The Ideal Religion

[Antlerman]

The intent of this topic is to hear the diversity of ideas and what drives them in individuals about what their ideal religion they would create would look like. So, if you had the complete control to design and establish a new religion for yourself and the world, what would it look like? I'd even like to hear from Christians about their own views, if they would change some things about their own religion or not? There is an underlying point driving this that I suspect I will see come to light in it that we can discuss later.

 

One rule: Let's not let this derail off topic into attacking why someone's idea of a religion won't work. We can ask questions, but no getting into arguing about the problems with their designed religion. It's simply an invitation for people to share their thoughts about how they would design a religion.

[Vigile]

Imagine

[Antlerman]

Imagine

I was waiting for the John Lennon response

[Skankboy]

My idea religion would be a philosophy. By that I mean it wouldn't have dogma and would be flexible to the changing demands of reality upon it's adherants.

[Open_Minded]

My idea religion would be a philosophy. By that I mean it wouldn't have dogma and would be flexible to the changing demands of reality upon it's adherants.

 

I agree with you Skankboy It wouldn't have dogma and it would be flexible to the changing demands of reality.

 

However - there is a part of me that thinks the ideal religion would be no need for religion at all.

 

And this coming from a Christian ....

[KT45]

The ideal religion is the one a person make for themself and no one else

[Amanda]

The ideal religion is the one a person make for themself and no one else

 

I can agree with that... as it seems what may work for one does not work for another.

 

One aspect however, it is often beneficial to exchange diverse philosophical ideas, because in it there may be solutions for others. Yet, a spiritual philosophy seems to me to be better as a personal journey... therefore hopefully individually tailored and thought out.

[Knightley]

 

However - there is a part of me that thinks the ideal religion would be no need for religion at all.

 

 

I agree 100%

 

Even if I could create a religion, then I would not want to. Let people be themselves. Religion and its dogma has made enough messes.

[Skankboy]

Open-Minded and Skankboy should come join me at RRCAN, which is exactly what they say they want

 

LOL... I wouldn't join any society that would have me as a memeber...

 

Well...maybe if I could open a Ska based denomination...

[freeday]

i tried to think of something serous, but i couldn't. and the one thought i had would not have been a very nice answer, considering there are several women on this board.

[Skankboy]

i tried to think of something serous, but i couldn't. and the one thought i had would not have been a very nice answer, considering there are several women on this board.

 

[NotBlinded]

I guess I would have to call it the Religion of Awe.

[Antlerman]

i tried to think of something serous, but i couldn't. and the one thought i had would not have been a very nice answer, considering there are several women on this board.

Hey, you know Hedonism is a valid religious pursuit. I'll take that as your answer. Thanks

[Ziggy]

Hi Antlerman Are you looking for a serious response? I like your question and I am always mulling over thoughts like - can there be a sprituality without religion etc.

 

I would describe my belief now as 'undefined spirituality' or even 'undefinable spirituality' This is OK for me but having some beliefs which cannot be clearly defined makes it hard to share and find like minded people to discuss with

 

This is where 'religion' works... bringing people who can accept their religions definition together and creating a group where they can belong and talk about spiritual stuff

And of course this is where religion then fails.... everyone is bound by the story they have accepted so that they can remain as part of the group - even if they become aware that the story is not as true as they were first told They become part of a them and us mentality

 

So your question is good .. Is it possible to have a religion that does not view all who are not part of it as a threat ?

 

If so I would consider it and MY new Religions creed would be along these lines;

To understand that there is more to the human condition than purely atoms / science / evolution

Good and Bad exist - the most important battle is within us

To view all peoples on earth as equals

To view the Earth as precious

To respect all life forms

To search for love

 

I sound like a hippie Maybe I am just 40 years too late

[KT45]

The ideal religion is the one a person make for themself and no one else

 

I can agree with that... as it seems what may work for one does not work for another.

 

One aspect however, it is often beneficial to exchange diverse philosophical ideas, because in it there may be solutions for others. Yet, a spiritual philosophy seems to me to be better as a personal journey... therefore hopefully individually tailored and thought out.

I agree. I'm actually would encourage exchanging ideas as they lead to evolution of our own personal morals. I steal different philosophies left and right. I like a lot of buddhist philosophies but couldn't see myself becoming one so I just take what I like and leave it at that. But I wouldn't impose my beliefs on others. If they ask for my advice they might get a taste of my "personal religion" but I do my best to tailor it to there situation and warn them to only follow it if it makes sense to them.

 

 

Quick question to anyone. Is "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" good advice or morally acceptable in your point of view?

[NotBlinded]

Quick question to anyone. Is "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" good advice or morally acceptable in your point of view?

Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

 

I think it might prove to be more beneficial to treat them with kindness instead of fighting them. Of course, it matters on the ego of your enemy. It might just piss them off to the extreme if you try to be nice to them, but I think that would be the minority. I don't know...I wish I did.

[KT45]

Quick question to anyone. Is "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" good advice or morally acceptable in your point of view?

Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

 

I think it might prove to be more beneficial to treat them with kindness instead of fighting them. Of course, it matters on the ego of your enemy. It might just piss them off to the extreme if you try to be nice to them, but I think that would be the minority. I don't know...I wish I did.

Reading the verse you just posted it seems like it's saying be nice to your enemy so you can piss them off (for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head). It's the christian way of getting revenge.

[NotBlinded]

Quick question to anyone. Is "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" good advice or morally acceptable in your point of view?

Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

 

I think it might prove to be more beneficial to treat them with kindness instead of fighting them. Of course, it matters on the ego of your enemy. It might just piss them off to the extreme if you try to be nice to them, but I think that would be the minority. I don't know...I wish I did.

Reading the verse you just posted it seems like it's saying be nice to your enemy so you can piss them off (for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head). It's the christian way of getting revenge.

That's what I first thought too, but then I read some other translations and it says something like, "they will be ashamed of what they did." So, I guess the hot coals is a metaphor for the feeling you get when you have just realized how wrong you were. It is kind of like a burning embarassement...heck, our faces even turn red. Of course, that is very subjective. Who's to say who is the enemy?

 

(Sorry Antlerman for taking a little scenic detour!)

[Antlerman]

Hi Antlerman Are you looking for a serious response? I like your question and I am always mulling over thoughts like - can there be a sprituality without religion etc.

 

<snip>

 

If so I would consider it and MY new Religions creed would be along these lines;

To understand that there is more to the human condition than purely atoms / science / evolution

Good and Bad exist - the most important battle is within us

To view all peoples on earth as equals

To view the Earth as precious

To respect all life forms

To search for love

 

I sound like a hippie Maybe I am just 40 years too late

Yes, I am looking for serious responses. I have a purpose in asking this that I'm hoping this line of discussion will expose. I like your response. We're pretty close in thought. No, actually you're not 40 years too late, and it isn't being a hippie. I think you’re very much reflective of the world today. I'm suspecting this thread will get towards answering a question brought up in another thread in response to this post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=202180

 

I think the idea of hearing how people think today about these things is pretty much at the heart of everything we discuss in these forums and is critical to understanding these questions of fundamentalism and the direction of religion in today's world in the industrialized nations.

 

BTW, I haven't run into you in the threads I'm in lately. Good to see you still around.

[Ziggy]

 

I think the idea of hearing how people think today about these things is pretty much at the heart of everything we discuss in these forums and is critical to understanding these questions of fundamentalism and the direction of religion in today's world in the industrialized nations.

 

BTW, I haven't run into you in the threads I'm in lately. Good to see you still around.

 

So you think some form of religion is a good thing for society?

Is this just because of the effect it can have on stablising society or do you mean at a much more personal/individual level - or both!

 

Do you think its possible for that to happen without it being able to claim the 'truth'?

 

This is a very similar issue I have talked to OM about albeit that was how the christian church specifically should address the question i believe as you do - its very topical

 

I left the forum for a month or two I was all out of questions and answers. Needed to read some rather than ask all the time I am touched you noticed I was gone

[Open_Minded]

I left the forum for a month or two I was all out of questions and answers. Needed to read some rather than ask all the time I am touched you noticed I was gone

 

 

I noticed too, Robert. Good to see you back on board.

 

How are things going with your congregation right now?

 

Not to get off topic, Antlerman. But, as far as ideal religion goes - I think the conversations that have been happening in Robert's congregation (and mine) are perfect examples of folks trying to move their particular communities towards a more open understanding of religion and all that is Sacred. So... I guess you could say my questions aren't too far off topic.

[Soule]

The intent of this topic is to hear the diversity of ideas and what drives them in individuals about what their ideal religion they would create would look like. So, if you had the complete control to design and establish a new religion for yourself and the world, what would it look like? I'd even like to hear from Christians about their own views, if they would change some things about their own religion or not? There is an underlying point driving this that I suspect I will see come to light in it that we can discuss later.

 

One rule: Let's not let this derail off topic into attacking why someone's idea of a religion won't work. We can ask questions, but no getting into arguing about the problems with their designed religion. It's simply an invitation for people to share their thoughts about how they would design a religion.

 

 

hmm my own personalized religion would have to revolve around the human experiance, so the main teaching would be "be human"

 

main points

 

-humans are here to experiance god through being human. (god wanted to experiance himself so he created humans to experiance them through a diverse amount of religious views and opinions.)

 

-the general purpose of existing is to be human. be that being gay and human, straight and human, poor and human, rich and human. to basically have the human experiance.

 

-there is no true right and wrong, and such are human ideals defined by society.

 

-make the most of life.

 

-god is not personified, but is more of an entity.

 

thats all i have really worked out right now.

[Antlerman]

Not to get off topic, Antlerman. But, as far as ideal religion goes - I think the conversations that have been happening in Robert's congregation (and mine) are perfect examples of folks trying to move their particular communities towards a more open understanding of religion and all that is Sacred. So... I guess you could say my questions aren't too far off topic.

