What if I made up my own Religion?

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
This is more of a moral system than a religion - religion, in the proper sense of the word, is an issues of realization/revelation, and everything else follows that (eg moral system/regulative principles etc). Doing it the the other way around is kind of like getting the horse before the cart.
”
What is someone who does not have revelation nor realization supposed to do?
One can only reasonably work with what one currently has, whatever that might be.

If we don't have revelation then we become a follower as opposed to a manufacturer of a religion - the reason we do this is because we don't have "the goods", so to speak.

Alternatively you can talk of "reforming" an existing religion - and this happens quite frequently (like for instance the spate of acts of terror done on the strength of islam has caused many muslims to "reform" .... which basically just involves refocusing on the role the koran plays in everyday life)

maybe you can get a better idea what I mean by seeing as follows


“
IOW when one understands the issue of ultimate benefit, then the issue of suffering can be properly analyzed.
”
Of course, seeing things in the long-term perspective is part of reducing suffering.

revelation of god's nature is part of that "long term perspective"


“

“
2. Those views should positively address my Worst Case Scenario, give me hope for something better despite the possibility of the Worst Case Scenario coming true.
”
not sure what you mean here since there is an array of significances one can drive into such a statement - for instance the worst case scenario for a criminal would be getting caught by the police
”
Like I said above, my worst case scenario is to end up in eternal hellfire.
Image: A lovely meadow with beautiful trees, a big river in the middle. I am in the river up to my nose, with piranhas eating me alive. God is hovering above the water, tapping me on the head, saying "You were told to believe in me, and you didn't! Ha ha, suits you right!" People like Lori and Adstar sitting on the river bank, laughing at me, saying "You should have believes what we told you! It was entirely your own choice to end up the way you did! You are evil and we are loving and good people!" When the piranhas eat me and I lose consciousness, I wake up on the river bank, with a new body. God comes and kicks me back into the water. Piranhas eat on me again. The whole thing repeats infinitely.

Bad case scenarios include being attacked by a pitt bull, losing my job, becoming severely ill, constantly having fire and brimstone Christians trying to convert me.

My ideal belief system would have to be such as to enable me to have some peace of mind even despite the worst case scenario coming true, and of course if the bad case scenarios would come true.

The worst case scenario of many saints would be to develop complete comfort and satisfaction in the material world (ie merge completely in ignorance).

Otherwise, yes, I too would have difficulties with a notion of god where there were alternatives for eternal life outside of his service (nevermind whether the said eternal scenarios involved piranhas or not ...)

“
(IOW there are pre-existing issues of our values/knowledge that need to be addressed before we can rightly establish our hopes as divine or conducive to spiritual advancement)
”
True. But like I said above, one can only work with what one has. And if one is an immoral person, then the value system of an immoral person is what one has to work with, not some ideal, divine value system.

that is why the first business of an immoral (or impure) person - which is what we tend to collectively be in this world - is to purify themselves. There is no question of creating a religion in an impure state ... actually one of the symptoms of misapplied religion is the inability to purify oneself.
IOW one can perform all sorts of charity/sacrifice/study/austerity/etc but unless one is coming into contact with god (the top most of purifying elements) one will not get purified. Therefore it is commonly seen that religions request that a said candidate call upon the name of god - god, in the form of his name, is the first step in approaching him.

“
well that might be ideal but it may not be practical - basically to be properly conscious in all circumstances requires purity, and purity requires practice
”
Of course. My belief system would have to include concentration practices and whatever else might be or become necessary.

the concentration practices will only be fruitful to the degree that the involve concentrating on god - otherwise they will just be roundabout ways of concentrating on material affairs, which is where the whole problem of life begins ....

“
they are excellent general principles for morality, but the issue or entering into a state of "connecting" with god is the real mechanics of a religious system - since god is the topmost of purity/morals/etc, by coming into contact with him all such issues are automatically resolved - kind of like when you go to a restaurant and order a meal you don't have to especially request that they bring it on a plate (it is already resolved that a meal will come on a plate)
”
I don't have contact with God, so this is not something I could count on in the development of my belief system, at least not for now.

that is why I stressed from the outset, that contact with god is the primary prerequisite for creating a religion - everything else is subreligious principles (upadharma)

 

[greenberg]

Three things that really stand out here in this thread are these:

1. Several posters presume my religion would contain notions about obedience to G/god(s).
2. Several posters presume my religion would be constructed in a similar hierarchical manner as some Christian traditions.
3. Several posters presume my religion would be about money and or power.

Few accept that making my religion would simply be for my own purposes, a thoroughly formulated way of "thinking for myself".


Is it really so foreign, so outlandish that a person would make their own religion, for the purposes of their happiness?

