Why make up your own religion???

[GeratTzedek]

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.

Oh this I know. There are those pagans who really do slap stuff together, usually very young ones. But others are extraordinarily educated and thoughtful about it.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Oh this I know. There are those pagans who really do slap stuff together, usually very young ones. But others are extraordinarily educated and thoughtful about it.

Another stab at me? You assume that I'm 19 so I've "slapped" my beliefs together? If that is the case then you are sorely mistaken. Age does not mean wisdom or intelligence as has been so obviously shown throughout this thread.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Another stab at me? You assume that I'm 19 so I've "slapped" my beliefs together?

Did I mention you????? Oh my GOSH. You have no skin. I wasn't even thinking about you. I don't know enough about you to know how you are. I was speaking of the pagan friends I've had in real life. You know, its not always about you. I'm not talking to you anymore. You are way too sensitive.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Did I mention you????? Oh my GOSH. You have no skin. I wasn't even thinking about you. I don't know enough about you to know how you are. I was speaking of the pagan friends I've had in real life. You know, its not always about you. I'm not talking to you anymore. You are way too sensitive.

Well after having a whole thread dedicated to me what would you expect? Paganism is so diverse that one pagan is not the epitome of what paganism is..we are all different. Of course we are going to be different from your friends and from each other. Do us a favor and find a way to ask questions without flaming.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You know, some of us interpreted this thread as a call-out, and others just as an awkward way to start a conversation. After reading all the noise and interference here, I think finding more graceful ways to follow-up with an individual in a new thread might be helpful. I've brought a new thread to the attention of the person whose post(s) prompted me to start the topic in two or three different ways that worked pretty well. I have sometimes posted a response in the thread saying I was interested in a particular statement, but in order not to derail the thread, I started a new thread. Sometimes I include a quote from the old thread in my OP, and sometimes not. A quote with a link does help people to get the context of the idea that prompted the thread. Other times, I have just started a thread without mentioning any names, and then sent a PM to a person I was particularly interested in discussing with, including a link to the new thread.

Seeing one's own name in a thread list can be off-putting, and that response can color and interfere with the entire discussion. I find this topic interesting, and have learned from all the posts. I'm sorry to see all the friction caused by the thread title. (I can understand it, because I saw another thread last week where SacredSin was called out for her user name. I can understand why she would be sensitive to anything that looks like a callout, even if not intended that way.)

BTW, GT, I am still interested in your response to the thoughts I brought up in post #39. If you are really interested in the topic in general, I'd really love to see your response to that post.

 

[sidhe]

Well after having a whole thread dedicated to me what would you expect? Paganism is so diverse that one pagan is not the epitome of what paganism is..we are all different. Of course we are going to be different from your friends and from each other. Do us a favor and find a way to ask questions without flaming.

QFT.

Some folks have a double-standard...they expect to get to act however they want and cry "discrimination" when people don't kowtow to them, and expect everyone else to behave immaculately and refuse to converse with anyone who dares to respond to them in the manner they treat others.

Silly old Aeon ideas...join me as we watch them crumble.

 

[GeratTzedek]

You know, some of us interpreted this thread as a call-out, and others just as an awkward way to start a conversation. After reading all the noise and interference here, I think finding more graceful ways to follow-up with an individual in a new thread might be helpful. I've brought a new thread to the attention of the person whose post(s) prompted me to start the topic in two or three different ways that worked pretty well. I have sometimes posted a response in the thread saying I was interested in a particular statement, but in order not to derail the thread, I started a new thread. Sometimes I include a quote from the old thread in my OP, and sometimes not. A quote with a link does help people to get the context of the idea that prompted the thread. Other times, I have just started a thread without mentioning any names, and then sent a PM to a person I was particularly interested in discussing with, including a link to the new thread.

Thanks liz.

And by the way, if you have suggwstions how I might reword the OP more tactfully while at the same time stating my opinion, I'm open to editing.

Seeing one's own name in a thread list can be off-putting, and that response can color and interfere with the entire discussion. I find this topic interesting, and have learned from all the posts. I'm sorry to see all the friction caused by the thread title.

The only reason sacredsin's name is in the title is because 1. the op replies to something he/she said, but it has been moved to a new thread and so he/she needs to be informed and 2. the title also makes it clear that I NOT addressing Sacredsin alone, and hope for responses from a variety of people.

BTW, GT, I am still interested in your response to the thoughts I brought up in post #39. If you are really interested in the topic in general, I'd really love to see your response to that post.

Actually several people have uploaded very thoughtful replies, and I'm thinking about what has been said. Sometimes posts are easy to reply to, other times they deserve to be mulled over a bit. Contary to the opinions of some peoples, I really do listen.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

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.

x infinity, SacredSin.

