Define Ur Religion or Theology

[moonyham]

My religion, is the idea of NOT believing in a higher power, that you are the highest power and everyone around you is there to be used, for what ever purpose. Like sex, money, friendship, company, driving you around or what ever. Just anything, to get what you want. To not take other peoples goals into consideration when doing so, as well, unless it might change your result(for example, you are buying a car really cheap, but you must take there motives into consideration because a good car doesnt come cheap, so why are they selling it, whats there goal?)

I refuse to believe in a 'God' and deem religious people who believe in such things complete and utter morons who i do not wish to know in the slightest.
(though if i was shown scientificly proven evidence that a God exists, or a religion is correct, then i would believe)

I live day to day and try not to plan anything more than a week or so in advance.

 

[rachamim]

Yougene continued: "How is it contradictory to state that Buddhism is appealing to Westerners by and large because of Empirical Verification?": We cannot verify anything other than a prince by the name of Sidddharta lived on what is now the border of Nepal so many years ago. We do not even know he sat under a tree much less any other parts of the narrative. As for the tenents, core or otherwise, none are verifiable in the scientific sense but that is the basic nature of "faith" yes?


I missed one part of your former points, "Kabbalh uses the language of Plotinus unless one can show the terminology having been used before him.": I can easily do that many times over. First you need to explore earlier forms of Jewish Mysticism, as I mentioned one major School yesterday, "Chariot (Merkava) it is agreat place to start.

Many academics try to date it to right at the fall of the last standing Temple, so in the Roman Exile Advent, which even there gives us "before" but it is actually much oplder having been addressed in earlier codifications of the Talmud a few times long before that,as well as extant manuscripts that we have either a sportions or even as comeplte or soemtimes as attributed through secondary sources.

I would wager that the Tree symbolism (without the same meanings, or 10 Sefirot) was used in pre-Jewish Babylonia and we copped it there and then adapted it towards our more singular outlook, but that is not going to be able to be conclusively proved at this point in time (only that circumstantially that is the liklihood).

The Sefirot as you probablly know can be represented a number of ways, as Geography theorems, as Planetary models, as the Haadamah Kadom or as it is known to \Westerners, "Adam Kadmon" and so on. Many models exist, but the Tree as I have found is something more primordial in design, more common with the naturist faiths that surely predated Judaism there and everywhere.

"Plato had a unique outlook.": Do you imagine that Greeks were somehow that original? They merely , like all Peoples, absorbed what was already known and somtimes added to it. Platonic Schools existed long before Plato, and originated in the far east (along the Caraveers it came West like silk). Phonecians had circumvented Africa before Greece was an inkling, and so on.

Jewish communities existed in far east China before Classical Greece existed, and so on.

I kind of wish it was that simple, that we could look to these enormous personalities as harbringers of gads of new thought but it will never be like that, and certainly never now that we have jumped into the Info Age, right?

"Some do pray to a perspective of G-D.": NOOOOO! You need to think along the lines of G-D is everywhere and in everything. When Jews pray to G-D we pray to the ALL, not to a side of the ALL. We pray to the GOOD AND the Evil! We pray to ALL CREATION and the Creator, because HE left his essence inside of HIS Creation! Look, I cannot go into that because trying to talk about certain things without the proper context or grounding leads to incomplete understandings and teachings.

Just say, when you think of G-D, if you are inclined to think like us, you will think HE has a limitless number of perspectives and all are as precious as one, and all must be adored just as one is.

Traditional Jews will never mix with non-Jews more than in a cursory way (I am an abberation) not because non-Jews are "less" but because doing so leads a Jew to be tempted to forgo his or her own way, for those other ways. If one tastes something, and develops a yen it is dangerous. If all Jews discard Jewish teachings we will become like the Ancient Egyptians whom we saw come and we saw go. I (and many of us) do nmot want to be museum pieces but part of aliving breathing People and culture. A Jew will never dine with a non-Jew,party with one, and so on unless it is in a majority Jewish context.

Had I not entered the army at such a young age, and in the day and age I did (when the IDF hated religion) i would not be talking to you now. I strayed as my elders would (and have) said, but I think a little teachins helps others to understand the Jewish perspective, alot less "Christian children's blood for Passover"perhaps? Also, you are right that many Jewish Schools exist but as "I have said over and over, they ALL share a core value system and allare recognisable from one another.

