Are there any differences between having a religion and going to church, to a cult?

Oldtree

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Indeed. So how did it happen?

Well I think we can say for definite that magic had nothing to do with it.

jaxxx

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Indeed. So how did it happen?

Who knows, who cares (well far too many but...). Live your life well. Treat others well. Try to leave the world in a better state than when you came into it. Be logical, responsible, ethical and moral. At the end, what difference does it really make who/what/why/when/how it all happened. Stop trying to comprehend something that we simply cannot comprehend. Spend your energies elsewhere on what you can understand.
- Jaxxx 2018

Can I get my Nobel prize now? No? Well b*ll*cks!

Oldtree

jaxxx wrote: »

Who knows, who cares (well far too many but...). Live your life well. Treat others well. Try to leave the world in a better state than when you came into it. Be logical, responsible, ethical and moral. At the end, what difference does it really make who/what/why/when/how it all happened. Stop trying to comprehend something that we simply cannot comprehend. Spend your energies elsewhere on what you can understand.
- Jaxxx 2018

Can I get my Nobel prize now? No? Well b*ll*cks!

Of course you do.

Nobel prize in metaphysics for 2018 is awarded to Jaxxx



I simply don't understand why some people have difficulty accepting that this universe has been here for infinity and will be here for infinity, in a constant cycle of expansion and contraction. Notwithstanding that this is also happening in the multiverses.

jaxxx

Oldtree wrote: »

Of course you do.

Nobel prize in metaphysics for 2018 is awarded to Jaxxx



I simply don't understand why some people have difficulty accepting that this universe has been here for infinity and will be here for infinity, in a constant cycle of expansion and contraction. Notwithstanding that this is also happening in the multiverses.

I am very very very very very... very suspicious as to the authenticity of this award......... But I'll take it!

I have a theory on your parting statement... (here comes Nobel Prize #2!)

Because our brains have evolved to a much higher state than our less evolved brethren in the animal kingdom, I believe that a certain requirement for comfort arose with regards to the afterlife. No one knows how much of an awareness other animals have with regards to death, but it is safe to assume it is not as detailed as our own. Due to our increased knowledge of death, which has been in existence for thousands of years, I believe we developed a fear of death, a subconscious fear if you will. This I believe is what would give rise to the eventual creation of gods and later religion. Creating this idea that after this life, there was a kingdom of peace waiting for us. Then came greed and control, thus to the creation of hellish destinations in the after life. "If you do not live how we tell you to then you shall shall burn for all eternity!"

Then again our ancestors could have been graced by visitors from the heavens and they "got it on" together which thus gave rise to us! Thus the idea of gods came from this, which isn't too far fetched when you think about the whole 'created in own image' shtick.

Thank you, I have been Professor Jaxxx. Have a nice day.

(I have a vision... a vision of people reading this and thinking to themselves "this guy's off his f*cking rocker altogether", who then proceed to call the people in white coats)

ToddyDoody

There is all that new age stuff that's not a cult or religion but tries to capture aspects of the spirituality you'd possibly find in religion.

Funny quote: "Too much spirit makes for sick animals. Too much animal makes for sick spirits."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ToddyDoody wrote: »

There is all that new age stuff that's not a cult or religion but tries to capture aspects of the spirituality you'd possibly find in religion.

Funny quote: "Too much spirit makes for sick animals. Too much animal makes for sick spirits."

That's just tribe mentality and the human need to belong to a group. ANY group. You see it in hippies all the time: they join movements an groups simply because they're pissed off with mainstream life (which is fair enough) but don't have anywhere else to go.

But you can have spirituality without either a religion or a cult.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But you can have spirituality without either a religion or a cult.

Do you mean wise to the ways of the world, or at peace mentally, or somthing else? Can you qualify/quantify what you mean by spiritualism without either a religion or a cult.

Spiritualism to me has deep religious connotations, although more modern interpretations include the search for inner meaning, "meaning" being that which we broached in posts above.

Oldtree

jaxxx wrote: »

I am very very very very very... very suspicious as to the authenticity of this award......... But I'll take it!

I have a theory on your parting statement... (here comes Nobel Prize #2!)

Then again our ancestors could have been graced by visitors from the heavens and they "got it on" together which thus gave rise to us!

