paganism, Cernunnos, represents to me, an idealised father or fertile husband. On the other hand, the chief goddess of Celtic paganism, Beira, represents an ideal mother figure, and the Norse goddess Freya is an idealised huntress figure, the ideal of the "working woman".
The mythological figures make good role models, but I do not believe they literally existed as gods. They may have existed as ancestral tribal leaders to those peoples, though, and were subsequently deified by tribal consensus, thus immortalising their deeds for future generations to follow.

Oh lol
Paganism is really appealing to me but I can't believe in any deities (like you), so I don't want to identify myself with any. It's appealing to me like a good fantasy story or role playing game would also be.
Or the 'religion' of native americans, in short.. nature religions

 

[Hapsburg]

In short, that's what Paganism is. It's a broad range of earth-based, natural religions.
Which is why it appeals to me; it's not bastardised by the twisted Mesopotamian morality that permeates the Abrahamic religions. It's a lot more tolerant, and a lot more accepting of new ideas, as well as being big on the idea of personal responsibility.
It's the ethics, really, that matter the most in a religion.

 

[Photizo]

Mod note: deliberately misquoting me or any other person by altering the quoted post will result in severe punishment.

Avatar

:roflmao:

Reminds me of a Scripture...But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him...

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book...

All religions offer the experience of the divine to their followers, which mainly is a psychological experience of "epiphanic rapture" that mostly is created through ritual.
The rest is just local interpretation and some particular ethics which are not essential to the experience.

That's why, I think, it could be said that all religious people worship one thing, but that thing is not some god, is not an entity or a personification of something, it's an experience of their own psyche or self which, if experienced fully, is the godly bliss, paradise, lavondyss, avalon.

Because of this realization I've come to enjoy any such experience no matter the religion whether it is with krishnas, christians or some nature religion cult.

So I think that all the problems and clashes among followers of different religions is that they take their religions too seriously. Are in confusion and mistake their god to be the particular interpretation not the experience which is beyond names.

Maybe this realization should be the key worth exploring in order to create a world where people coexist peacefully on this religious level, eliminating the religious clashes that are still widespread today.
I think in time it would create a world culture that doesn't follow any particular religion, but still has the religious experience of wonder, amazement and sublime rapture that has fueled so many wonderful achievements of humankind.

 

[Grantywanty]

That's why their religions are losing force and in general have become not much more than a social ethics club. They interpret their symbols for being the real thing and not the metaphor.

This quality was present at the inception of certain religions, perhaps even more strongly. And in groups that are actively seeking rapturous experiences this is also often true. I still think you have chosen one kind of religious experience, prioritized it in a way that means that most religious people are not religious AND are making claims about how these rapturous experiences were actually just brain states and the originators knew this. I do not think this is true. I think many of the orginators and current practitioners, perhaps especially those seeking experiences you are talking about, take much of their myths literally.

That limits their access to the experience, because they are stuck with metaphors that worked for people in another time and place. And that they are metaphors you can discover by analyzing other religions and human psyche.

I agree that many of the metaphors should be publically acknowledged as dead but better buried. Service, sacrifice and war metaphors which are rampant in many mystic texts are a good example of this.

I have participated in rituals of various religions and analysed them in the field as well as in scientific literature.

Then you know that most people who think of themselves as religious you do not consider religious. I think this has to be stated up front. Then it will seem less like hubris. You are not saying what most people are seeking and doing, you have placed them outside of 'real' religious practice.

Hubris to me comes in here if you are saying 'what all these people are really doing is......'

 

[Grantywanty]

In short, that's what Paganism is. It's a broad range of earth-based, natural religions.
Which is why it appeals to me; it's not bastardised by the twisted Mesopotamian morality that permeates the Abrahamic religions. It's a lot more tolerant, and a lot more accepting of new ideas, as well as being big on the idea of personal responsibility.
It's the ethics, really, that matter the most in a religion.

Why call yourself a pagan? Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics? What makes your belief system a religion?

 

[Enmos]

Why call yourself a pagan? Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics? What makes your belief system a religion?

Well, that raises the question why call yourself anything at all.
I'm really not calling myself an atheist, but by definition I am.. so whenever asked I'm forced to say I'm an atheist or people don't understand or start asking a million questions. Definition make conversation easier but, personally, I don't like labeling though.

 

[Hapsburg]

Why call yourself a pagan?

Because my beliefs are closely associated and derived from paganism.
It goes beyond merely one's view on divinity. It's all of metaphysics, and I my view of the metaphysical universe is in line with most pagans I have talked to.
Besides, we all have a right to define ourselves, do we not?

Why not a humanist with a certain set of ethics?

Because I go beyond mere humanism. I think all things, not just people, are worthy of dignity and respect, especially nature, as it is from nature which humanity developed. It must be revered and respected much as one would revere and respect one's mother.

What makes your belief system a religion?

I consider myself devoted to my philosophy and I try to apply it in everyday life. That's what religion is: devotion to an ideal and a certain will for it to be applied to everyday situations.