When you get into groups like the Karaites and Samritans then it is different but even they are coming back into the fold in a hbuge way so ...

 

[yougene]

Yougene Continued...: "It is not so much 'assminlation' though. On one hand you have Orthadoxy, and on the other Assimilationists with all things modern.": You surely can recognise the oxymornic turn of phrase, yes? "Orthadoxy" as a label is entirely modern, and is too narrow a label at that. I use "Traditional" most of the time because that is about the most accurate way to describe it.

Within Orthadoxy you have "Modern ORthadox," "Chassidim," "ultra-Orthadox" which are of course sometimes confused with Chassidim and so on and so forth. there is only one Judaisim. how much you try to abide by its teachings defines you as a Traditionalist,. or a Modernist, with Assimilationism being the far extreme of Modernism, even to the point of discarding the faith while retaining the cultural practices, or else even discarding those as so many Jews in America do.

I was using the word orthodox as a broad term. Pre-Modern and Modern could have been better labels. Orthodox is still appropriate in this sense.

movements like "Liberal," "Reform," "Conservative," "reconstructionist, and "Humanist" are just weak attempts to rationalise a person's failure to live by the correct teachings. "My neighbours do not understand Family Purity Laws that require my wife and I to sleep in separate rooms, and even eat at different tables for nearly half the month so instead we will discard most or all of those Laws and live like our neighbours." This is the frame of mind almost always that is responsible for these failures within Judaisim.

Or, it's a failure of pre-modern world-views to adapt to the modern world truths. "Assimilationist" movements have in my view thrown out alot of babies with the bathwater, but the traditionalists have been slow to reconcile the truths of the modern worldview with the traditional worldview.

On "Orthadoxy being ethno-centric...": Well of course! If they were not I would not be ehre today. in the US almost 60% of Jews marry non-Jews. Of those marriages most do not retain even fringe levels of Judaic Observance, and in this day and age this includes culturlisms as well (Judaisim is a religion, while Jewishness is also related to one's ethnicity/Peoplehood). In the former USSR the figure is close to 70% of marriages and so that in that ethno-centrism we see the continuance of the oldest continuous culture on the planet and I am happy for it. Had my wife not said to me, BEFORe I even thought of her like that, "I wish to become a Jew," I would have never even considered her as a prtner. Why? Not any kind of bias, but the desire to see this ancient culture (not so much religion to me) continue.

"Ethno-centrism" can have ugly connotations, espeically from a Jewish perspective but I understand (I think) your usage of the term.

There is nothing wrong with having an ethno-centric identity. But taking it to an extreme is a whole other issue.

Yougene continued: "How is it contradictory to state that Buddhism is appealing to Westerners by and large because of Empirical Verification?": We cannot verify anything other than a prince by the name of Sidddharta lived on what is now the border of Nepal so many years ago. We do not even know he sat under a tree much less any other parts of the narrative. As for the tenents, core or otherwise, none are verifiable in the scientific sense but that is the basic nature of "faith" yes?

You're looking at it in a different way from me. Buddhist state training is empirically verifiable, and this verification is at the core of Buddhism. The tenents don't ask you to believe something, it gives a method( path ). If followed it illuminates( or not ) the proposed truth. All traditions have state training but only Buddhism directly appeals to empiricism from the get go. At the foundation at least. Obviously when spread to a region that is dogmatic this can take a back seat.

I missed one part of your former points, "Kabbalh uses the language of Plotinus unless one can show the terminology having been used before him.": I can easily do that many times over. First you need to explore earlier forms of Jewish Mysticism, as I mentioned one major School yesterday, "Chariot (Merkava) it is agreat place to start.

Show me.

The unique contribution here is the idea of God as emmanating. Obviously the foundations for this view have been around before. Plotinus draws from Plato's Hierarchy of Forms, but you can find particular examples of this idea elsewhere. The hierarchy of angels, the hierarchy of the human being( body, heart, mind, spirit ), and so on. But again, there are many ways to state this construction, and there are many insights that aren't presented from the get go. The idea of emmanation which is seen in Kabbalah takes on the language and contributions of Plotinus.

Am I saying that Plotinus made up Kabbalah? No, only that variations of his schema were picked up at some point.

