Is it ok to follow any religion?

[_Z_]

Is it ok to follow any religion?



Some religions are extreme on a similar level to fascism in politics, like e.g. Satanism. Others teach false truths, and brainwash their followers – i.e. sects.

So…



Is it always good to be tolerant?



Where does the holding of all religions to be equal, actually get us?



Are all religions false except in terms of aspects of the faith, rather than the entirety of it - if one faith cannot be considered as above another!

Z

 

[wil]

I've got to finish packing to head out on a religious retreat brainwashing a bunch of high school kids....

I don't currently have time to answer this...but so look forward to returning on Monday to see how this generous, tolerant, non-judgemental forum tackles this line of thought.

Of course the QM thought of the observer affecting the outcome could have a dramatic effect here...

blessings...

 

[dauer]

Is it ok to follow any religion?

According to what law?

Some religions are extreme on a similar level to fascism in politics, like e.g. Satanism.

How are Satanists politically fascist?

Others teach false truths, and brainwash their followers – i.e. sects.

A sect is a smaller group within a religion, that is distinct. I think you mean cults.

Is it always good to be tolerant?

As long as no harm is being done. Harm of course is ambiguous and will vary in definition from culture to culture.

Where does the holding of all religions to be equal, actually get us?

Maybe it would be better put that all religions are equal, and some are more equal than others, right? I think there's a very fine line because how are we supposed to not judge other religions by the morals and ethics of our own religion? And if we're judging them, are we saying our religion is superior or are we saying our paradigm is superior? Who empowers us? What empowers us?

Are all religions false except in terms of aspects of the faith, rather than the entirety of it - if one faith cannot be considered as above another!

I think all religions are true on the level of experience, and the theology that develops out of it, none of it is really true to the experience, but it's our different attempts to come to an understanding of those experiences, and in that way it's very true to the experience. And this isn't just referring to one experience imparticular. Experience is the basis for moral law too. And everything else too that a religion will generate.

Dauer

 

[_Z_]

Wil, ha nicely said!



Dauer,

According to what law?

I mean generally, as modern politics allows for any religion to be followed.

How are Satanists politically fascist?

I meant that there are extremes in religion and their equivalent in politics – not that they were the same – although I would say that they have similarities.



Yes I did mean cults, although sects can have a difference of opinion that can be equally extreme.

As long as no harm is being done. Harm of course is ambiguous and will vary in definition from culture to culture.

This is the point – harm is done! imo Even if on the level that preaching a different way, stops people living according to how a particular religion wishes society to be!

Maybe it would be better put that all religions are equal, and some are more equal than others, right? I think there's a very fine line because how are we supposed to not judge other religions by the morals and ethics of our own religion? And if we're judging them, are we saying our religion is superior or are we saying our paradigm is superior? Who empowers us? What empowers us?

I agree. But this freedom does not allow any religion to become fully itself! Like if there is a goal, then it cannot be reached, unless you achieve that goal by eliminating all opponents by calling them followers of Satan or similar.

I think all religions are true on the level of experience

.



So what if one follows all religions and none of them, like the druids! Does that make us superior.

Z

 

[dauer]

I agree. But this freedom does not allow any religion to become fully itself! Like if there is a goal, then it cannot be reached, unless you achieve that goal by eliminating all opponents by calling them followers of Satan or similar.

I don't understand what you mean. I think that this would only be true for a religion whose goal is to have the most followers. But even there, I would say there is a more subtle goal that involves the people following the religion, that they should be leading spiritual lives, and be good people.

So what if one follows all religions and none of them, like the druids! Does that make us superior.

That's theology. Theology is the level built on top of experience. So it's no better than any other theology at one-upsmanship. It still falls short. At the level of experience, all is equivalent.

Dauer

 

[_Z_]

dauer,
Point 1, yes you are right! I meant that, e.g. a Christian, would probably view an idea and final shape for the world, to be where everyone are following the Christian way with the resurrected son.


Point 2,

a. Hmm… I was only joking – however - Philosophy [rather than theology] is a part of experience, as reality is ‘shaped by laws and principles’ or at least that which compose them.

b. If ones theology/philosophy is of a universal approach, then it is indeed superior to that which does not have the universal approach!



