Make up your own religion? Sure!

Originally posted by rwingett
The chance to make up your own religion doesn't come around every day. Well, it might, but chances are it won't stick around very long. We've had Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Bobby Henderson (Flying Spaghetti Monster) who have started religions that have managed to stick around for the time being. Then there have been others lik ...[text shortened]... bia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/tennyson/akbarsdream.html

Just going from what you posted, Robb, Akbar seems to have started with a particular expression of the “perennial philosophy” (Ibn Arabi’s Sufic expression), and then synthesized various aspects of other expressions into what he saw as a cohesive system. It is not the synthesizing, but the manner of systemizing that I think might qualify as “making a new religion” (with its own name even). It sounds, however, as if he did not consider his own system as being final and exclusive; if not, it’s elements might be considered doctrine, but not dogma (as I understand those terms, anyway).

One wonders, if his system had survived him, if it might have become more and more institutionalized and dogmatized (in the technical sense of dogma at least)... Might a self-defined orthodoxy have arisen, with condemnation of various heterodoxies? Might there have been schisms and inquisitions and reformations and...? Might there have come a time when Akbar would not have recognized the religion that called him founder? To paraphrase Robert Burns, “The best-laid religions of mice and men...”

Originally posted by vistesd
Just going from what you posted, Robb, Akbar seems to have started with a particular expression of the “perennial philosophy” (Ibn Arabi’s Sufic expression), and then synthesized various aspects of other expressions into what he saw as a cohesive system. It is not the synthesizing, but the manner of systemizing that I think might qualify as “making a new r ...[text shortened]... at called him founder? To paraphrase Robert Burns, “The best-laid religions of mice and men...”

Gang aft a-gley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promised joy
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Gang aft a-gley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promised joy
😵

BB, my friend - for what it's worth, your command of language is spellbinding! 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud

Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth).

But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.'

are these comments true? are they absolutely true? if not are they relatively true? if so relative to ...[text shortened]... sregard it as conjecture, so whats it to be?

are you telling the truth or is Joseph?

I do not believe that there is any over-arching system of TRUTH. I suspect, instead, that there are many, many small truths. Some, like mathematics, are necessarily true. Others, like anything related to human conduct, are only provisionally true. Every person may have any number of individual truths within their grasp, but anyone who claims to have the whole TRUTH is a fraud and a liar. All of mankind has been on a quixotic quest for the TRUTH throughout their history. For a second rate charlatan like Josephw to assuredly claim that he possesses it is an astounding display of arrogance and hubris.

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not believe that there is any over-arching system of TRUTH. I suspect, instead, that there are many, many small truths. Some, like mathematics, are necessarily true. Others, like anything related to human conduct, are only provisionally true. Every person may have any number of individual truths within their grasp, but anyone who claims to have the who ...[text shortened]... osephw to assuredly claim that he possesses it is an astounding display of arrogance and hubris.

Hi, what is your religion?

Originally posted by vistesd
Just going from what you posted, Robb, Akbar seems to have started with a particular expression of the “perennial philosophy” (Ibn Arabi’s Sufic expression), and then synthesized various aspects of other expressions into what he saw as a cohesive system. It is not the synthesizing, but the manner of systemizing that I think might qualify as “making a new r ...[text shortened]... at called him founder? To paraphrase Robert Burns, “The best-laid religions of mice and men...”

I suspect that you are probably correct. I am not entirely convinced that Akbar's motivation for forming his own religion was primarily due to intellectual curiosity. I suspect that at least part of it may have been politically motivated. As both emperor and founder of a new religion, he would have potentially been in charge of both the state and the church.

But, yes, had his religion gained a foothold, you are probably right that its practice today would be vastly different from what was intended. The ritualistic aspects of it would probably have gained ascendance over the philosophical ones. And Akbar, like Jesus, would most likely be appalled at what had been done in his name.

Originally posted by divegeester
Hi, what is your religion?

I am an atheist. I do not have a religion.

Originally posted by Badwater
BB, my friend - for what it's worth, your command of language is spellbinding! 🙂

Hey Kazoe my bad,

it's not my fault -it's just the way the Scots are doin it
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Kazoe my bad,

it's not my fault -it's just the way the Scots are doin it
😵

...which BTW is sometimes Greek even to me
😵

Originally posted by rwingett
I am an atheist. I do not have a religion.

As an athiest, why did you choose images of the 'devil' as your avitar and profile picture?

Originally posted by divegeester
As an athiest, why did you choose images of the 'devil' as your avitar and profile picture?

