Ethics of homemade religion

[ForestKnight25]

I wonder if it's okay to follow my own religion. I've been doing so for years and I found out it's one of the things that makes me truly happy. In practice, I'm really just what I'd call an agnostic, but I'm waiting to convert to my own religion once I've finetuned everything (sorry if that sounds mechanical, just I'm scientifically-minded and a computer programmer, so that's how I see the world.)

Anyway, I worship my own gods and goddesses (that represent significant things in my life I'm greatful for,) I have my own ceremonies, and I follow several combined teachings of several religions that I admire things about, namely Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca, Hinduism, Shinto and Asatru. My own religion includes the following elements:

• Nature worship
• Reincarnation
• Multiple dieties
• A kind of universal "Light"
• Prayer for good fortune
• Harvest ceremonies
• Fit body and mind
• Warrior's spirit
• Martial arts
• Angels
• Fairies
• Meditation
• Belief if 5 elements: the standard 4 plus "spirit" as a 5th

And several more things. Is it wrong to believe in this? Is it wrong to educate others about it, in case they're interested in it as well? I'm curious. I was once called "schizophrenic" for following this path. I'm tired of persecution and intolerance. I want my religion to be real too, because it's very real to me.

[Mez]

You can do what you want dude. Although as a recommendation i'd definately suggest teaching the law of attraction... IMO its the one thing that makes EVERYTHING tick.

watcha gonna call it?

[ForestKnight25]

You can do what you want dude. Although as a recommendation i'd definately suggest teaching the law of attraction... IMO its the one thing that makes EVERYTHING tick.

watcha gonna call it?

Understood. Yes, there is a law of attraction, and I definitely believe in such a thing because I've attracted many things, good and bad.

And thanks for the reply.

My religion (I don't like calling it a religion, I call it a
spiritual path") is called "Great-5" and it's been called that since 1998, when I first founded it for myself as a 10-year-old after a profound experience I had (from a really common day-to-day source so I'm ashamed of admitting it, for fear of seeming stupid.)

I also refer to it as "Dävin Feive" which means "Divine Five" in Sh'eedekkh, a language of mine, or "Graet V" in H'ruun. Still working on those languages

The languages aren't part of the religion per se, but they're part of my fantasy paracosm, which is based around the Order of Dävin Feive. Go ahead and ask more if you're interested...I want to get Dävin Feive known in the world.

[Mez]

good old fantasy worlds... are you fluent in your own language? i'd imagine that it'd be hard to become fluent in your own language unless you have someone else to converse with...

instead of calling it a religion you could call it "an order" because it sounds cool when you say the order of Dävin Feive.

[ForestKnight25]

good old fantasy worlds... are you fluent in your own language? i'd imagine that it'd be hard to become fluent in your own language unless you have someone else to converse with...

instead of calling it a religion you could call it "an order" because it sounds cool when you say the order of Dävin Feive.

I'm an almost fluent writer of Sh'eedekkh, but the other language, H'ruun, I only recently came up with so it still needs an alphabet, basic words and grammar. But this isn't a linguistics thread...and I'm afraid the mods will lock it if we continue to discuss things other than what the thread is about.

But yeah, "the Order of Dävin Feive" sounds awesome

My main doctrine is what I call 125, or One-Two-Five (Hon-Dhu-Feive.)

There's one universal "The Force" if you will *has been watching too much Star Wars* called The Light. This is akin to The Source in many new spiritual teachings, or the Tao (haven't studies much Taoism though.) This is one.

The Light is divided into two sides, Zännh and Innh, which represent male and female, or heaven and earth, respectively. This is two.

Finally, Zännh and Innh are further divided into the five elements of earth (sometimes called forest,) fire, water, air (sometimes called sky,) and light. The light element here is a lower level light than The Light itself. If The Light was God, to use a Christian allegory, then the element of light would be akin to the archangels. Kind of hard to explain since it's an elemental power and not a being.

Tell me what you think

[Mez]

Well you seem to have it all worked out but heres a concept... you catogorise everything about existence except for the individual themselves... (as with every other religion i guess?) people too should know where they stand! Coming back to the law of attraction everything happens based on thought (the thought of the individual alone) so therefore one has a choice about everything and anything... So the individual could be called "The Choice" so someone who followed Dävin Feive would be known as "The Choice Of The Order Of Dävin Feive", what do you think?