‘The principle is as real as it physical counterpart’.

... this should be fun!

Z

 

[dauer]

Z,

You think like a philosopher, and I tend not to think that way for philosophical reasons D) but seriously I don't agree with the philosophical approach usually. I don't see where you get that philosophy is a part of experience. Experience is base. All of the interpretation that comes afterward is secondary. That interpretation is our attempt to make sense of experience.

b. We were discussing whether a "particular" universalist approach is superior on the grounds of following all religions or none, when all religions are based in experience. But experience is the foundation of religion and comes before the dogma forms, before religion religions, before dogma dogmas.

Whether or not a universal approach is superior in general is subjective and has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Dauer

 

[_Z_]

Dauer,

Experience is base. All of the interpretation that comes afterward is secondary. That interpretation is our attempt to make sense of experience.

Interesting. I get past that one with the notion of ‘silent meaning’, yes another conceptualisation. . that there is the knowledge of thing itself, as non-metaphoric, - natural philosophy I call it. Of course one cannot put ‘silent meaning’ into linguistic form as it is simply to sublte! What a get out clause eh!



Reply to b, if we have a universal approach then we experience more as our base experience, because we don’t have a ‘blinkered’ view - at least in range and dynamic. The idea is not to have a ‘particular universalist approach’, that would not be universal!



The universal approach considers all sources of knowledge and wisdom, whereas the singular is restrictive seeking things only along their own line of reasoning – simple as that!

but yes perhaps we are going off topic somewhat.

 

[dauer]

Z,

I'm not arguing against a universalist approach, just implying that your comment wasn't said in the appropriate place. I disagree, however, that a universalist approach offers more as base experience. Base experience is what it is. I think what you meant that as is that there is more base experience and less interpretation, but as far as I can tell, even the greatest universalist is still going to interpret experience.

Take myself for example. I'm unwilling to go definitely any further than experience, but when it comes to experiencing experience, I still try to make sense of it, to classify it, to setup systems of relating. I don't know how avoidable that is. I think even a universalist system is still going to be particularist to the individual, if that makes sense. The individual's mapping of reality will be specific, not non-specific even if he uses multiple maps.

The universal approach may be open to all sources, but it narrows down. Eventually it becomes particularist. Even many particularist systems work in a similar manner, allowing for exploration of other data, making sense of everything based on the sources coming in.

Off topic? We're discussing what religion it's okay to follow. We have branched off, but we're still a branch. The trunk is right there. But we could try to loop back...

One of the pitfalls of universalism is that it doesn't realize its own particularism and this can often lead to the persecution of others which it sees as following a heresy. It wants to spread itself, and it does, at the very least everyone should be so enlightened, and this comes at the loss of other traditions. So this is the other side of the coin. This is one group that wants to get rid of those who follow more "primitive" religions. Who belongs in this group? Who doesn't?

Dauer

 

[Bandit]

dauer,
Point 1, yes you are right! I meant that, e.g. a Christian, would probably view an idea and final shape for the world, to be where everyone are following the Christian way with the resurrected son.

Z, i dont expect this to ever happen. i actually see just the opposite happening.

Point 2,

a. Hmm… I was only joking – however - Philosophy [rather than theology] is a part of experience, as reality is ‘shaped by laws and principles’ or at least that which compose them.

b. If ones theology/philosophy is of a universal approach, then it is indeed superior to that which does not have the universal approach!



‘The principle is as real as it physical counterpart’.

... this should be fun!

Z

i can see how theology, philosophy & experience all work together.
but not everyone gets the same experience most likely because they choose not to or let something stand in the way. LIKE theology & philosophy---umm even some education like different sciences.
i am not convinced that the universal religion would be superior, except 'maybe' for only a very short time. the universal approach will become just as dogmatized as any other religion & it wont take long for people to rebel.

i am not joining or following any, but we can still be friends

 

[_Z_]

Dauer.

Just implying that your comment wasn't said in the appropriate place.

I see, probably – my thinking is a little too loose at times. Well yes one tends to interpret experience, I just don’t see the duality between the two – at least not primarily, or if there is anything wrong with interpretation simply as a description of a reality – experience is not all that is real.