 

[greenberg]

that is why I stressed from the outset, that contact with god is the primary prerequisite for creating a religion - everything else is subreligious principles (upadharma)

From my perspective, what you are saying is backwards.
Per you, one ought to presume as factual the very thing one is yet trying to prove or begin to depend on.

But, there is probably a discrepancy in how we use the term "religion", something I commented on in post nr. 26.

 

[lightgigantic]

From my perspective, what you are saying is backwards.
Per you, one ought to presume as factual the very thing one is yet trying to prove or begin to depend on.

But, there is probably a discrepancy in how we use the term "religion", something I commented on in post nr. 26.

thanks I didn't see that 9post 26)

My point is that there a distinction between acts of morality(upadharma) and acts of coming into knowledge of god (sanatana dharma).

Just as with the saying, a rising tide lifts all boats, similarly the performance of sanatana dharma does give one the "moral high ground" - but at the same time there is an aspect to sanatana dharma that makes it sanatana (eternal) - namely that it purifies one of the tendency of being caught up in temporary designations - a platform that is not attained by the best performances of upadharma.

eg

BG 2.45 - The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

[greenberg]

My point is that there a distinction between acts of morality(upadharma) and acts of coming into knowledge of god (sanatana dharma).

Just as with the saying, a rising tide lifts all boats, similarly the performance of sanatana dharma does give one the "moral high ground" - but at the same time there is an aspect to sanatana dharma that makes it sanatana (eternal) - namely that it purifies one of the tendency of being caught up in temporary designations - a platform that is not attained by the best performances of upadharma.

Can Sanatana Dharma be performed without the person at the time knowing they are performing Sanatana Dharma?

 

[lightgigantic]

Can Sanatana Dharma be performed without the person at the time knowing they are performing Sanatana Dharma?

yes, but the effect takes proper root and flourishes in knowledge (knowledge of one's self in relationship to god)

Just like even in this world we can unknowingly serve another, even though we may have had no intention to serve them - in fact many relationships we have in this world begin like this - but such relationships actually start to flourish when we start to act in fuller consciousness of ourselves in relation to the other

 

[greenberg]

Just like even in this world we can unknowingly serve another, even though we may have had no intention to serve them - in fact many relationships we have in this world begin like this - but such relationships actually start to flourish when we start to act in fuller consciousness of ourselves in relation to the other

This seems obvious.

I have one problem with it, though: Who is to say whether a person acts in fuller consciousness of themselves in relation to others?

 

[GeoffP]

Three things that really stand out here in this thread are these:

1. Several posters presume my religion would contain notions about obedience to G/god(s).
2. Several posters presume my religion would be constructed in a similar hierarchical manner as some Christian traditions.
3. Several posters presume my religion would be about money and or power.

Few accept that making my religion would simply be for my own purposes, a thoroughly formulated way of "thinking for myself".


Is it really so foreign, so outlandish that a person would make their own religion, for the purposes of their happiness?

Why wouldn't you just call it a philosophy then? If there isn't a god, it isn't a religion.

 

[Lori_7]

You and your "god" presume such a kind of "agreements" all the time: you impose unilateral obligations on others and call them "agreements" - and it is about such immense issues like eternal hellfire or intimate personal truths.

But when someone gives you some of your poison, just a tiny bit of it, about a relatively small issue like requesting of you to not post in their threads or reply to their posts, you cry foul.

As long as you keep being such a hypocrite, you are not welcome to post in my threads or reply to my posts.




That is your problem.

my relationship with god is between me and him and yours, if you have one is between you and him. this is a discussion forum. you come out there asking questions and i answer and attempt to discuss. i seek to make no agreement with you. and i'm not crying foul. i'm simply pointing out the obvious. you're acting really weird, hateful, and over emotional, because you don't like what i have to say about god. you're the one who's obsessed with eternal hellfire...

you act like you're twelve.

 

[GeoffP]

Although I guess if you had some spirituality in it that would pass. Has that been what you've been saying? Sorry, just scanning and trolling.

 

[greenberg]

Sorry, just scanning and trolling.

You'll have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I need to explain my image of the worst case scenario in more detail first:
There are two components in my image of eternal hellfire: intense physical suffering and intense psychological suffering.

As for intense physical suffering: the piranhas are circumstantial. It could also be pitbulls tearing me to shreds, flesh-eating bacteria, fire, acid, being pierced by spears, sleep deprivation, ... or a combination of them - what's important is that there is a cause for intense physical suffering.

The other component is intense psychological suffering. This, too, can come about in many ways: Being possessed by thoughts of evil yet remaining lucid, manipulation, being continually exposed to double binds and fallacious reasoning, Chinese water-drop torture, sleep deprivation, a chaotically changing environment, ... or a combination of them. God tapping me on the head and other people laughing at me saying it was "all my choice" is a form of manipulation and exposure to double binds.