Thank you, I have been Professor Jaxxx. Have a nice day.

(I have a vision... a vision of people reading this and thinking to themselves "this guy's off his f*cking rocker altogether", who then proceed to call the people in white coats)

Dear Professor Jaxxx,

Due to the above outburst, I am afraid that we will have to withdraw the aforementioned Nobel award, as we cannot be associated with "down with that sort of thing"!

Better luck the next time.

Yours

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

Do you mean wise to the ways of the world, or at peace mentally, or somthing else? Can you qualify/quantify what you mean by spiritualism without either a religion or a cult.

Spiritualism to me has deep religious connotations, although more modern interpretations include the search for inner meaning, "meaning" being that which we broached in posts above.

Spitirual is internal, religion is external.

Spirituality is having a connection to a higher form of self and finding peace and inspriation from it. It's holisitc - mind, body and soul, not just one or two of them.

With religions or cults, the self is replaced by an external diety, and people are presented with leaders who claim to be able to bridge that connection.

Religious people in my experience tend not to be spirtual, because the leader in question has actually taken them further away from the self than towards it; sometimes accidently, sometimes intetnionally, and the person ends of being an expression of the religion/cult rather than the self. (I say rleigious, but I'm talking hippies who move from squat to squat as much as the middle-age grandmother of three who goes to mass weekly and every social event the parish organsies)

Ultimately, religion is about to need to belong, not the need to express.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Spitirual is internal, religion is external.

Spirituality is having a connection to a higher form of self

Is that not the same thing, but using words to make it sound different?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

Is that not the same thing, but using words to make it sound different?

No, religion is not concerned with you finding your inner self. It's about you finding THEIR inner self.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, religion is not concerned with you finding your inner self. It's about you finding THEIR inner self.

isn't their inner self your inner self, but more refined as they have had millenia to work on it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

isn't their inner self your inner self, but more refined as they have had millenia to work on it?

Bit difficult to work on someone else's inner self for millenia before they're even born...

Pints?

There is only one Lord of the Rings...and He does not share power....agggghhhhhhh

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bit difficult to work on someone else's inner self for millenia before they're even born...

Millenia on how to appeal to and thence take control over someone else's "inner self" is more along the lines of what I was implying.

The notion of a "higher self" is grandiose, much along the lines of notions if a "higher personal being". Both give people the same notions of detached grandeur and disassociation. Either way, escapism for want of a better word.

Oldtree

Pints? wrote: »

There is only one Lord of the Rings...and He does not share power....agggghhhhhhh

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

Millenia on how to appeal to and thence take control over someone else's "inner self" is more along the lines of what I was implying.

The notion of a "higher self" is grandiose, much along the lines of notions if a "higher personal being". Both give people the same notions of detached grandeur and disassociation. Either way, escapism for want of a better word.

I'd argue that taking over "control" of someone's self would be pretty much in line with what they do, yes - whether or not the have the right to is morally ambigous.

Idnetification of the self is a common theme throughout philosophical thought and has been since the days of Socrates and Plato. To deny it would be to say that hey - this is as good as it gets, nothing else to strive for. Sounds defeatist to me.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue that taking over "control" of someone's self would be pretty much in line with what they do, yes - whether or not the have the right to is morally ambigous.

Idnetification of the self is a common theme throughout philosophical thought and has been since the days of Socrates and Plato. To deny it would be to say that hey - this is as good as it gets, nothing else to strive for. Sounds defeatist to me.

Identification of self is not really the issue. It is the 'higher self' that is a misnomer of 'self'. This idea elevates you from a position of an ordinary person on this mortal coil, to an 'enlightened' one, much the same as any religion seeks to do.

It is not defeatist to accept that you are human and to make the most of it while it lasts. Should you internalise your time or otherwise, that's up to you. There is nothing wrong with meditation or relaxation, but everything in moderation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

Identification of self is not really the issue. It is the 'higher self' that is a misnomer of 'self'. This idea elevates you from a position of an ordinary person on this mortal coil, to an 'enlightened' one, much the same as any religion seeks to do.

Well, you asked for a definition of spirituality and I gave you one. Identification of the self would be idetification include the higher self and how to inprove and develop as a person.