I don’t see why you try to avoid thinking about how things are and work etc! well I see how you are separating the two in order to arrive at actual truth rather than ‘metaphorically descriptive’ truth. Seams a general atheist/agnostic approach, and a little materialistic. still keeps one grounded!



Ah yes I found this ‘narrowing down’ to be a pitfall too! This is why I added the idea of remaining ‘un-pathed’, to my previous philosophies of non-attachment. Non-linear thought is the key – I find.



And yes I agree Universalist thinkers don’t realise their own particularism, this is simply not being truly universal though!

I agree that all religions are ultimately disregarded, and would ideally be lost. But there will probably always be many religions; I just try to be both religious and universal, as the utopia can never be arrived at – probably. Thinking of this though perhaps to be truly universal, then we must be specific too – in order that all ways are covered, damn it always ends up in parody, unless we have a dual approach.



Bandit,



The opposite happening? Everyone not following Christianity and Christ! Hmm perhaps then you mean that the path/religion would not be needed as you are there! Or do you think it will fade into the wind with everything else!



I agree a universal religion would not be superior [I am of course half jesting I am sure you know {the vanity is in the apparency – not the reality}], but you cannot have a universal religion – that’s the whole point! You just have people like many of us here who are a little looser.

i am not joining or following any, but we can still be friends

Ha yes, there’s no path to follow anyway.





Speak again tomorrow – opened a bottle of red.

Z

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

... I agree Universalist thinkers don’t realise their own particularism, this is simply not being truly universal though!

Now that's a good point!

You can't be truly universalist and still need an externally supplied sense of personal identity through group affiliation.

Interesting discussion!

Chris

 

[_Z_]

China cat sunflower, hello and welcome!



A fellow universalist I see! – ha we cant escape them labels can we. Good point you made there!

In my younger days I was an anarchist, it has just matured into universalism. I just think of the world as like a library, who says we should only read certain books or belong to one school – why not learn from all that we as individuals find relevant.



Glad to meet you chris,



Z – rich.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Very nice to meet you as well!

I tried out quite a few labels myself, but unlike Goldilocks, I never found one that was just right. I found a lot of the same concepts, dressed up differently to be sure, but really the same. I'm not saying that everything is the same, but these universal concepts show up consistently. And they show up in science and the arts as well. I like that I don't have to compartmentalize my thinking into sacred and secular modes. And I like that I can just be a universal citizen and honorary member of all religions rather than stake out a particular corner and guard my territory.

I think part of it is that I really don't have an ethnic identity with a strong built in religious identification. I guess you could say I'm ethnically Christian, but I'm not a Christian in any common usage of the term. I like Jesus' philosophy but I don't buy the salvation through a dead and resurrected avatar thing. Christianity seems obsessed with fetishizing its leader's death, but almost completely uninterested in the philosophy he preached while he was alive. Fortunately, that Golden Rule philosophy is one of those universal concepts, and didn't at all originate with Jesus.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

While I'm thinking about it, I want to make a couple of observations about ethnicity and religion. This comes from my own self-observation so it may not apply to anyone else.

I think that what's fueling the increasing popularity of alternative religions, and especially those related to Paganism, is a sense of a need to recover a sense of ethnic identification for people of european origin. Christianity, in its present form, was designed to be a tool of emperialism. It's function is to encompass and then replace "native" religions in order to homogenize diverse cultures. It's worked pretty well with a few exceptions.

I'm of mostly Danish descent. Whatever my "ethnic" religion was (Viking or whatever) it is long extinct. But I'm not just Dansk, I'm a little of a lot of things including Irish, English, German, Swiss, and a drop or two of Cherokee Indian and a quarter cup of good old white trash! So if I were to try to recover a sense of cultural-ethnic spirituality I would have to mix up a witches brew of all of those things, and then dress myself up to resemble whatever label I choose to identify my new-old identity. But that's too anachronistic for me. The other alternative is to abandon all that and embrace a sense of universality and accept the loss of ethnically based self-identification. In a way it's like choosing to put all your toys back in the box, all your costumes back in the closet, and just deal with the fact that you don't get to play these fun games anymore. But the up side is that by embracing the future and the unknown instead of moving toward the past and the already-known, I gain abilities and insights that aren't available otherwise.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