I am another CFer who's been bold enough to strike out her own, spiritually speaking. I use a combination of Wicca and Warrior/Martial Arts "philosophy", the philo imparted to me by a 60+ year old Martial Artist mentor. The Wicca I discoevered late last year and I am adding gradually as my studies (and time) permits. It's akin to Kerr Cuhulain's concept of the archetype of the Wiccan Warrior.

I think what certain people **COUGHGerTzedekCOUGH*** seem to be forgetting here is that everybody's spiritual beliefs are very personal to the individual. I hold the beliefs I do because those beliefs work FOR ME. Those same beliefs may not work for other people. Fine. They don't have to. As long as they resonate with me and help me to live my life, deal with adversity and bad times, and help me to become a better, stronger person, than those spiritual beliefs hold all the validity they need to. I don't have to justify them to anyone other than myself. And I sure as hell don't require anyone's approval in order to put those beliefs into practice.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Actually several people have uploaded very thoughtful replies, and I'm thinking about what has been said. Sometimes posts are easy to reply to, other times they deserve to be mulled over a bit. Contary to the opinions of some peoples, I really do listen.

Thanks.

I think what certain people **COUGHGerTzedekCOUGH*** seem to be forgetting here is that everybody's spiritual beliefs are very personal to the individual. I hold the beliefs I do because those beliefs work FOR ME. Those same beliefs may not work for other people. Fine. They don't have to. As long as they resonate with me and help me to live my life, deal with adversity and bad times, and help me to become a better, stronger person, than those spiritual beliefs hold all the validity they need to. I don't have to justify them to anyone other than myself. And I sure as hell don't require anyone's approval in order to put those beliefs into practice.

Actually I just read GT's thread about her own conversion. It seems from her thread (unless she's just trying to skirt CF's "no promotion rule" ) that she feels exactly the same way about her own spiritual journey. She has found a path that works for her and has no interest in converting anyone else. That's why I asked the questions I did in post #39 (although I hadn't read the other thread yet when I posted it). I'm wondering how the concepts of ultimate truth and validating revelations applies to a religion that does not proselytize.

If one finds one's spiritual home in a traditional religion, but does not believe in that religion as ultimate truth for everybody, why would one assume religion means ultimate truth at all? The assumption that religion = ultimate truth seems to be the underlying issue in the OP, yet I don't see the OP claiming that her own religion is ultimate truth. There seems to me to be as much cognitive dissonance behind the question as in the expected answer, so I must be missing something somewhere.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some folks have a double-standard...they expect to get to act however they want and cry "discrimination" when people don't kowtow to them, and expect everyone else to behave immaculately and refuse to converse with anyone who dares to respond to them in the manner they treat others.

Yes, I've noticed this kind of behavior before.

Silly old Aeon ideas...join me as we watch them crumble.

I admire your optimism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sidhe]

I admire your optimism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's starting to be more observation than optimism. Things either change or fail at a certain point. Some branches of Christianity are changing and being told that they're not True Christianity[sup]TM[/sup]. Time will tell, but you can spot who's tuning into the new ideas by their honest devotion to agape.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

Actually I just read GT's thread about her own conversion. It seems from her thread (unless she's just trying to skirt CF's "no promotion rule" ) that she feels exactly the same way about her own spiritual journey. She has found a path that works for her and has no interest in converting anyone else. That's why I asked the questions I did in post #39 (although I hadn't read the other thread yet when I posted it). I'm wondering how the concepts of ultimate truth and validating revelations applies to a religion that does not proselytize.

If one finds one's spiritual home in a traditional religion, but does not believe in that religion as ultimate truth for everybody, why would one assume religion means ultimate truth at all? The assumption that religion = ultimate truth seems to be the underlying issue in the OP, yet I don't see the OP claiming that her own religion is ultimate truth. There seems to me to be as much cognitive dissonance behind the question as in the expected answer, so I must be missing something somewhere.

You and me both. Plus the idea of asking someone to justify their religious choice is just uncalled for. We all have to follow our own Path, or no Path if that is what the person wants to do. I chose mine because I am a strong-minded, pig-headedly stubborn individual who likes to carve my own way through life, as water carves through stone, as opposed to "following the fleet". In fact, I am finding out that, for example, the more insistance I hear that a certain choice I am about to make is wrong, the more right I know the choice is for me. Spiritual matters are no different.

 

[tulc]

And by the way, if you have suggwstions how I might reword the OP more tactfully while at the same time stating my opinion, I'm open to editing.