I have to be honest with you, I don't understand what this means, or why it is relevant to the question.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Here are some conclusions to some of the premisses listed earlier:

P1: Whether a person believes in God or not is entirely the person's choice.
P2: Humans have an evil nature, that is what they really are and will remain so forever. But God has mercy on them, this is why He lets them live.
P3: God will judge and send people either to eternal heaven or to eternal hellfire. This way, justice will be done.

In effect, I don't believe in God. According to P1, this is my choice, even if I don't think it is - and I don't think it is my choice because I am evil by nature, as per P2.
But, and this is the double bind, an evil person cannot deliberately make a good choice (and believing in God is a good choice); therefore, an evil person cannot choose to believe in God; yet an evil person will be sent to eternal hell because they haven't made a choice they cannot make in the first place. - And this is called justice, per P3.


P3: God will judge and send people either to eternal heaven or to eternal hellfire. This way, justice will be done.
P4: The righteous will rejoice when justice is done.
That is, people who will be in heaven will rejoice that others are in hell.


P5: God has created everyone in his own image.
Which means that people, as they are, are an image of God. Which means that God is the way people are: good, bad, kind, manipulative, mortal, immortal, tall, short, wise, stupid, cruel, gentle and so on.


P3: God will judge and send people either to eternal heaven or to eternal hellfire. This way, justice will be done.
P6: God is infinitely benevolent and merciful.
Which means that sending people to eternal hellfire is an act of benevolence, mercy, and justice. According to P3 and P6, letting people burn in hell forever is an act of benevolence.


P7: God has created the Universe and everything in it.
P8: If a person does something evil, this is entirely the person's choice. God has nothing to do with the choices people make.
According to some theists, there is no contradiction here.


P9: Anything good that a person does is inspired by God.
Which means that going to heaven (which is a good thing) is not a person's own doing, not a matter of their choice.


P10: Whether one will go to heaven, or to hell, is one's own choice.
Contradicts P3.
Again, according to some theists, there is no contradiction here.

p1. okay.
p2. what do you mean by "evil" and "nature" in this regard.
p3. do you think God judges every man personally? If yes, why?
p4. if this is a scriptoral reference, can you give the chapter and verse?
p5. my understanding is that Adam was created pure before his downfall.
p6. can you cite a reference.
p7. okay.
p8. so why do you think it is a contradiction. (or it seems you do)
p9. why would it be inspired by God, instead of the person having a developed intelligence.
p10. same as p3.

Jan.

 

[greenberg]

I have to be honest with you, I don't understand what this means, or why it is relevant to the question.

The point of eternal hell is that it is extreme suffering, the worst there can be.

My worst case scenario is about my idea of extreme suffering - which for me is a combination of physical and psychological suffering.

And like I said earlier, my religion would have to be such that it would provide me at least some peace of mind even in face of extreme suffering.

I hope this explains it.

 

[greenberg]

p1. okay.
p2. what do you mean by "evil" and "nature" in this regard.
p3. do you think God judges every man personally? If yes, why?
p4. if this is a scriptoral reference, can you give the chapter and verse?
p5. my understanding is that Adam was created pure before his downfall.
p6. can you cite a reference.
p7. okay.
p8. so why do you think it is a contradiction. (or it seems you do)
p9. why would it be inspired by God, instead of the person having a developed intelligence.
p10. same as p3.

All these premisses (and more) are what I've picked up in popular Christianity.
Some of them contradict eachother.
Some seem to have no scriptoral basis.
Some seem to be specific interpretations of scripture.

To remember why we are having this discussion about these premisses: Some of my worst case scenarios are built on them and on the conclusions that follow from them. As I have said earlier, my ideal religion would need to be such that it can address and put to rest even the most irrational- or absurd-seeming conclusions.

P2: Humans have an evil nature, that is what they really are and will remain so forever. But God has mercy on them, this is why He lets them live.

p2. what do you mean by "evil" and "nature" in this regard.

I have no idea. Any attempt requesting those who use those premies to clarify what they mean sooner or later turned into them accusing me of "overintellectualizing", "philosophical sham" and such.
And who am I to say whether they are wrong or right?

Personally, I think "evil" means that the person who is "evil" is inherently unwilling to distinguish between good and bad, and the person is unable to do anything about this unwillingness. An evil person cannot deliberately choose a good option; an evil person might opt for a good option only by chance, or if manipulated, but never on their own deliberation.
I am not sure whether such people exist, though; but what I said above would mean "evil" to me. I think most if not all human actions, however deplorable and cruel they might be, can be explained that the person acted under the influence of greed, ill will and delusion, and not because the person would be "evil".
By "nature" I mean that which is unalienable, unchanging, inherent.

p3. do you think God judges every man personally? If yes, why?