It is not defeatist to accept that you are human and to make the most of it while it lasts. Should you internalise your time or otherwise, that's up to you. There is nothing wrong with meditation or relaxation, but everything in moderation.

The aim of life (for me personally) is a more than just escapism.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, you asked for a definition of spirituality and I gave you one. Identification of the self would be idetification include the higher self and how to inprove and develop as a person.

Not really, you have now expanded that definition of "self" to neatly include what you call a "higher self". What is this higher self?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The aim of life (for me personally) is a more than just escapism.

So can I take it from that, that by being able to get in touch with your higher self that it adds a quality to your life that is unavailable to others, unless they contact their "higher selves"?

Deusexmachina

Oldtree wrote: »

Well I think we can say for definite that magic had nothing to do with it.

How do you know?

Deusexmachina

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Spitirual is internal, religion is external.

Spirituality is having a connection to a higher form of self and finding peace and inspriation from it. It's holisitc - mind, body and soul, not just one or two of them.

With religions or cults, the self is replaced by an external diety, and people are presented with leaders who claim to be able to bridge that connection.

Religious people in my experience tend not to be spirtual, because the leader in question has actually taken them further away from the self than towards it; sometimes accidently, sometimes intetnionally, and the person ends of being an expression of the religion/cult rather than the self. (I say rleigious, but I'm talking hippies who move from squat to squat as much as the middle-age grandmother of three who goes to mass weekly and every social event the parish organsies)

Ultimately, religion is about to need to belong, not the need to express.

Huge generalisations and stereotyping there. Also shows a poor understanding of religion.
'The self is replaced by an external deity????'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

Not really, you have now expanded that definition of "self" to neatly include what you call a "higher self". What is this higher self?

I specifically said "connection to a higher form of self" in the original definition.

So can I take it from that, that by being able to get in touch with your higher self that it adds a quality to your life

Up until this point, yes. The rest of it you added.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Huge generalisations and stereotyping there. Also shows a poor understanding of religion.
'The self is replaced by an external deity????'

Religions are about community as much as belief, hence the grouping. And yes, they have external dieties.

koumi

Oldtree wrote: »

Not really, you have now expanded that definition of "self" to neatly include what you call a "higher self". What is this higher self?



So can I take it from that, that by being able to get in touch with your higher self that it adds a quality to your life that is unavailable to others, unless they contact their "higher selves"?

In philosophy and theology it is referred to as the Logos.

Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”)plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deusexmachina wrote: »

A belief in the non-existence of a creator or intelligent purpose requires us to accept that the Universe happened spontaneously, from nothing and for no reason. That's a big thing to believe. It requires belief without evidence. The wondrous magnitude and complexity of the Universe belies it.

But it is not about belief where it is in fact merely about recognizing what is still an open question.

At this time we find ourselves in a universe, and we do know know how this came to be. It is an open question. That is all.

There are many ideas on how this came to be. But at this time the idea that we are here because of the actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent is not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

And "it is all so complex" is not evidence, an argument, data or reasoning. It is a subjective response to the state of the universe around us. Nothing more.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Semantics. You either believe the Universe was created for a reason and purpose or you believe it arose for no reason, no purpose. Either way, there is no evidence.

I generally find it better to ask people what they believe, rather than tell them what it is they must believe. Because when I read your "You must believe either..... or....." above I find I do not identify with either of them. So you are, from the outset, simply wrong with your either/or structure.

What I believe is that we exist in a universe, and the explanation for this is currently an open question. I believe it is possible we were put here for a reason or a purpose. But I also accept that at this time the sum total of evidence for that conclusion is zero.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I am, however, arguing that it cannot be dismissed.

It depends what you mean by dismissed however. It can not, of course, be dismissed as a hypothesis. After all any hypothesis, no matter how ridiculous, you come up with is still a hypothesis.

But it can be FUNCTIONALLY dismissed along with any other ENTIRELY unsubstantiated hypothesis. If there is absolutely zero basis to believe a proposition, and there is absolutely zero basis at this time to think there is a god, then functionally we can dismiss the hypothesis to the "Unsubstantiated" pile.