I would wager that the Tree symbolism (without the same meanings, or 10 Sefirot) was used in pre-Jewish Babylonia and we copped it there and then adapted it towards our more singular outlook, but that is not going to be able to be conclusively proved at this point in time (only that circumstantially that is the liklihood).

The Sefirot as you probablly know can be represented a number of ways, as Geography theorems, as Planetary models, as the Haadamah Kadom or as it is known to \Westerners, "Adam Kadmon" and so on. Many models exist, but the Tree as I have found is something more primordial in design, more common with the naturist faiths that surely predated Judaism there and everywhere.

Right, the sefirot are like a fractal pattern. Haadamah Kadom is awfully similar to the Chakra system of the east. But like I said, the east tend to anthropomorphize metaphysical concepts.
http://www.sacredmirrors.org/html/mirrors.cgi?m=14

I'm not interested in specific models, but the similarity of core schemas.

"Plato had a unique outlook.": Do you imagine that Greeks were somehow that original? They merely , like all Peoples, absorbed what was already known and somtimes added to it. Platonic Schools existed long before Plato, and originated in the far east (along the Caraveers it came West like silk). Phonecians had circumvented Africa before Greece was an inkling, and so on.

They were doing what everyone else was doing. Elements of Platonism existed long before Plato but Platonism obviously did not! In the end though, it is in the form of Platonism that the seeds of science were planted. Plato's hierarchy gave an explanation for how the One and the many are indeed One. But his take on how the many( natural world ) is arranged lives on to this day in science. Inclusive levels of complexity arranged in a hierarchic hierarchic structures.

"Some do pray to a perspective of G-D.": NOOOOO! You need to think along the lines of G-D is everywhere and in everything. When Jews pray to G-D we pray to the ALL, not to a side of the ALL. We pray to the GOOD AND the Evil! We pray to ALL CREATION and the Creator, because HE left his essence inside of HIS Creation! Look, I cannot go into that because trying to talk about certain things without the proper context or grounding leads to incomplete understandings and teachings.

So there are no prayers directed at say God's mercy?

Your point is taken. My point was it's silly to absolutely categorize Hinduism as idol worship when the equivalent situation within the Jewish tradition is obviously not so.

Also, you are right that many Jewish Schools exist but as "I have said over and over, they ALL share a core value system and allare recognisable from one another.

That's putting the cart before the horse, in that you do not include the "assimilationists" into this category of "Jewish Schools".

 

[Shlumpeet]

I completely believe in biological and astrological evolution, I don't like to call myself an atheist, though.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Plenty (dare I say most?) non-atheists have no problem with evolution. Let no one from the American Bible Belt tell you diffetently.

 

[rachamim]

Yougene: "Assimilationsts throw the baby out with the bathwater whole Traditionalists are slow to assimilate valuable attributes of modernity.": Perhaps, but i think it might be tad bit over-generalised.

There are very traditional Jews in extremely modern dynamics, it is not really so black and white but I guess generally speaking you are correct.


"Buddhism does not ask one to believe, but instead offers a path to follow which will provide verifiable results via the attainment of Enlightenment.": Other than that being a purely subjective issue impossible to quantify even on that individual level.

Empirical? You mean to youself? surely you do not mean in the true sense of the word which infers clear understanding/proof by demonstration. How is Buddhist empirical at all? IF you claim to achieve Enlightenment, how can I or anyone else call foul? It is in the ey of the beholder just as it is with any other faith.

Buddhist, even the Zen have umpteenth ritualsand as I believe we discussed the Mahayana and even some Theravada have celstial dieties just as with most other faiths.

Buddhism, when totally stripped of its human trappings, meaning Upaya, and (perhaps) Bodhisattvas and so on is no more "clearly apparent" than Catholicsm. Subjectively you can see whatever you CHOOSE to see but it is an individual truth. You cannot expect it to be plainly demonstrable to anyone else.

"Show me...": What do you mean? Talk about Merkava or other older forms of Jewish Mysticism?

"Plotinus was unique for his view on the Emanation, etc...": Have you ever read Philo? ESPECIALLY his works involving NeoPythagorean theory and its Judaic overlaps and indeed roots? Plotinus was astudent of Ammonius who was a student of...?

Read "De Somno" by Clearchus of Soli and you might be suprised as to who probablly influenced Platonism let alone Neo-Paltonism.

