What if I made up my own Religion?

Greenberg
“

If we don't have revelation then we become a follower as opposed to a manufacturer of a religion - the reason we do this is because we don't have "the goods", so to speak.

Alternatively you can talk of "reforming" an existing religion - and this happens quite frequently (like for instance the spate of acts of terror done on the strength of islam has caused many muslims to "reform" .... which basically just involves refocusing on the role the koran plays in everyday life)

revelation of god's nature is part of that "long term perspective"


“

The worst case scenario of many saints would be to develop complete comfort and satisfaction in the material world (ie merge completely in ignorance).

Otherwise, yes, I too would have difficulties with a notion of god where there were alternatives for eternal life outside of his service (nevermind whether the said eternal scenarios involved piranhas or not ...)

that is why the first business of an immoral (or impure) person - which is what we tend to collectively be in this world - is to purify themselves. There is no question of creating a religion in an impure state ... actually one of the symptoms of misapplied religion is the inability to purify oneself.
IOW one can perform all sorts of charity/sacrifice/study/austerity/etc but unless one is coming into contact with god (the top most of purifying elements) one will not get purified. Therefore it is commonly seen that religions request that a said candidate call upon the name of god - god, in the form of his name, is the first step in approaching him.

the concentration practices will only be fruitful to the degree that the involve concentrating on god - otherwise they will just be roundabout ways of concentrating on material affairs, which is where the whole problem of life begins ....

that is why I stressed from the outset, that contact with god is the primary prerequisite for creating a religion - everything else is subreligious principles (upadharma)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Three things that really stand out here in this thread are these:

1. Several posters presume my religion would contain notions about obedience to G/god(s).
2. Several posters presume my religion would be constructed in a similar hierarchical manner as some Christian traditions.
3. Several posters presume my religion would be about money and or power.

Few accept that making my religion would simply be for my own purposes, a thoroughly formulated way of "thinking for myself".


Is it really so foreign, so outlandish that a person would make their own religion, for the purposes of their happiness?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From my perspective, what you are saying is backwards.
Per you, one ought to presume as factual the very thing one is yet trying to prove or begin to depend on.

But, there is probably a discrepancy in how we use the term "religion", something I commented on in post nr. 26.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks I didn't see that 9post 26)

My point is that there a distinction between acts of morality(upadharma) and acts of coming into knowledge of god (sanatana dharma).

Just as with the saying, a rising tide lifts all boats, similarly the performance of sanatana dharma does give one the "moral high ground" - but at the same time there is an aspect to sanatana dharma that makes it sanatana (eternal) - namely that it purifies one of the tendency of being caught up in temporary designations - a platform that is not attained by the best performances of upadharma.

eg

BG 2.45 - The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

 

Can Sanatana Dharma be performed without the person at the time knowing they are performing Sanatana Dharma?

 

yes, but the effect takes proper root and flourishes in knowledge (knowledge of one's self in relationship to god)

Just like even in this world we can unknowingly serve another, even though we may have had no intention to serve them - in fact many relationships we have in this world begin like this - but such relationships actually start to flourish when we start to act in fuller consciousness of ourselves in relation to the other

 

This seems obvious.

I have one problem with it, though: Who is to say whether a person acts in fuller consciousness of themselves in relation to others?

 

Why wouldn't you just call it a philosophy then? If there isn't a god, it isn't a religion.

 

my relationship with god is between me and him and yours, if you have one is between you and him. this is a discussion forum. you come out there asking questions and i answer and attempt to discuss. i seek to make no agreement with you. and i'm not crying foul. i'm simply pointing out the obvious. you're acting really weird, hateful, and over emotional, because you don't like what i have to say about god. you're the one who's obsessed with eternal hellfire...

you act like you're twelve.

 

Although I guess if you had some spirituality in it that would pass. Has that been what you've been saying? Sorry, just scanning and trolling.