I have a suggestion in that regard: send a PM to ask the person if they would mind using their name in the thread title first before you do so. Then if they are unwilling you can ask the question and leave off the other poster. That way they don't feel attacked because even if you're not attacking it comes across as an attack. See my point?
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Thank you for everyone who has lent their support throughout this thread. You have all given wonderful answers, many better than my own.

 

[Steezie]

Thank you for everyone who has lent their support throughout this thread. You have all given wonderful answers, many better than my own.

Hey no way we're gonna let a sister hang out in front of a firing squad alone

 

[GeratTzedek]

Well after having a whole thread dedicated to me what would you expect?

Harldy. I quite specifically added "and anyone else." Had I begun the thread without drawing your attention to the fact that I quoted you from elsewhere, I'm sure you would be complaining about that too. It's not always about you.

 

[tulc]

It's not always about you.

...well...except in this thread of course. Which is about her, pretty much.
tulc(who wants a religion based on coffee but suspect the Lutherans have that already)

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Harldy. I quite specifically added "and anyone else." Had I begun the thread without drawing your attention to the fact that I quoted you from elsewhere, I'm sure you would be complaining about that too. It's not always about you.

If thats the case then:

A) Why is my name explicitly mentioned in the OP
B) Why am I quoted in the OP
C) Why were you explicitly judgmental towards me throughout the thread and in the OP?

"Anyone else" is simply added to cover your tracks and now you're playing the victim card so I call shenanigans on this post. Nice try though no cigar.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Thanks.



Actually I just read GT's thread about her own conversion. It seems from her thread (unless she's just trying to skirt CF's "no promotion rule" ) that she feels exactly the same way about her own spiritual journey. She has found a path that works for her and has no interest in converting anyone else. That's why I asked the questions I did in post #39 (although I hadn't read the other thread yet when I posted it). I'm wondering how the concepts of ultimate truth and validating revelations applies to a religion that does not proselytize.

My first attempt to answer this got melted when the battery died, LOL... Okay I'll try again.

I absolutely believe my reloigion is not manmade, that G-d exists, that there are certain minimal requirements for all people:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws.

I respect anyone who acts morally, as in the above seven laws. But that doesn't mean I don't have questions about why someone would choose this over that or that over this.

I also think some choices are just better than others. But I don't think someone is going to "go to hell" simply becuase they do or don't beleive in Jesus. I think monotheism can be experienced in many forms that are confused but acceptable for gentiles, including Akhenaten's monotheism with the sungod Ra, including Lakota worship of the Great Spirit, including Religious Taoism's understanding of Tao, including Muslim's belief in Allah, and others. I know pagans who quite clearly and emphatically have an underwstanding of the "gods" as simply different "masks" of a unified Divine (a la Joseph Campbell). Other things are clearly not acceptable such as the Aztec polytheism that required human sacrifice.

The requirements for Jews, however, are stricter. If you don't mind my borrowing from the gospels, To whom much is given, much is required. Because Jews have had direct revelation from G-d, Jews are held by G-d to a much tighter standard. What is okay for a gentile to do is not okay for a Jew to do. Some laws are designed specifically to keep us seperate from the rest of the world, and those are just as binding.

That is the big reason why Rabbis push converts away. As I was told 15 years ago, a righteous gentile has only seven laws to keep to assure them of a place in the world to come. A Jew has 613. Only true nutcases like myself needlessly take on that covenant. The typical person, if they tried to obey the covenant, would fail miserably because their heart is not in it. It feels like an overwhelming yoke to them. So, why would any rabbi take a perfectly good gentile, and make them into a bad Jew?

I hope that helps you understand me a bit better.

 

[GeratTzedek]

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

I decided to follow it. But I didn't pull it out of a hat. It is not a religion I made up. I don't claim to be Moses, much less G-d. Here is where my OP question comes in: when I look to what I choose to believe, I'm going to look for something tried and true. Why? Because truth doesn't change, G-d doesn't change. Basically, whatever I choose would have to be picked from among those religions which are very old, unchanging, and with a long track record of making people better individuals who allow the religion to do its work in them. And by virtue of being old, such a religion would hve the added advantage of having the bugs worked out. The idea of following whatever the latest popular guru has to say is just unthinkable to me. And while I may be smart and educated, I've made enough disastrous mistakes i my life to know that my own intellect cannot be sufficiently trusted. I actually did go through a time after my divorce when I went through a "pick and choose" phase. But I was not happy there. I experienced the whole relativism thing as incredibly depressing -- I kinew in the back of my mind that something didn't have meaning simply because I chose to give it meaning.

Well, I'm blah blahing much to much. This thread is supposed to be about me coming to understand YOU guys better.