As I have said, nothing happens in a vacuum, even the most isolated of Peoples have outside influences by various means. Whether it is chicken bones in Peru predating the Incas, let alone Conquistadores showing Polynesian travels to the American mainland long before Europeans, to Kennewick Man in Washington State showing that "Native Americans" are not the only Pre-Columbian natives, and so on. Culturally, and this includes religion of course, it is much more of a hybridisation.

"Plotinus' imagery and other fringe contributions are undeniably present in Kabbalah.": Not really. As I said, that imagery is alot older than 3/4th Century CE/AD Philosophy and thought. Babylon had similar modes of thought, and so on.

Even Zohar, which is incredibly late as a work in Judaic Mystisicm is older than Plotinus so if he contri buted, and with cross-pollination, why not? he would be doing so only in the most fringe manner possible.

"Similarity of core schemas...": Well, fair enough. As I said, cross-pollination. We had Jewish Communities in what is now China in the days of Cyrus the Great, and all through what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh so certainly one is going to find such things.

We are older than Hindusim but certainly NOT older than the pre-Aryan Dravidic belief system that was present there before the Aryans migrated southward.

"Palto's contributions to science live on...": And as Ayn Rand pointed out (one thing I certainly agreed with her on) was that this shows how inane most Westerners are. Looking for something new and innovative in ancient and still practiced belief systems. To seek something new SPIRITUALLY sure, of course.To instead seek a new blueprint for modern society is, to me, ridiculous but I think you meantin amuch more conservative fashion.

Maybe you only meant that parts of it still hold true today showing that it swas incredibly innovative and worth of continued praise and if so, I tend to agree.

"Are there prayers for G-D's mercy?": Of course there are, indeed my own name, Rachamim means "Very Much Compassionate," or can be said to say "Merciful." However, it is not a distinct "side" to G-D but one of G-D's infinite attributes. HE is merciful beyond comprehension and also capable of ire beyond comprehension.

"Why categorise Hinudism as idol worship, when Judaism is similar, etc.?": Not at all close. first, even if we negate the physical idolatry, like stues and such, and also negate the manifestation of G-D as a definite physical form like arat or monkey, or even 4 legged little child it is still an idolatrous faith.

G-D, not G-DS. Hindusim holds thta there are literally millions of deities. While it is true that they also hold that all such deities are "aspects" of one supreme deity, they feel that the individual deities express specific attributes on their own.

in other words, when we Jews say G-D has many aspects, all of those aspects are contained in one whole, not split into umpteenth individual attributes that are to be worshipped separately.

I can see why you would take this line of thought. Jews pray FOR G-D's compassion, and you see it is no different than Hindus honouring a deity dedicated TO compassion. Since both faiths honour one supreme deity, what is the difference?

Jews see these attributes as indivisble from one another. You cannot separate compassion any more than you could separate any other attribute of G-D. hindus though do separate these attributes, paying obesiance to the representation of said attribute.

At the same time, compounding this action is their doing so to a definite physical representation of that same attribute!

People readd about "Sparks of Creation" being represented in everything, and see asimilarity but like I said, one needs proper foundations before building walls let alone aroof.

"Cart before the horse.": Assimilationist is a term applied to cultural Jews, not really religious Jews. one can easily say that the Reform movement, or its counterpart in England, the Liberal Movement is also Assimilationist but if we use that lable with them, then even there there are core culturisms universally found. Absolute Monotheism, without adoubt. Funny as it is I suppose, those 2 afore mentioned movements are now moving back to the right in terms of faith, readopting Kashrut Law (Laws of Kosher) and so on.

 

[Nibiru]

Okay, the real reason I started this thread is to find out the ultimate goal of Islam and Judaism . . . like what is Ur idea of "Heaven on Earth"?

My idea is a civilisation without money, laws and international boundaries.

That's the central tenet of a lot of spiritual groups. The Rastafarains, for one, or the Rainbow Family as well. Doukhobors too.

It's a pretty cool idea, and I don't think it's at all unrealistic. Money is really not as necessary to society as people have been fooled into thinking, especially when it's based on usury and has absolutely no intrinsic value other than debt. Money doesn't represent commodity, but debt to banks. A lot of people still think economy is based on the gold standard, though, which it hasn't been for ages.

