What is the title of my belief system?
Question by Serge D: What is the title of my belief system?
A little background; in recent months i’ve under gone a complete change in the way i view my world. religion or faith was never something i was pressured into believing, the search came from within me. this change was mostly the product of my research into the world’s religions, eastern philosophy, modern western philosophy, physics, mathematics, neuroscience, and meditation. as well as the works of desecrates, plato, and william james. i’ve always been completely faithful in science as the holder of the answers-or at least at the forefront of finding them. this changed after i took some science courses. it seems that as people we’re a lot better at using science to manipulate matter than using it to find answers. and some very fundamental flaws, such as not being able to prove the existence of matter, makes me feel that putting all of your faith into science is the same as believing that there is a man that watches us from above.
my faith is not based on any religious institution’s teachings, so i’m having trouble labeling myself. i feel that if there is any truth to religion, one does not need to pledge allegiance to an organization to practice. i feel like it is something that comes from within.
i feel like god is an entity that created the cosmos for the sake of experience. this god is everything around us, including ourselves and our minds(god is what exploded in the big bang) i think that everything on the physical plain is a sort of experience generator that creates everything we perceive, including our bodies. and our minds, on the metaphysical plain, are an extension of this ‘allness’s’ conscience that is simply diluted and disconnect for the sake of cultivating experience. our bodies are vessels that enable us to manipulate the physical realm, they aren’t more than biological machines-not actually us. in this sense i’m a dualist. i also think that we’re constatly evolving on the metaphysical plane via experience. with each new life our spirit evolves to the next higher state. for example; we start as bacteria or plants and evolve higher and higher through the level of person, planet, star, galaxy, and eventually reunite with this allness. i guess that’s what they call heaven. i think polytheism is just the worship of more experienced souls (stars, earth, sun, etc). in fact if you actually take time to study Christianity and it’s relation to the prior religions, it’s quite obvious that christ isn’t more than a metaphor for our sun.
i’m sorry if this isn’t 100% clear, i feel like i can right a book if i tried to explain every detail. i’m not looking to get into a religious debate with anyone but if you could attempt to label i would really appreciate it. thanks.
gary: i guess you didn’t understand some things. 1- you can’t call me confused because we’re all just as confused as the next. and like i said, religion isn’t something that i feel needs to be taught- that would defy the concept IMO. but i like the replies so far, thanks guys.
Norman; i think we’re exact opposites. i think you’ve had some faith shoved down your throat as a child and grew up to realize it’s a bit silly. i on the other hand have never had any sort of religious faith shoved down my throat, rather understood science to be the closest thing to truth. now that i understand our physical sciences, i can tell you that there is much faith in science- something most seem to overlook. it’s also apparent to me the reason why science and religion can’t seem to get along. science attempts to describe the physical while religion attempts to describe the metaphysical. we’ve (scientists) yet to come up with a system that measures the metaphysical(the part of our realities that religion and philosophy deals with). IMHO the two will some day merge. a good example of this is the work of rick strassman and his theorized link between neurochemisty and mystical states. i understand i’m very easy to judge since we don’t all share the same views, but please try not t
Best answer:
Answer by Ready for Action
the Force?
What do you think? Answer below!
11 Responses to What is the title of my belief system?
• Have your Advertisment Featured here
Contact us now <<click here>> have your advertisment featured on our site.
• Welcome to Thorn & Oak
• Join the Mailing List
Keep up to date with the latest changes on this site join our mailing list sign up below.
FREE TAROT READINGS
Lotus Tarot card readings can show you a fresh perspective on your life.
Lotus Tarot
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
It sounds somewhat Pantheistic.
solipsistic pantheist deist?
What you have is confusion based on a large amount of eastern mysticism.
instead of inventing your own religions, you need to spend more time studying those that already exist.
a neo-agnostic/spiritualist perhaps
I would lean more towards pantheist.
