Why make up your own religion???

[Crazy Liz]

You are treating them as individuals. The point of the distilled wisdom is that 1. two heads (or a gazillion) are better than one and 2. old means it has had time for trial and error to have taken effect. Basically, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Perhaps one person's new song is another's reinvented wheel?

 

[GeratTzedek]

Have you asked if that's what anyone here is claiming?

It is inferred by its nature. To start one's own religion is to believe that one's self has superior wisdom than the collective wisdom of many which has been tried out and refined over time.

 

[Crazy Liz]

It is inferred by its nature. To start one's own religion is to believe that one's self has superior wisdom than the collective wisdom of many which has been tried out and refined over time.

I think that statement must be based on some of your assumptions of what a religion is. I realize whoever wrote the Wikipedia article also has a very modern Western viewpoint, that religion is first and foremost a matter of one's opinion on metaphysics.

I'm not sure that's what everyone here means by religion. I have worked out my own theology, worldview and spirituality within a broadly Christian framework. I don't claim to have invented my own religion, but my theology, worldview and spirituality contain a fair amount of innovation. If I had done the same thing from a broadly polytheistic, pagan, pantheistic or animistic worldview, it probably would be more accurate to classify my beliefs, spirituality and practices as a new religion, rather than a new way of practicing an old religion.

SacredSin hasn't posted in this thread yet, so I'd just suggest waiting to see her POV before judging.

ETA: I just noticed the verse in your signature. That was my father's favorite Bible verse.

 

[Gardenia]

If I had done the same thing from a broadly polytheistic, pagan, pantheistic or animistic worldview, it probably would be more accurate to classify my beliefs, spirituality and practices as a new religion, rather than a new way of practicing an old religion.

I think that about sums it up.. From putting together some old practices, and some new, I've come up with my own way. I don't think I am the wisest person to ever exist. I'm just doing what works for me, what brings me closer to the Divine. You can think I am arrogant if you wish, I'm just doing what I feel to be right - as everyone else is doing, one way or another. I have no reason not to do what I am doing, and I don't really want to convert anyone or tell them what they should be doing.. just myself.. so what's wrong with it?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Who are you to decide what is truth? I know the phrasing makes it sound like I'm angry, but I'm not. It's not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious why you think you have the authority to decide what is truth and what is not. It's a way of thinking that I don't understand. My gosh, I have been blessed by G-d with a fantastic intelligence, and I've spent most of my life studying what others have to say, and I would never have the audacity (sorry I can think of no other word) to think that I could make up my own religion. At this point it is hard for me not to see this as incredibly immature and narcisstic. I'm sure it looks quite different to you. Please help me understand you.

Down through history, people simply didn't do what you say you are doing. They believed religions they were taught because they believed them to be correct. It had nothing to do with what they personally thought or wanted or it being convenient. The very very few people in history who actually started new religions, such as Muhammed or Joseph Smith, go through great pains to VALIDATE what they are doing. They make claims such as visions or visits by angels that would set them apart from the average person. They try to show how what they are revealing has been true from the beginning of time. But what they don't do is just say, "Oh I'm making up a new religion." They never treat it like some buffet that they can casually throw together whatever foods they want to make a meal. Now I might not agree with their claims, but I can certainly understand what they are doing. You, I am completely baffled by. Please help me understand you.

No offense but I find this somewhat rude. You follow a religion created by Paul. The difference is I follow what I personally believe is best for me and you follow what someone else says is true. The only way I can explain my path is that I made it because no one else believes the exact same things I do. I have no authoritative book telling me how to live and thats the way I like it. That being said, that means I have to decide what I think is best to work into my spiritual practice and beliefs. So yes, in short I did make my own path/religion. You say you're baffled but I don't honestly feel that you really care to do anything but judge.