 

[mdmantpa]

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). I love my church and strongly believe in the teachings and lessons they have provided for me.The members have helped me out in more ways than I can count and have always loved me unconditionally and without judgment. I remember two years ago I was arrested for Heroin possession and was W/Ding real bad, my mom called to tell me that everyone in our church was praying for me to be alright and to let me know that when I got out that they would be there if I needed support or help.

I know people tend to misunderstand Mormons a lot, and believe ridiculous rumors that are not true at all of our church, so all I ask is that you guys please be respectful and not mock my religion as it means a lot to me. Thank you. Much love to everyone's beliefs and spiritual side.

 

[ControlDenied]

i repeat, hehe, that I like gnostic christianity. it is merely a re-hash of buddhism, judaism, and everything else, but it believes in christ as an eternal saviour, not as a individual human that already died. it is a plasmic force which helps all matter attain divinity ('the christ'). i believe in all the various prophets (and all those alive right now). also grunge music

 

[Nibiru]

^um, not really. Gnostic Christianity shares elements with Dharmic religions like Buddhism but developed quite independently of it, and is an Abrahamic religion like Judaism, but it's hardly a re-hash.

Gnostic Christianity is as old as Christianity itself, and a lot of the traditions behind Gnosticism pre-date Christianity. It was practiced for too long, long ago to be called a re-hash of everything else. In fact, I would have to say, in my opinion, that Gnostic Christianity, at least what survived the Roman attempt at destroying it, is the truest Christianity in that it contains Christian traditions that pre-date the Romanization of Christianity during and after the reign of Constantine. Most modern forms of Christianity are based on a Roman interpretation of Christianity proposed in the Nicene Creed. Some modern groups reject the Creed, including the Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, Doukhobors, Rastafarians and I think the Adventists, but am not sure.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ All true. Gnosticism dates back into prehistory in the Middle East. If anything, Christianity borrowed from [far] earlier guilds of seers and mystics. Christianity was from the getgo a rehash. But just as the phoenix continually rearises from the ashes, so do the ancient wisdom tales need retelling for new ages.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ Yes, I agree with both of you.

There was VERY likely, at some point, some kind of exchange between followers of Dharmic religions and Hermeticists/Gnostics on the Silk Road (which is infinitely interesting for me and I wish I could find more literature on it), but yeah, they developed very independently.

 

[ControlDenied]

well ladeedada muthafuckas

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

There was VERY likely, at some point, some kind of exchange between followers of Dharmic religions and Hermeticists/Gnostics on the Silk Road (which is infinitely interesting for me and I wish I could find more literature on it), but yeah, they developed very independently.

This is something of a holy grail among historians and anthropologists of religion, no pun intended. This cultural exchange, though highly likely I reckon, quite possibly took place before the existence of written language, in which case it's lost to the sands of time. Both the Vedic and Hermetic traditions go back farther than anyone knows.

 

[ControlDenied]

yeh. thats wehat i was saying but...some bluelight mafiosos shut me down lol

 

[jackie jones]

Roman Catholic. Against all my thought processes (I need proof), I still believe and conduct my life knowing that I guide my existance by His word. I try to be 'Christ like' (Christian), but its so hard in this world. Daily repentance followed by prayer. I find myself down on my knees with my forehead on the floor often during psychedelic experiences, begging for forgiveness.

 

[ControlDenied]

forgiveness?
I find God to be all-loving. why else would evil exist? because even evil is love.

 

[Jamshyd]

^ Or perhaps because God is evil? .

 

[ControlDenied]

God is evil. actually more acccurately...god is wild. the life-god is a beast-god. the "one true god" is dharma; it is neither nothing nor everytying. it is not extremes. the earth-god, the god that created our world, gives but also takes back; but that's an agreement we make. that god is the 'abraxas' of gnosticism; the pagan hoof-god. he gives us life but takes it back. infinitely kind and infinitely cruel. the real, true god is everywhere, everything. as far as we humans are concerned, we are so small our father and mothers might as well be ''god''.

i think i know what you are asking for forgiveness for though; you feel guilty because you are afraid to die! (i.e. selfish)

 

[Jamshyd]

"Mother is God in the eyes of a child"

I am curious, why do you pick Abraxas out of all other Gnostic appellations of That which you talk about?