Conversations like those in Robert's and your congregations are totally germain to the greater question that Freeday asked over in the other thread that I'm trying to work towards answering:

when you bring up the point about religion trying to adjust to society. what makes you think this? this is something i am having a hard time getting past. are you trying to imply that science has shot down a lot of ideas about the bible? and that christianity is trying to explain thier way out of it. is this the point you are trying to make. the church i go to would very much be a fundamentalist in thought, they preach most things that does not go (or endorse) with our changing society. yet it has grown expiditionally. you may say that people are seeking the middle, trying to get back to the good ole days. but i don't think that is what it is about. i feel that they teach a way to live your life that would most please Jesus.

and if you beleive in him, wouldn't you want to do that.

There's a number of points in there I want to address, but this question here is that he asked for clarification of the point I continue to raise again and again, how that fundamentalism is symptomatic of the failing of the middle to adjust to a changing society. In what way is it failing?

 

I was waiting till I was a little more prepared to put together a more cohesive response, but I'll give it a shot here now since I haven't had much time lately. Part of the reason for this thread is to be able to hear some of how people like us today think about these issues on a philosophical level, moral level, cultural attitudes, etc, etc, and how very much reflective of the mindset of society today they are, and how vastly different than they are from what the world was even 20 years ago, not even to mention 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, or even way back to 2000 + years ago!

 

People’s attitudes and expectations in life are completely influenced by the world we live in. The mainstream church, to answer Freeday's question, struggles with trying to keep up with speaking to how people think. The answers here about what religion you would design for the world if you could, reflect the types of attitudes and world views that are part of our world today. Fundamentalism is always a reactionary response when major change happens in societies, but will itself inevitably be swallowed up by society as it continues to march forward.

 

I have made the point that it is a complete fallacy to claim that fundamentalist belief is adhering to the teachings of the early church. Those in fundamentalism are still well infused by modern and postmodern views in its parishioners, and at best they can temporarily put the brakes and slow it a little as it moves ahead on an unstoppable slide into the future. It has always been this way in each of the great changes of society, from the ancient world to the Medieval; from Medieval to Modernity; from Modernity to the Postmodern world of today.

 

The increase in fundamentalism in our societies is symptomatic of the implosion of the middle as it struggles to adapt its message to find relevance to speak to today's societies in industrialized nations. This is where the middle is failing, and why people are abandoning it in droves to fundamentalism and alternative religions and philosophies.

 

I know I'm not articulating this really well right now, but I find it curious even in myself how reflective of these times my own ways of thinking are influenced. So to answer Freedays question how is Christianity failing to adapt? Christianity is failing to speak to this world in the ways it thinks, and is struggling to adapt. OM's efforts in her congregation are a great example of the middle making efforts to find that new way to speak to the questions that are a part of the world we live in today.

 

Freeday, your church is a great example of a group's reactionary response to these changes, but it will not work because people like me who are very much products of our culture find it is not speaking to the questions we ask, let alone offer any satisfying answers. As you and those in your congregation become more and more exposed to these same questions through education and exposure to culture, those answers you find satisfaction in now will begin to fail even there, as they always have done in the past. "The same yesterday, today, and tommorow"? Hardly. Fundamentalism is only half-ways sustainable in totally seperated communities like the Amish, and is an illusion of answers in the real world.

 

I'll reply to Robert separately as I really like your questions and want to spend some time with them.

 

 

hmm my own personalized religion would have to revolve around the human experiance, so the main teaching would be "be human"

 

main points

 

-humans are here to experiance god through being human. (god wanted to experiance himself so he created humans to experiance them through a diverse amount of religious views and opinions.)

 

-the general purpose of existing is to be human. be that being gay and human, straight and human, poor and human, rich and human. to basically have the human experiance.

 

-there is no true right and wrong, and such are human ideals defined by society.

 

-make the most of life.

 

-god is not personified, but is more of an entity.

 

thats all i have really worked out right now.

A good response. This is very much how I feel, except I just call it Life, instead of using the word God (way too much bad history with theological definition of that for me). Please share more of your thoughts like this.

[Soule]

A good response. This is very much how I feel, except I just call it Life, instead of using the word God (way too much bad history with theological definition of that for me). Please share more of your thoughts like this.

 

well ive always felt that the religions i have studied diddnt really hold true to reality, or have been twisted in some way.

 

i have a few more ideas based on experiances i have had durring meditation but are a bit harder to believe.

 

-conciousness stems from "life" and is connected to it.

 

-after death we return to "life" and our conciousness fades away back into it returning our experiances to it.

[Legion]

I suppose that I would have to be forced to come up with a new religion or what I thought was the "Ideal" religion. I wouldn't likely do it of my own volition.

 

I'm glad to see Life with a capital "L" show up in these discussions. I feel that any new religion would have to place Life at it's very center. It would have to be open ended in the sense that while it may acknowledge that there was a Truth about Life, it would not claim to know or hold the fullness of that Truth. It would have to embrace questions. It may even have to embrace paradox. As I once heard one author assert...

 

At the core of each of us is a paradox.

The paradox takes the form of a question.

The question becomes the journey that defines our lives.

 

So the respect of Life and living things would have to be paramount in any ideal religion in my opinion.