ETA: Others have said it much better for me. I am an eclectic pagan. That means I take various beliefs and condense them into my on personal beliefs system. If I feel that something from one religions calls to me or matches the beliefs I already have and I'll see the same from another religion I'll combine them into my own personal practice. I can't define myself as anything other than an eclectic pagan. Well I could call myself a hearth witch, but thats a craft, not a religion. I have made my own individual belief system and I do not expect anyone else to follow it. Live and let live I say. Everyone has their own spirituality, albeit within a religion or without, I am no different. That being said, I still don't appreciate being called out upon. This could have been handled via PM or without naming names. I wouldn't have done the same to anyone else and I had expected the same courtesy..which I see now was too much to ask for.

 

[GeratTzedek]

You have assumed I am a Christian. I am not. My religion is Orthodox Judaism. It was not created by any man.

However, I thought I very carefully explained that those men who do create religions go through very great pains to validate what they are doing, something you don't do.

I am sorry you feel offended. I had genuinely hoped you would say something to help me understand your reasoning in doing what you are doing, why you think it is just as good to come up with something on your own as to participate in something distilled over time. I think your answer did help somewhat: without authoritative scriptures, you rather ARE left on your own to figure out what to do. It doesn't make you completely understandable to me, but it does help.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

You have assumed I am a Christian. I am not. My religion is Orthodox Judaism. It was not created by any man.

However, I thought I very carefully explained that those men who do create religions go through very great pains to validate what they are doing, something you don't do.

I am sorry you feel offended. I had genuinely hoped you would say something to help me understand your reasoning in doing what you are doing, why you think it is just as good to come up with something on your own as to participate in something distilled over time. I think your answer did help somewhat: without authoritative scriptures, you rather ARE left on your own to figure out what to do. It doesn't make you completely understandable to me, but it does help.

Right right, forgot your religion. Even so words remain the same minus the paul part.

Point blank you don't have to understand and I'm not convinced you really want to understand. If you were sincerely interested in this and what others like myself do in defining their own spirituality then you would not have created this thread to call me out. You would have simply asked the same question without naming names. That is why I am offended and that is why I am led to believe you only want to judge and criticize.

That is also why all the explaining in the world won't help you to understand. Others have said before me exactly what I have and yet you're saying I haven't explained myself..when I and others already have answered your questions.

If you don't like my chosen religious practice then fine, you don't have to pay attention to it, but by all means show me the same courtesy I have shown you by not calling you out on your religious beliefs in a criticizing manner.

 

[Gardenia]

However, I thought I very carefully explained that those men who do create religions go through very great pains to validate what they are doing, something you don't do.

Why do I need to validate it to anyone? I am not leading any groups of people, I am not seeking converts, I am not claiming to have the only way to God, etc. Who would I validate it to? Myself? Already have, otherwise I'd not be doing it (you can, again, read why I do what I do in my previous answers). I'm following my own path, influenced by many people and ideas, yet still my own. It brings me closer to the Divine. It spiritually fills me. Really, I don't care to validate it to others all that much. What good would it do? I don't ask others to validate their beliefs to me, it's between them and God.

EDIT: I forgot something else I wanted to say. Don't assume we've just slapped a bunch of stuff together with no thought to it. Many of us who define as eclectic pagan (not all, there sure are some who give no thought to anything - they're in every way of life, sadly) have put many years of study, prayer, meditation, deep thought, practice, and hard work into coming into our own beliefs.

 

[Steezie]

Who are you to decide what is truth? I know the phrasing makes it sound like I'm angry, but I'm not. It's not a rhetorical question; I am genuinely curious why you think you have the authority to decide what is truth and what is not. It's a way of thinking that I don't understand. My gosh, I have been blessed by G-d with a fantastic intelligence, and I've spent most of my life studying what others have to say, and I would never have the audacity (sorry I can think of no other word) to think that I could make up my own religion. At this point it is hard for me not to see this as incredibly immature and narcisstic. I'm sure it looks quite different to you. Please help me understand you.

Down through history, people simply didn't do what you say you are doing. They believed religions they were taught because they believed them to be correct. It had nothing to do with what they personally thought or wanted or it being convenient. The very very few people in history who actually started new religions, such as Muhammed or Joseph Smith, go through great pains to VALIDATE what they are doing. They make claims such as visions or visits by angels that would set them apart from the average person. They try to show how what they are revealing has been true from the beginning of time. But what they don't do is just say, "Oh I'm making up a new religion." They never treat it like some buffet that they can casually throw together whatever foods they want to make a meal. Now I might not agree with their claims, but I can certainly understand what they are doing. You, I am completely baffled by. Please help me understand you.