Chris

 

[dauer]

Just a note:

I never said we should see the end of most religions. I think religion and myth offer us lots of color. I simply see experience as the basis of human reality. That doesn't mean I think everything else should be disregarded, just not taken as objective truth. It's already a coloring of the experience, which is beyond words. And also, because I think you're putting me in the wrong box, I love myth, and I love using myth, and thinking in myth, and thinking in terms of theology. I talk to God regularly. I just don't think that any of that is objective truth. I don't necessarily know that God exists, but I do have an experience or grouping of experiences from which I work my way out to the position of being able to address a God I don't necessariliy believe in. I value the experience of personal-God interaction and impersonal-God interaction.

Dauer

 

[_Z_]

Hi china cat sunflower.



Yes I find universal concepts in all manner of things, as like you – I just don’t see the necessity to box it all up and stick a label on it. You are right about Jesus, he was a great philosopher imho, his death is of little consequence, he was a human like us, and a vehicle for a vision. Whilst he was important, so to was the Buddha, Mohammed etc. I learn from all and none equally.



Yes Christians stole all of our festivals and built churches over our temples, and tried to destroy the culture, yet it is more universal to have let us be, but added to the old religions. Perhaps it was a necessary phase in the universalisation of humanity, similar to wars in the mixing of peoples, history appears to be like a blender!

I am of Celtic, Norse, English, gypsy & Greek decent. One day we will all just be worldish eh! Hopefully with no religion whatsoever. Yes I think any ideas of race are gone, I don’t think anyone has a specific racial pedigree or even if this was ever possible.

But the up side is that by embracing the future and the unknown instead of moving toward the past and the already known, I gain abilities and insights that aren't available otherwise

Exactly! There is much left to discover, once we leave the herds behind.

btw, Are you male or female? [always handy to add these things to one's profile - just so we know at least a little about each other]


Dauer, hi.


Yes absolutely - there certainly is much colour to consider in the worlds religions and philosophies. The thing with experience is; what if ones experience of reality has an extra dimension to another’s or is just different. I have experienced the void [infinity] thus I base my ideas on the universal interactions in existence – I think of this as an everyday part of existence. But this just leaves us at phenomenon noumenon arguments that are irresolvable. I also think that the inclusion of infinity as actual, in our universal philosophy brings us to some interesting notions about reality, and they just so happen to make sense! I talk to nature, god and spirit most of the time, as you say it is just the mind using scenarios to understand things, and gods are just personas [as objects] or avatars in this. However when I ask questions in my meditations, the answers arrive in my mind some time later, and I do think there is something else – a third party – going on in this, I think of it as interactions in the universal mind/spirit and that this is real both in our minds and as a nature of reality. I do see where you are coming from, and use a practical line of thought in a duel view.

Thanks for replies – and the parallel view!



Z

 

[Quahom1]

From observing the world today and reviewing the history of it, I find it ironic and imperitive that one choose to follow something. This creates difference in thought, and a constant enlightenment for eachother by eachother. The diverseness offers us stimulation, and makes us think. That is what is so important about various religions.

I also note the irony of not choosing a religion. Given enough people in one area who choose not to choose, the state has a tendency to choose for one...often without one realizing it. Having a variety of religions by a variety of people within an area tends to keep the state at bay, and contained/restrained...

v/r

Q

 

[_Z_]

Quahom1, hi.



Perhaps more diversity is created through individualised philosophy than organised religion, most of which discourage difference. Also one can just pick up a bible [e.g.] and read it, we don’t need interpreters anymore – they are in English. I do get your point though, as much would be lost if we had never arrived at the various religions, and they do add ingredients to the mix. All I would say is that they be viewed as philosophical, and except that they are sometimes wrong.



Interesting parodox you pointed out there!



There is another level to this thread, that I do wonder if people can be led down dark paths without realising it – being given false information. This is why the church has sought to find authority via doctrine.





Z

 

[dauer]

Z,

your experience is not necessarily of infinite matter, nor of infinite time, for that matter. Simply, it is an experience of infinity, whatever that means. Even to label it as such is to attach a subtle theology. To attach this to space or time is to bring it to the level of theology, which is fine, but it means you're going beyond the level of experience.

Dauer