First off, I’m not sure which forum is most appropriate for this, but it is serious and of a religious nature so I’ll start it here in GD.
For a while now I’ve been toying with the idea of founding my own set of spiritual beliefs; not quite an organized religion, but a well-defined set of spiritual beliefs tailored to my personal philosophy. I’d like all of you to help me define some of the tenets of this religion (I’ll just call it a religion for simplicity’s sake). If you think of something that I need to address, please chime in.
First off, some central ideals to this religion:
•Science is usually right. If new scientific knowledge (that becomes accepted by the scientific community) contradicts anything claimed by this religion, the tenet in conflict with the new knowledge should be changed.
•This religion is one concieved by human beings (namely me and whoever helps me out in this thread). It is not divinely inspired. If and when there is a book central to this religion (like many religions do), it shall not be considered the word of God.
•Until we learn more about God, assume the following: There is one God. This God is whoever or whatever is responsible for the universe functioning the way it does. God is all-powerful. God is not omnibenevolent, but He is not evil; He is benign at worst. God cares about us too much to allow any place like Hell to exist.
•We exist as souls who undergo many lives. Our respective bodies are merely vehicles. Each life is a learning process in which we are meant to learn one or more important things. As we progrees through many lives, we accumulate knowledge and are incarnated as progressively more complex beings. The primary purpose of our existence is to learn as much as possible; the best way to do so is through many incarnations, experiencing as much as possible. We move only “forward” in our development; each person currently incarnated as a human has most likely already been incarnated as, for example, a dog, and will never be incarnated as a dog again (regardless of your behavior during this life). There is no such thing as karma; your behavior in each life has little bearing on your future lives (although if you fail to learn in this life what you were supposed to learn, you will have to live a similar life as your next life).
Those are the central ideals of my religion. Feel free to chime in with questions; I need to work a lot of bugs out of it. I think I’ll address the “Do’s and Don’ts” as people ask me about them.
I’ve tried the “Founding your own religion” thing myself. It was sort of a self-styled Hindo-shamanistic Bhuddism. I basically took what I felt were the best and most useful bits of the major Eastern religions, and tried to put them into practice.
well max, you were doing good until you got to stuff about god and reincarnation. you start off talking about the value of science, implying that you accept the tenet that ascertations need to have evidence to be supported. however, you provide no evidence for either the existance of god or reincarnation. if you have in fact proved that these exist, i apologise and withdraw my criticism. in fact, i would be quite anxious to hear such evidence, as it would make my own spiratual life much less complicated.
The comments attributed to DAVID B, THE GOD MOST HIGH, should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the 1st church of DAVID B. This could seem confusing to the uninitiated. The 1st church does not follow THE GOURD so their interpretations are not to be trusted.
Also, they are schismatic!
In Portland, OR, there is a religion(cult, whatever), that worships the old television show, The Partridge Family. They are actually a CHAPTER of The Partridge Family Temple. Basically, they get really drunk and get into fights. I am not making this up. It was reported at http://www.portlandmercury.com.
The stuff about reincarnation is merely the “default”. Since we have no idea of what happens to us when our bodies die, you can’t rely on science for this matter. This is, after all, a religion. I’m not saying, “This is what happens to us when we die”, I’m saying “For now, let’s assume the following.”. As soon as we have a scientific explanation for what happens to the mind of a sentient being when its body dies, this religion will change to accomodate it. This isn’t a religion based on science; it merely respects science. It does happen to be a pro-science religion; genetic engineering isn’t “playing God” according to this religion (God is far more clever than you or I think). I simply want to make sure that this religion will never oppose science (as many religions seem to).
I’m afraid I can’t give you any evidence to support my “reincarnation model”. If I ever manage to astrally project (haven’t yet), I’ll get back to you.
Oh, and can we stop talking about David B’s church? I meant it when I said that this is a serious thread. Please ask me some question so that this religion can be more clearly defined.
Max - why are you making points 3 and 4 the default option? What has inspired you to think that they mught be true? Do you feel that you have been divinely inspired?
Pick ‘n’ mix religion seems to be gaining popularity these days and I don’t understand why. Surely either [ul]
[li]you accept that X was a prophet and what they said was true, so religion Y is correct; or[/li][li]you don’t think that any historical figure was dictated to by God. In this case, even if you believe in God you have absolutely no way of knowing his form.[/ul][/li]Anything else is just wishful thinking.
No! This is a very important part of this religion: Do not give the church any money. This religion shall not have actual “churches” or “temples”. It is simply a spiritual philosophy that takes the place of traditional religion. There shall be no actual property or assets owned by this religion. Why not? God does not need your money. While much of the money given to various churches today is used for humanitarian purposes, money does not have to go through a church to help the needy. If you want to help those less fortunate than you, you can donate money to a secular charity.
My third and fourth points in the OP are the default because they may not be the truth. Whether they are true has neither been proven or disproven.
The fourth point is based upon the assumption that we live here on Earth for a reason, and that reason does not involve us being pawns in some sort of game being played between good and evil (ie God and Satan). Life isn’t some sort of test where if you do good you are rewarded and if you do bad you are punished. You simply live; hopefully you’ll learn something.
I have NOT been divinely inspired. Despite my screen name, I am a mortal man. I have never had a two-way conversation with God. I simply feel that the religions that exist today are in many ways unreasonable; I don’t want to be part of a faith that can be considered unreasonable. This religion is intended to encourage people to be rational and peaceful.
By the way, there are no prophets who directly play a role in this religion.
Default because they may not be the truth? Why not default with what you think that you know and leave the stuff you’re not sure about out of it?
Where does this assumption come from? Why must we be here for a reason? If there is a reason, why shouldn’t it be for the purposes of an ineffable game between ineffable beings. Who said that “God is love”? It was a man. If you choose to believe that the man that said it was not in direct contact with a god then why believe anything that he said? Pick ‘n’ mix religion again.
Yet you are trying to understand him/it/them.
You feel that they are unreasonable. You feel this on the grounds of your morality and logic. On the basis of my values, I can’t disagree with you - but my stance is to deny that their premises are correct. I can then construct a consistent and complete belief system that leaves religion out of it altogether. Your method is to accept some of their axioms but not others. But who are you to choose which are correct and which are not?
Then how do you formulate any opinions of God? Whence your faith?