[ForestKnight25]

Well you seem to have it all worked out but heres a concept... you catogorise everything about existence except for the individual themselves... (as with every other religion i guess?) people too should know where they stand! Coming back to the law of attraction everything happens based on thought (the thought of the individual alone) so therefore one has a choice about everything and anything... So the individual could be called "The Choice" so someone who followed Dävin Feive would be known as "The Choice Of The Order Of Dävin Feive", what do you think?

Sounds good. Reldev is a new field for me.

[Mustardseed]

I was going to comment but thought the better of it

[Novice]

But this isn't a linguistics thread...and I'm afraid the mods will lock it if we continue to discuss things other than what the thread is about.

Those sneaky mods! Actually, we aren't quite that rigid. 

Hmm...one universal source, which begets 2 primal opposites, which further breaks apart into 5 elements. Then you have the seasonal ceremonies, probably based on astronomical times... Sounds a lot like hermetics to me, although you'll see traces of this in taoism (the one source & yin/yang), yoga (earth, air, water, fire, ether/light), wicca and various other religions.  The chinese have 5 elements as well, but they differ: fire, water, earth, wood, and metal. Those just never made sense to me, but it could be just a cultural difference. Have you done any reading/research into hermetics?

I think all religions have similarities when it comes to general concepts/ceremonies etc. Probably because they all tended to borrow certain things from each other. Just my opinion...

I wonder if it's okay to follow my own religion. I've been doing so for years and I found out it's one of the things that makes me truly happy. In practice, I'm really just what I'd call an agnostic, but I'm waiting to convert to my own religion once I've finetuned everything

If you've been following it for years, then what do you need to do "to convert"? It sounds to me like you're already committed. What else is there?

Is it wrong to believe in this? Is it wrong to educate others about it, in case they're interested in it as well?

I hate getting into the topic of right vs wrong. The buddhists have a saying: There is no right or wrong. There is only what you do. 

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't harming anyone else with your beliefs (physically or emotionally), then you are free to follow whatever path you choose. If you doubt what you are doing is right for you, then perhaps you need to think further before committing yourself to this.

I'm curious. I was once called "schizophrenic" for following this path. I'm tired of persecution and intolerance. I want my religion to be real too, because it's very real to me.

If its real to you, then its real. Having it be 'real' to others is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what others think/believe. Doing what makes you feel fulfilled is the right thing to do for you. Unless, of course, feeling fulfilled means sacrificing virgins or something...then you need more help that we can provide! 


One last comment, why do you feel the need to advertise, for lack of a better word, your religion? Does it matter if others know about it? You've found your own path, which is great. Most muddle through life following society's expectations, never really feeling fulfilled or happy spiritually. If people ask you about it, then go ahead and share it with them. But I would question your motives for 'starting your own religion', even if you call it an 'order'. Does the idea of followers appeal to you? Are you more comfortable practicing this if you feel you aren't alone in doing so? Personally, I would worry less about how to get the word out and focus more on why you want to get the word out. I think you'll find out more about yourself you do so.

[Gandalf]

I think this is great. Everyone should be free to follow their own path. The mainstream religions will always have a go at you and accuse you of 'pick n mix' but only because they want you to follow their particular brand of religion... don't worry about it.. remember that even they cannot agree with each other on what brand of their own religion to follow... witness the myriad christian sects out there, all of whom think that their interpretation is the correct one.

Follow you own brand of religion/path. It's just as valid.. remember that all religions started somewhere. You faith is just as valid as you have arrived at it through your own personal experience. They will call it pick n mix... I would call it 'personal refinement'.

[Awakened_Mind]

Somewhere in history humanity took a turn where people who encounter a higher power experientially, through their own perception, were labelled as heretics. The irony is that it is by this very nature, man's direct individual contact with a higher presence, that caused religions to spring about in the first place.

"Be a light unto yourself." Buddha

-AM

[Mustardseed]

I think this is great. Everyone should be free to follow their own path. The mainstream religions will always have a go at you and accuse you of 'pick n mix' but only because they want you to follow their particular brand of religion... don't worry about it.. remember that even they cannot agree with each other on what brand of their own religion to follow... witness the myriad christian sects out there, all of whom think that their interpretation is the correct one.

Follow you own brand of religion/path. It's just as valid.. remember that all religions started somewhere. You faith is just as valid as you have arrived at it through your own personal experience. They will call it pick n mix... I would call it 'personal refinement'.

Hi Gandalf
Long time no talkie talkie. I just read your post and wanted to ask you further about your point of view. If I understand you right you see no problem with people "making up" their own religion.

How does that jive with what you know about religions in general. If people make things up , simply make them up not based on anything but a fancy and certainly not fact, how do you see that helping the world, or the cause of truth.