 

You'll have to do better than that if you want me to take you seriously.

 

greenberg,

I have to be honest with you, I don't understand what this means, or why it is relevant to the question.

Jan.

 

greenberg,

p1. okay.
p2. what do you mean by "evil" and "nature" in this regard.
p3. do you think God judges every man personally? If yes, why?
p4. if this is a scriptoral reference, can you give the chapter and verse?
p5. my understanding is that Adam was created pure before his downfall.
p6. can you cite a reference.
p7. okay.
p8. so why do you think it is a contradiction. (or it seems you do)
p9. why would it be inspired by God, instead of the person having a developed intelligence.
p10. same as p3.

Jan.

 

The point of eternal hell is that it is extreme suffering, the worst there can be.

My worst case scenario is about my idea of extreme suffering - which for me is a combination of physical and psychological suffering.

And like I said earlier, my religion would have to be such that it would provide me at least some peace of mind even in face of extreme suffering.

I hope this explains it.

 

All these premisses (and more) are what I've picked up in popular Christianity.
Some of them contradict eachother.
Some seem to have no scriptoral basis.
Some seem to be specific interpretations of scripture.

To remember why we are having this discussion about these premisses: Some of my worst case scenarios are built on them and on the conclusions that follow from them. As I have said earlier, my ideal religion would need to be such that it can address and put to rest even the most irrational- or absurd-seeming conclusions.

I have no idea. Any attempt requesting those who use those premies to clarify what they mean sooner or later turned into them accusing me of "overintellectualizing", "philosophical sham" and such.
And who am I to say whether they are wrong or right?

Personally, I think "evil" means that the person who is "evil" is inherently unwilling to distinguish between good and bad, and the person is unable to do anything about this unwillingness. An evil person cannot deliberately choose a good option; an evil person might opt for a good option only by chance, or if manipulated, but never on their own deliberation.
I am not sure whether such people exist, though; but what I said above would mean "evil" to me. I think most if not all human actions, however deplorable and cruel they might be, can be explained that the person acted under the influence of greed, ill will and delusion, and not because the person would be "evil".
By "nature" I mean that which is unalienable, unchanging, inherent.

I don't know.
But the Christian concept of individual judgment strikes me as very loaded, very "I am God's target, I am the one God persecutes" - which makes for intense psychological pressure and also guilt. And while this might keep the person focused on God, it also causes them a lot of strain, removing them from developing good qualities and doing good deeds.

If he was pure, then how could he have fallen?

If God has created the Universe and everything in it, this means that God has also created every choice that a person makes, every action a person performs. It's like humans are puppets, God pulls the strings, and in the end burns them if he so pleases, but says that it's their fault that they were burned.

Again, I don't know.
Perhaps P9 was thought up by some theists as a tool to prevent people from taking joy and pride in their accomplishments.
I think though if one continually gives the credit for one's accomplishments to something or someone else, one will lose interest in accomplishing things, will become lazy and irresponsible.

 

There is no eternal suffering.
Just thought I would toss that out. I realize this will not remotely constitute proof for you, but....

 

Whew! I was afraid of getting into another pointless argument. Carrying on.

 

maybe it would have been simpler to say fuller awareness.

For instance we have a degree of awareness of the prime minister, the mechanic who fixed our car last tuesday, the next door neighbour's father and one's own son.

They are not all equal.

Most people would say that they are more aware of the needs/interests and concerns of their son then, say, the prime minister. This knowledge comes about by dint of being involved in a personal relationship of reciprocation.

 

Okay, thanks, good point.

Interestingly, many people encourage me to "think for myself", but when I do, they have a problem with it ...

I conclude that if I am to make my own religion:
1. I have to be willing to invest a lot of time and effort into finding people whom I could discuss my religion with.
2. I have to be prepared to even have nobody to discuss it with.
3. I have to be prepared to even never declare my religion because it is very likely that other people will not understand me and insist in their own assumptions.