As an Eclectic Pagan, someone who you would term as "making up my own religion", I would like to supply a second answer.

One key belief for most Pagans is the idea that there is no universal truth. That there is no "one way" to do things. Our faith for us is based on our interpretation of what we see, what we feel, and what we think. We pattern our beliefs around what we see because we believe that our souls repeat the cycle of life time and time again to gain more knowlege and experience about this world. Our perceptions and interpretations are based on what we learn in this body as well as what our soul knows from previous lives. So these perceptions and interpretaions, these ways of looking at the world are there for a reason. Maybe something we're curious about subconsciously and want to know. Our beliefs help us see these things differently and in new light so we can learn about them, on a conscious and unconscious level.

I know thats somewhat confusing and I am sorry for that, but thats the best answer I can give you

 

[GeratTzedek]

If there is no universal truth, why bother being spiritual/religious at all. Thank you for your addition. Things are becoming a little clearer to me.

 

[Druweid]

Greetings!

You ask if I think it is immature to come up with new metaphors and expressions of one's own spirituality. No, I don't. But I also don't think that doing this is the same as starting a new religion. A religion is much more than metaphors and expressions of one's spirituality. I do not have an anti-innovation attitude. But there is a difference between creavity WITHIN a religion, and creating a NEW religion.

Allow me to elaborate, and perhaps I can make this a bit more clear. To say that each of us Pagans, Wiccans, etc., is creating our own religion is accurate, but also a bit over-simplified, and often leads to misunderstanding.

In a sense, we are not creating our own religion since we follow holidays, customs, and/or practices that have been established by the religion itself. However, on a larger and more significant scale, each of us ARE creating our own religion since we are using honest introspection to discover and understand our spiritual position within life, and determine the best path for encouraging spiritual growth. My needs are not your needs, nor are they his needs, nor hers. We all seek a place, but each of us being in entrirely different positions, we seek our own way to get there. The true significance is that my way may be entirely different, and possible even opposed, to Sacredsin's way, but we agree that our chosen paths are right for us at this time.

To "sing a new song" is to sing authentically. But to assume that one is so wise that one can understand better than the distilled wisdom of the ages, and so cast aside all that wisdom and offer something new from scratch, DOES seem incredibly arrogant to me.

It has nothing to do with assuming one is more wise where wisdom itself is concerned. However, I am uniquely qualified to know where I stand and what direction I need to take.

And as far as the "wisdom of the ages" is concerned, I could not agree more. We do not abandon the wisdom of the past, nor are we creating anything "from scratch." I can, and do, refer to the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the Tripitaka, the Vedas, and any number of other writings to gain better insight and understanding. The difference is, while many people determine what is truth based on authorship, such as Moses, the Gospels, Paul formerly known as Saul, Mohammed (pbuh), etc., I believe each "truth" stands or falls on it's own merit, not the merit of it's source.

If anyone has limited themselves to the wisdom of the ages, it is not I, my dear GerTzedek. IMHO, and with all due respect, it is you.

Respectfully,
-- Druweid

 

[Steezie]

If there is no universal truth, why bother being spiritual/religious at all. Thank you for your addition. Things are becoming a little clearer to me.

Because most of us FEEL that there's something else. Something BEYOND the ordinary. Its a difficult feeling to describe.

Also, I've seen and done a lot of things in my life. A lot of them make it difficult for me to be an Atheist. Others share similar experiences and feel the same way.

For Pagans, religion is far less about the destination and focuses a great deal more on the journey there, as corny as it sounds. Christians, Jews, Muslims are on a vacation. They want to get where they want to go and a lot of them dont really look out the windows. Pagans are on a road-trip, the destination doesnt matter too much, so long as we see some cool stuff and have fun getting there.