I fully believe and agree that people should feel free to believe what they want that is the agnostic for you, but to make up things..........well it just seems ridiculous to me. A sort of argument for the sake of argument.

Freedom of expression for the sake of freedom of expression. This was exactly what was the issue in the case of the Muhammad drawings......Just because ones religion or beliefsystem allows irony and depicting the religion of others as inferior, is it a human right that have to be exercised. Hope you understand my point. Ethically it seems wrong.

Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Hi Mustardseed, its good to see you around!

I agree with you that just randomly making stuff up just for the heck of it is rather pointless.

However, I interpreted his post as saying that he had developed his own system based on his own experience and personal intuition... that is, he adopted various beliefs from a number of religions that he intuitively felt held some truth. All these various truths he held together in what was effectively his own personal path, or religion if you like. His thinking is along the lines of 'all religions contain some truth, but not all the truth', so he chose from each what he felt was the truth from these religions.

I'm just saying that if he is happy doing this and doesn't have a problem with it then why not.

This approach highlights one of the issues about the various world religions. Many people like some aspects of them, but not all. This is where people can run into problems.

Others of course accept all the teachings of a particular religion, even teachings that they don't like, and do so as they don't expect all truths to necessary be easy truths. I can accept both views.

[Awakened_Mind]

I see that method as being equally dangerous as following a single religion. What if you discard a truth because you don't like it?

-AM

[Novice]

What if you discard a truth because you don't like it?

It becomes valid if you 'outgrown' that truth. Truth and fact are different. I think truth is subjective and therefore open to change depending upon the individual.

[Awakened_Mind]

I'd say truth is objective. It is the ultimate. 'Truth' is synonymus with 'real'. We don't necessarily know what is true and/or real. So begins how subjectivity. What we consider to be real and/or true.

Fact is what's understood to a societies or individuals understanding. 'Facts' are synonymous with 'beliefs'. Educated, evidentially substatiated opinions. They are subjective. Many things have been considered fact and disproven in the past.

How do you define the difference between fact and truth?

-AM

[Mustardseed]

I would agree with Awakened Mind that Truth is objective. There is such a thing as truth. The universe is made or evolved or a bit of both, but it is here so it came to be by some process.....that is the truth, even if it is only a fiction in our mind.......still that then is the truth. Within the astral pulse beliefsystem, the different focus areas and beliefsystem territories are thought of as truth, yet no one really knows. It continues to amaze me that some seem to reject this point and still insist on their viewpoint their experience is a universal truth for all. Odd as it mighyt seem, being a Christian I seem to accept the fact that my faith is a personal belief and could be wrong. far easier than many AP folks or even new ageers who embrace me by telling me how MY faith fits inside theirs. They are all just theories but there is a TRUTH. Maybe we will never find it maybe we will maybe some will never find it maybe some have.How one perceives the various glimpses we all get is subjective, what we believe is subjective , but there is a truth.

Regards Mustardseed

[Awakened_Mind]

I've always liked the idea that truth is not something that evades, but which we are evolving toward.

-AM

[Gandalf]

Within the astral pulse beliefsystem, the different focus areas and beliefsystem territories are thought of as truth, yet no one really knows

Sorry Mustardseed but I don't see this as being a useful parallel.

The focus system is a system of *labels* used to define certain observed areas of consciousness. They are not beleifs in the sense that you use the word.

Focus levels are terms used to describe various areas of consciousness that anybody can experience for themselves. Therefore it is not a belief as such but terminolgy which seeks to label observed facts.

As for the 'belief system areas' this is also a label, but again it describes observed areas of consiousness. Anyone with just a little experience of the astral will find out pretty soon that 'like attracts like' and that thoughts beome manifest in an objective form in these areas of consciousness.
This is a truth. Anyone can observe and experience this for themselves. It therefore comes as no suprise when we observe individuals and indeed whole groups engaged in all kinds of activities in the astral as they are all drawn their by thier own thought processes.

If you argue that the focus system/ belief system area observations are 'just another belief' then by default you acknowlege that this is how the astral works and your statement is meaninlgess.

Please do not confuse the basics of the phasing approach with mainstream religion. The Focus approach is not a belief system, but a labeling system, used to define observed areas of consciousness.

I agree however, that some people take the system too  far and make claims that are yet to be verified by a substantial number of others and this is where the line should be drawn.

[Novice]

My original post was a brief one-liner, and obviously wasn't very clear. Now that I read what Awakened_Mind and MS wrote, we are all saying the same thing (I think), but simply getting hung up on word definitions (fact vs truth).