Certainly what CAN be dismissed, as another user pointed out in a post you subsequently ignored, are certain moves in the discourse on the god subject. One such move worthy of instant dismissal, for example, is that of type "X must by Y because the alternative is absurd".

This move fails for two clear reasons:

1) It might be absurd to the speaker but the speakers subjective response to it says nothing objectively about it and
2) So what if it is absurd? Much of what we discover to be true seems absurd to us at first. Reality to the human mind often is absurd**. You get used to it. But it is more often a statement about the human mind, not about reality.

** Two great examples of this come from mathematics. The first is the Monty Hall problem. The amount of people, sometimes even themselves allegedly trained mathematicians or similar, who think the answer to this is absurd is quite surprising. The second is the folding paper question where you show people a piece of paper. Ask them to cut it in half and place it on top of each other. Then ask them to cut that pile in half and do it again. Now ask them to imagine doing that 100 more times and ask them how high the stack of paper would be as a result. The highest answer I ever got was "As high as this pub". The ACTUAL answer is the stack would be so tall it would take light itself millenia to traverse it. At which point people instantly say this is absurd until you sit them down and work the numbers for them.

Oldtree

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I specifically said "connection to a higher form of self" in the original definition.

Up until this point, yes. The rest of it you added.

You are deflecting.

Perhaps you could answer a few direct questions.

Who informed you of "higher form of self"?

Did they instruct you as to how to contact your "higher form of self"?

Could you enlighten me as to how you contact your "higher form of self"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oldtree wrote: »

You are deflecting.

Perhaps you could answer a few direct questions.

Who informed you of "higher form of self"?

Did they instruct you as to how to contact your "higher form of self"?

Could you enlighten me as to how you contact your "higher form of self"?

No, you tried to misrepresent my argument by claiming my initial definition referred to the self, when it didn't - it referred to the connection.

Interesting questions
1 - I've kind of always been aware of it. Even as a kid, it came out as an inner voice trying to encourage and guide me. I had no idea what it was, though, and wasn't aware if what it was back then or how to connect with it.
2 - No, I just started listening to it. When I was older I tried meditation and that worked. And much more recently, psychedelic drugs have had some profound effects; read into that what you like - (but don't get into this debate with me unless you've tried them personally and know what you're talking about: with this debate, personal experience will always trump impersonal case studies) - although used sparingly.
3 - See answer 2

For me; higher form of self via meditation is pretty much the same as God via prayer. But God is something I always viewed as external and impersonal (mainly because that is the way religion taught me to see Him when I was growing up).

Oldtree

Thank you for your reply.

My experience has been the compete opposite. Despite being brought to church when young, at 8 I can remember wondering what on earth this was all about. My only inner voice is what I would call my mind, and is most definitely me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Oldtree wrote: »

My experience has been the compete opposite. Despite being brought to church when young, at 8 I can remember wondering what on earth this was all about. My only inner voice is what I would call my mind, and is most definitely me.

I was a voracious reader when I was growing up. So I always thought everyone else must be too. So church, and Bible time in Primary school, was just "story time" for me. I liked that, because I loved story books.

I think I pretty much at the very end of primary school before my innocence and naivety fell away and I remember thinking "Hang on...... some people believe this stuff?"

For me the "higher self" contactable in things like meditation is somewhere between what you describe and what PCB describes. Rather than being a distinct separate voice it is just the result of engaging with my own brain in a different way.

We all of us, whether we realize it or not, are in constant conversation with ourselves pretty much all the time. Generally revising or obsessing over part of potential future conversations and events with others.

The "higher self" I and many people access through techniques like meditation is for us merely the result that comes from changing the nature or structure of that conversation. Engaging with your own self in a way outside the usual norm.

It is all good stuff I feel, but alas the language we tend to use when discussing such experience has a mystical bent to it and it can deflect or even completely ruin the interest of the more skeptically minded. I myself rubbished it as nonsense for many a year. But then at some point I started to separate the nonsense that was unsubstantiated, from the genuinely and beneficial aspects that do not require you to believe ANYTHING on in sufficient evidence in order to access, and benefit from.

And I think it is a discourse we as a species could do well to have more and more there. Because I do believe there is a THERE there to discuss. And none of it is the woo and yoggi clap trap nonsense that we often alas associate with meditation and introspection.