 

[sidhe]

I follow a religion that got made up about 104 years ago, not getting into the issues of inspiration around Liber AL and whether it was AC or Rose who was the intended recipient...

We've got prophets, writings (a fair number with original copies still extant), and distilled wisdom of the ages (Buddha, Lao-Tse, Moses, Mohammed, Thoth, Hermes T...All Your Prophets Are Belong To Us!).

Also, much to my amusement, a Catholic cardinal investigated my religion and concluded either it was a natural reaction to Christianity and would fade in a few years, or the Church had done something very wrong, and a correction was being made. He decided the first was true. That was about 80 years ago. We're still growing.

However, there's a "Cult of Personality" about the founder which distracts from the actual teachings. Plus, there is the fact that he just threw some stuff together...picking what made sense from one and matching it with the other. Oh, and he was completely nuts, misogynistic, racist, and anti-semetic. But, he was a white guy in the early 1900s...that was par for the course, and he admitted that he wasn't the best example of the religion, and later followers would actually show how to walk-the-walk.

Are we a legitimate religion in your eyes, or nay?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am genuinely curious why you think you have the authority to decide what is truth and what is not.

It seems to me that this is only a problem if one declares that one's own created religion is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth.

If one is simply claiming to be finding one's own way, there really isn't a problem. One's created religion can grow as one grows in understanding.

Are we a legitimate religion in your eyes, or nay?

As legitimate as any religion is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The point of the distilled wisdom is that 1. two heads (or a gazillion) are better than one

Not necessarily true. Einstein was just one individual who proved that one wrong. The physics establishment didn't catch up to his genius for some time.

Get a million people creating something, and what you'll end up with is something fit only for the Lowest Common Denominator. Just look at popular television.

One head is often better than a committee.

2. old means it has had time for trial and error to have taken effect. Basically, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

New roads may require new wheels.

Times change, and people differ as individuals, and one can't always assume that an old design, no matter how well tested and improved, will be best for everybody today.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LibertyChic]

I agree with what others have posted here. We do not create our eclecticisms in a vacuum. We don't just pull stuff out of the air and decide "that looks good." We base our beliefs on ancient teachings and writing of many wise people before us, on traditions handed down, and on what makes sense to us.

In short, we are the Free Thinkers of the religious world.

 

[sidhe]

As legitimate as any religion is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'll take that. But we've got cooler rites.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But we've got cooler rites.

No question about that!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Crazy Liz]

If there is no universal truth, why bother being spiritual/religious at all. Thank you for your addition. Things are becoming a little clearer to me.

There may be a universal truth, but different ways to recognize it and put it into practice. There may be one destination, but many routes that lead there. This seems to be the philosophy of the eclectic pagans, rather than a denial of universal truth.

Some religions hold there is only one universal truth and only one goal of that truth, only one way to appropriate that truth, only one way to put it into practice in life. Because part of their religious system is the belief that they have exclusive access to universal truth, and all others are lost at best and enemies at worst, these religions tend to proselytize a great deal. As far as I can see, the only alternative to a heavy emphasis on proselytization in a religion that believes it has exclusive access to universal truth is a type of chauvinism which only cares about insiders and is either indifferent or hostile to outsiders.

You have stated you are an Orthodox Jew. All the Orthodox Jews I know are extremely opposed to proselytization, yet they seem to have plenty of compassion for human beings of other religions. They seem to be perfectly OK with other people having other religions, so long as nobody proselytizes. How does this attitude fit with the concept of having the one and only universal truth?

Perhaps if you could help us better understand your POV, it would be easier to put the things people have said here into words you can understand.

 

[uberd00b]

You have assumed I am a Christian. I am not. My religion is Orthodox Judaism. It was not created by any man.

That's really a matter of perspective, for example to many people Judaism is the religious tradition of the Jewish people. It's origins being within the ancient Hebrews themselves, their folktales and history evolving as they were transmitted (orally at first). If you can step outside of it for a second to see it from that perspective it might give you some insights.

In effect you are also following something you have decided to follow, only perhaps you could claim a little more pedigree.