Awakened_Mind wrote:

'Truth' is synonymus with 'real'. We don't necessarily know what is true and/or real. So begins how subjectivity. What we consider to be real and/or true.

Musterseed wrote:

There is such a thing as truth. The universe is made or evolved or a bit of both, but it is here so it came to be by some process.....that is the truth, even if it is only a fiction in our mind.......still that then is the truth.

If I understand you both, we are saying the same thing. Let me give you 'my' definitions (this will illustrate where I'm coming from, I think). Truth and reality are individual perceptions. Thus they vary with the individual. A fact is an objective, concrete thing or idea that truths and realities are molded around.

I'll try and give a religous example since this post is about religion.

We are all having experiences in a world in which we interact with one another. I consider that a fact. Surrounding this fact are many theories. And to MS's point, many people consider their theories to be truth.

To some, the truth is that this world is all that there is. This, to them, is beyond belief because they cannot 'prove' anything else exists. And what scientific proof does exist, implies that anything beyond physical experiences (those occurring in this world) are illusions fabricated by the mind and thus not real. So their truth is that we have one life and that is all that exists. That is the 'truth.'

Others have experiences beyond physical reality and know that it is real. They know the truth of what they experience. This is not belief, this is a deep knowing. To them it is clearly true. I lump a majority of the new age books into this category. People do some reading/research into metaphysics, form some concepts around something and then have experiences that they see as justifiying those concepts. They have now discovered The Truth.

Others find truth in words spoken or written by other people and belief so deeply that it becomes true for them. A good example would be to look at any radical fundamentalist, regardless of religion. They know the truth, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They can prove their truth, even if most people disagree with their proof.

Awakened_Mind wrote:

I've always liked the idea that truth is not something that evades, but which we are evolving toward.

Exactly. That's what I meant when I said "It becomes valid if you 'outgrow' that truth." I meant that as we evolve, our perception of what is true/real changes. I do agree that I think at the core, there is one truth. And that is the one to which we gravitate as we cast aside the old truths that no longer fit us. Whether that 'core truth' is even remotely close to any theories currently floating around is a seperate issue altogether. For this reason, I interpret the word 'truth' as it is used today to be a variable that changes with each person's perception. 

Does that make sense? 

[Mustardseed]

As for the 'belief system areas' this is also a label, but again it describes observed areas of consciousness. Anyone with just a little experience of the astral will find out pretty soon that 'like attracts like' and that thoughts become manifest in an objective form in these areas of consciousness.
This is a truth. Anyone can observe and experience this for themselves. It therefore comes as no suprise when we observe individuals and indeed whole groups engaged in all kinds of activities in the astral as they are all drawn their by their own thought processes.

Dear Douglas
Thanks for the reply. I guess this is a very big issue. Let me explain my point a bit better. Let me use YOU as an example and the text above.

It is my experience and belief that the more I seem to learn that the more I realise I have no clue. What if....and I say what if.....

Metaphorically the astral realms were a confined very minor area in the Christian Heaven......I am knowingly provoking you here so do not get upset.

What if......all the Christians that would never even consider trying to have an OBE is right and what if those of us that do are misguided and kept in a confined area

another theory , one that I do not believe but nevertheless one that many do believe.

My point is that no matter what WE BELIEVE there has to be an absolute truth a system and I would even go so far as to say a plan of some sort. It seems that whether the universe and astral realm are a organism or a place or whatever there has to be an undisputed reality somewhere.

I find that you are quite rigid in your observations and actually surprise surprise.....a bit on the fundamentalist side  or at least you appear that way when you use terms such as  " Anyone can observe and experience this for themselves" many Christians use this terminology to convert.

Just think about it with an open mind

Regards Mustardseed.

PS Just an added thought. As far as the way things work in the Astral realm, and what you call "a truth",  this could also be a modified truth. Lets say that the Astral realm were a seperate dimension from "heaven", we all know that in space gravity is not in effect to the same degree as on earth, so it is possible that the Astral Realm has its own "rules" but that these are not universal. It is my opinion that you are too cock sure of what you appear to know.

[Awakened_Mind]

Yeah it makes sense now.

I think when people believe they know the final truth, ending progression, they become ignorant. I've always seen it like this - 'I don't know the truth, but it exists.' This raises argument, what makes us believe that there exists any truth at all? Personally, I'd debate that it does exist but I thought I'd raise it in the interest of thoroughness, which is really what this is all about. I don't mind stating my opinion and praying that someone will successfully argue and refine my idea. Then, I can take the product somewhere else and have that challenged as well, moving me toward my goal of truth... if it even exists 

-AM