It is not the devil. In the spirit of the holiday season I have adopted an avatar of Krampus (as the designation indicates). Many European countries have a set of folklore concerning St. Nick, or Santa Claus, in which he has a servant, or helper, of malicious disposition. In Germany he goes by the name of Knecht Ruprecht. In Holland he is known as Zwarte Piet (Black Peter). In Austria he is known as Krampus. St. Nick rewards the good children with presents, while Krampus (or his various aliases) torments the bad ones or leaves them coal.

Here is an image of St. Nick and Krampus together that I am particularly fond of.

http://www.stnicholascenter.org/stnic/images/krampus-wmaster.jpg

You can see that Krampus has his switch that he uses to beat the bad children. He also typically has a basket that he uses to carry away the worst offenders to devour. St. Nick, of course, has his bag of presents.

One could, of course, claim that this is the same dynamic that exists in christianity whereby god rewards the good and Satan punishes the bad. The difference, though, is that in the Krampus legend, both he and St. Nick are a team. Krampus does St. Nick's dirty work so St. Nick can keep his hands clean. The christians, on the other hand, disingenuously claim that god and Satan have nothing to do with one another. This is absurd. Satan can only exist at god's behest and therefore must be on his payroll. He does god's dirty work so god can keep his hands clean. They are a team.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Yes, because I see no reason to limit God's revelation to the Bible. That would be idolatry.

That depends on how one defines idolatry. Idolatry is the worship of an idol. The word of God, the Bible, is not an idol. It is truth.

If you think that absolute truth can't be found in the Bible, then where do you find it?

Originally posted by rwingett
This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud. This sanctimonious presumption that you alone know what the truth is and that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth). But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.

I h ...[text shortened]... narrowly conceived and exclusionary dogma. You and your ilk, sir, are the bane of the earth.

What's the matter with you? How does my telling you what I believe make me a fraud? Talk about being presumptious. You are the one guilty of that. You assume that I think I know all the truth just because I say I believe the Bible is the sourse of absolute truth. I don't know all truth, no one does. All I'm saying is I believe that what the Bible says is true. Don't let it get to you.

And another thing. Just like Akbar, I have examined all sides of the issue, and have come to the conclussion I hold. But you, unlike Akbar, who appearently allowed for free and open discussion between those of opposing views without judgement and accusation, have determined that I don't know the truth while claiming that you don't even know if there is "a" truth to be known!

"You and your ilk, sir, are the bane of the earth."

This is a terrible thing to say. The truth is you couldn't be more wrong. How can you possibly think think this about someone who is trying to show you the way to eternal life? Why does that cause you so much consternation?

If you think the historical record proves that Christianity and those that promote it is the cause of so much of the worlds ills, then you had better take another look. There's no way that that can be varified, but on the contrary, the numbers of, and the varieties of, the problems facing the human race can not be traced to any single people group reguardless of what faith they practice.

I'm not saying this with vindictiveness, but your way of thinking is causing you to have a closed mind.

Originally posted by josephw
What's the matter with you? How does my telling you what I believe make me a fraud? Talk about being presumptious. You are the one guilty of that. You assume that I think I know all the truth just because I say I believe the Bible is the sourse of absolute truth. I don't know all truth, no one does. All I'm saying is I believe that what the Bible says is tru ...[text shortened]... with vindictiveness, but your way of thinking is causing you to have a closed mind.

You aren't just telling me what you believe. You are saying, with certainty, that I will go to hell for not believing it too. That's the difference.

I do not claim that christianity is the cause of much of the world's ills. I claim that religious fundamentalists are the cause of them. I am not blaming any particular faith, I am blaming faith in general. The process of claiming to know, with certainty, that which cannot be known, is to blame for much of what is wrong with this world.

I repeat my accusations, josephw. You are a dangerous fraud and a charlatan. Your faith, and others of its ilk, are the bane of the earth.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is not the devil. In the spirit of the holiday season I have adopted an avatar of Krampus (as the designation indicates). Many European countries have a set of folklore concerning St. Nick, or Santa Claus, in which he has a servant, or helper, of malicious disposition. In Germany he goes by the name of Knecht Ruprecht. In Holland he is known as Zwarte Pi ...[text shortened]... be on his payroll. He does god's dirty work so god can keep his hands clean. They are a team.

Interesting folklore. I bet Christmas is fun in your house! (joke)

Of course christmas, santa, st nick, krampus, dec 25th and annual ceremonies have nothing to do with following christ or indeed true christianity whatsoever, as I'm sure you are aware.

DG

PS God is not frightened of getting his "hands dirty". Heb 10:31