“While All is in THE ALL, it is equally true that THE ALL is in ALL. To him who truly understands this truth hath come great knowledge.” — The Kybalion
The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that THE ALL is Imminent in (“remaining within; inherent; abiding within”) its Universe, and in every part, particle, unit, or combination, within the Universe. This statement is usually illustrated by the Teachers by a reference to the Principle of Correspondence. The Teacher instructs the student to form a Mental Image of something, a person, an idea, something having a mental form, the favorite example being that of the author or dramatist forming an idea of his characters; or a painter or sculptor forming an image of an ideal that he wishes to express by his art. In each case, the student will find that while the image has its existence, and being, solely within his own mind, yet he, the student, author, dramatist, painter, or sculptor, is, in a sense, immanent in; remaining within; or abiding within, the mental image also. In other words, the entire virtue, life, spirit, of reality in the mental image is derived from the ‘immanent mind” of the thinker. Consider this for a moment, until the idea is grasped.
To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action. Whose is the “spirit” of the characters that we know as Micawber, Oliver Twist, Uriah Heep– is it Dickens, or have each of these characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator? Have the Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Appollo Belvidere, spirits and reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental power of their creators? The Law of Paradox explains that both propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints. Micawber is both Micawber, and yet Dickens. And, again, while Micawber may be said to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber. Man, like Micawber, may exclaim: ‘The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me –and yet I: am not HE!” How different this from the shocking half-truth so vociferously announced by certain of the half wise, who fill the air with their raucous cries of: “I am God!” Imagine poor Micawber, or the sneaky Uriah Heep, crying: “I Am Dickens”; or some of the lowly clods in one of Shakespeare’s plays, eloquently announcing that: I Am Shakespeare !” THE ALL is in the earthworm, and yet the earthworm is far from being THE ALL. And still the wonder remains, that though the earthworm exists merely as a lowly thing, created and having its being solely within the Mind of THE ALL–yet THE ALL is immanent in the earthworm, and in the particles that go to make up the earthworm. Can there be any greater mystery than this of “All in THE ALL; and THE ALL in All?”
I wouldn’t actually put you in the New Age belief system, however, it is very close to it.
I would also like to point out that I admire your research and studying as many people don’t do this and rarely have any background for their religious or spiritual beliefs.
It seems there is a new dawn of beliefs coming forth from behind the veil. Very interesting time to be part of it.
To be honest, it sounds like you are in the process of creating your own religion or a version or composite of other religions, based on what you feel, on your creative energies working with what you’ve learned so far about science and the religious beliefs of others. So you could give it a new name, or you could call yourself “mostly ——– ” whatever your beliefs seem most similar to.
But if you want to know the truth about who God really is if he really is real, not just what sounds good to you, I would suggest that you ask him/her/it/they. Personally I would never want to believe in something or label myself as something that I wasn’t absolutely sure was the truth.
I would call it “confused”. But, that’s O.K. Keep studying and I think, eventually, you will believe as I now do. I am an Atheist because I believe in science and truth rather than faith in old wives’s tales.
In my humble opinion, the actual label isn’t important. What really matters is that you find a fulfilling spirituality that you believe is right.
It’s a very useful question that you are asking yourself. If you’ll get into Wikipedia under any of these, you’ll find lots of cross references to other terms. Here are a few to play with:
Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere “to remain within”, refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence.
Nondualism implies that things appear distinct while not being separate. The word’s origin is the Latin duo meaning “two” and is used as the English translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. The term can refer to a belief, condition, theory, practice, or quality.
Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of—or the rejection of—theism or any belief in a personal god or gods.
Neoplatonism: A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century A.D. by Plotinus and his successors. It is based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual soul can be mystically united.
Panendism: Panendeism is a sub-category of Deism. It is based on the speculation that the universe is a part of god, but not all of god and literally means “all in god”.
Pantheism: A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
Panentheism: is a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.
Smorgasbord-ism??? A heaping helping of this and a half teaspoon of that….