I don't know.
But the Christian concept of individual judgment strikes me as very loaded, very "I am God's target, I am the one God persecutes" - which makes for intense psychological pressure and also guilt. And while this might keep the person focused on God, it also causes them a lot of strain, removing them from developing good qualities and doing good deeds.

p5. my understanding is that Adam was created pure before his downfall.

If he was pure, then how could he have fallen?

P7: God has created the Universe and everything in it.
P8: If a person does something evil, this is entirely the person's choice. God has nothing to do with the choices people make.
According to some theists, there is no contradiction here.

p8. so why do you think it is a contradiction. (or it seems you do)

If God has created the Universe and everything in it, this means that God has also created every choice that a person makes, every action a person performs. It's like humans are puppets, God pulls the strings, and in the end burns them if he so pleases, but says that it's their fault that they were burned.

P9: Anything good that a person does is inspired by God.
Which means that going to heaven (which is a good thing) is not a person's own doing, not a matter of their choice.

p9. why would it be inspired by God, instead of the person having a developed intelligence.

Again, I don't know.
Perhaps P9 was thought up by some theists as a tool to prevent people from taking joy and pride in their accomplishments.
I think though if one continually gives the credit for one's accomplishments to something or someone else, one will lose interest in accomplishing things, will become lazy and irresponsible.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

My worst case scenario is about my idea of extreme suffering - which for me is a combination of physical and psychological suffering.

There is no eternal suffering.
Just thought I would toss that out. I realize this will not remotely constitute proof for you, but....

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Three things that really stand out here in this thread are these: 1. Several posters presume my religion would contain notions about obedience to G/god(s).

When you use the words "make up a religion" it carries the connotation that you are doing it as an exercise or a scam, rather than because you feel that you have been struck by divine inspiration. It seems kind of pointless to "make up a religion" just for oneself since the one trait virtually all religions share is community. [In fact I have argued elsewhere that in the Stone Age when tribes of hunter-gatherers regarded each other with suspicion, it could be that the primitive instinctive, archetypal religions gave them something in common as a point of contact. It could be that early religion was actually a positive force for humanity to build communities, rather than the divisive force it is now, which stalls the advance of civilization.] Therefore your religion would probably have some familiar components to attract members to your community, whether it's to have philosophical discussions or to scam them out of their money. Obedience to gods is a common motif in religions.

2. Several posters presume my religion would be constructed in a similar hierarchical manner as some Christian traditions.

Again, since you presumably live in a Western country in which Christianity is the dominant faith, then presumably you would craft your upstart religion to appeal to people who have been exposed to the motifs of Christianity throughout their lives.

3. Several posters presume my religion would be about money and or power.

Your role models are people like Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Wallace Fard and Joseph Smith, so what do you expect? Oh BTW you forgot gettin' high, the peyote ritual that motivated the hippie religions of the 1960s.

Few accept that making my religion would simply be for my own purposes, a thoroughly formulated way of "thinking for myself".

You can find a million definitions of the word "religion," but the consensus of laymen in the West is that it has to have at least one god. What you're talking about sounds more like what we would call a "philosophy" or a "discipline."

Is it really so foreign, so outlandish that a person would make their own religion, for the purposes of their happiness?

Again, I'm sure the consensus of laymen in the West is that a religion has to have a community, there's no such thing as a one-person religion. Of course you get to do whatever you want, but you're going to have trouble discussing it with other people if you have semantic friction with them,

 

[GeoffP]

You'll have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously.

Whew! I was afraid of getting into another pointless argument. Carrying on.

 

[lightgigantic]

This seems obvious.

I have one problem with it, though: Who is to say whether a person acts in fuller consciousness of themselves in relation to others?

maybe it would have been simpler to say fuller awareness.

For instance we have a degree of awareness of the prime minister, the mechanic who fixed our car last tuesday, the next door neighbour's father and one's own son.

They are not all equal.

Most people would say that they are more aware of the needs/interests and concerns of their son then, say, the prime minister. This knowledge comes about by dint of being involved in a personal relationship of reciprocation.

 

[greenberg]

Of course you get to do whatever you want, but you're going to have trouble discussing it with other people if you have semantic friction with them,

Okay, thanks, good point.

Interestingly, many people encourage me to "think for myself", but when I do, they have a problem with it ...

I conclude that if I am to make my own religion:
1. I have to be willing to invest a lot of time and effort into finding people whom I could discuss my religion with.
2. I have to be prepared to even have nobody to discuss it with.
3. I have to be prepared to even never declare my religion because it is very likely that other people will not understand me and insist in their own assumptions.