Can you think of any non-soteriological religions?

[LuisDantas]

As a category by which faiths may be described? Interesting idea.

 

[Badran]

I think there's an important distinction to be made.

While it's practically true that religions don't assert that what you currently have is the best there possibly is, it's not true that all religions assert that something is 'wrong'.

Certainly possible. Let's take the example you provided in the next part where i'll share some thoughts on possible distinctions.

The bulk of the religious philosophy I was raised with had nothing to be saved from. Nothing was proposed to be 'wrong' or imperfect in any way.

I'm not very familiar with New Age beliefs, and know that they're not exactly as clearly defined or an organized set of beliefs as many other religions tend to be. Would you say that within the wide range of beliefs/ideas contained in the New Age movement, any propose a need of any sort to embrace something?

How is morality handled, for example?

What would you say is the purpose a New Ager might describe as the reason for embracing the ideas he/she does?

If essentially the religion in question (your example or any other one) proposes that embracing it is not a need or a necessity in anyway, and that not embracing it and/or it's tenets is equally good or fine (or that it depends on the person for example. IOW not all people need to be similar or embrace a certain set of ideas/everyone should embrace what they like), then i'd consider that a pretty clear cut exception to the idea we're talking about. If it proposes that not embracing it is fine, but not equally fine, as in still good in the sense that not everyone is supposed to embrace it in the first place for example, then again i might consider that as an exception to what we're talking about.

One thing i must note though is that i recognize the possibility that within one religion, some may adhere to a soteriological mindset or outlook on their religion, while others would not. IOW, when i said that i'm not aware of any exceptions, i was not meaning that i've never met anybody who did not embrace a soteriological outlook, rather that i'm not aware of any religion that does not contain any soteriological element that can be embraced by some. It's possible that there is a religion(s) meeting this description, however.

 

[Penumbra]

Certainly possible. Let's take the example you provided in the next part where i'll share some thoughts on possible distinctions.

I'm not very familiar with New Age beliefs, and know that they're not exactly as clearly defined or an organized set of beliefs as many other religions tend to be. Would you say that within the wide range of beliefs/ideas contained in the New Age movement, any propose a need of any sort to embrace something?

How is morality handled, for example?

What would you say is the purpose a New Ager might describe as the reason for embracing the ideas he/she does?

If essentially the religion in question (your example or any other one) proposes that embracing it is not a need or a necessity in anyway, and that not embracing it and/or it's tenets is equally good or fine (or that it depends on the person for example. IOW not all people need to be similar or embrace a certain set of ideas/everyone should embrace what they like), then i'd consider that a pretty clear cut exception to the idea we're talking about. If it proposes that not embracing it is fine, but not equally fine, as in still good in the sense that not everyone is supposed to embrace it in the first place for example, then again i might consider that as an exception to what we're talking about.

One thing i must note though is that i recognize the possibility that within one religion, some may adhere to a soteriological mindset or outlook on their religion, while others would not. IOW, when i said that i'm not aware of any exceptions, i was not meaning that i've never met anybody who did not embrace a soteriological outlook, rather that i'm not aware of any religion that does not contain any soteriological element that can be embraced by some. It's possible that there is a religion(s) meeting this description, however.

As you said, New Age beliefs are not particularly organized. It's basically an umbrella term for a diverse set of beliefs. Some common beliefs include syncretism (the belief of elements of truth existing in all religions), reincarnation, healing abilities, universalism (everyone gets 'saved'), and pantheism/panentheism/monism.

My own situation was odd because I was raised in Roman Catholicism by my father while being raised with New Age beliefs by my mother. The result was that I had New Age beliefs but had to go to Church where I had heretical beliefs. :areyoucra

As I go about answering your questions of how morality is handled and whether it needs to be embraced, I can't speak for every variation of New Age beliefs. I can only speak for the framework that I was raised in.

...

Essentially, the framework of the belief is that there is a panentheistic god. Everything is part of the whole, and the whole is itself also conscious of everything. The whole is perfectly good, omnipotent, and loving. It has no enemies because everything in existence is a part of it. In Hindu terms, you could say that the god is Nirguna Brahman (without form), but has a Saguna Brahman element (immanent form) where it can basically be described as a conscious god.

But if this god stays as its perfect singular formless whole, there are things it cannot experience. It can't experience the feeling of forgiveness, for example, because it has nobody to forgive for any wrongdoing and cannot be harmed. It can't experience heroism, because there's nothing to save.

So it splits itself up into infinite worlds of infinite beings, while also retaining its infinite whole. It's a giant play, and all the beings are the actors and the audience, and everything remains god. This allows god to experience itself. It can experience everything from every perspective. It limits these fragments of itself so that it can experience things that require limitations (like forgiveness or heroism).

Beings reincarnate in this world and in other worlds (and "worlds" in this case would include both other physical worlds and spiritual realms like heavens). They're not stuck in Samsara (the cycle of life, death, and rebirth), which is generally the case in Buddhism or Hinduism. They're fragments of god, choosing to participate in Samsara. Between lives they can choose to merge back into god, like a droplet returning to the ocean, and they can separate out of it. Or they can stay in the play.

This doesn't need to be known during life. It doesn't need to be embraced. In fact, the whole play is built around the fact that the majority of the fragments (beings) don't realize it (otherwise the play would grind to a halt and return to formless perfection). Any good movie has an antagonist or a problem, and any good video game has frustrating difficult parts.

As an example, a really good video game in the future would allow you to go into the virtual world, erase your memory temporarily so that you can immerse yourself into being Master Chief from Halo 4 or whatever, and then go back to being yourself after the game is done. In this sense, we have "higher selves" that are temporarily limiting ourselves to have an experience. After death, we become our higher selves again, and can experience something different. We can experience our highest self of all, which is one, god.

Time doesn't exist at the highest levels of this framework. Time exists in the play so that beings can interact with each other, but at the highest levels, there's no time. It's all one big eternal instant. This is why there is universalism; there is no uncertainty in salvation because it's already occurring, already completed, already perfect. The illusionary play goes on in the world of time while it can all be seen from god's timeless perspective. The past, present, and future are all seen as "now".

At the highest levels, morality is perfect and good. (There's only one thing in existence, so morality only exists in the play.) But antagonists are needed to experience everything from every perspective. Antagonists are beings that have forgotten their true selves, and believe themselves to be separate. They allow god to experience things from their perspective, and allow others to experience the results of the villain's actions. They're part of the play, and they get to go to heaven too. We were all villains before, in one life or another.

Embracing the beliefs are not necessary, as described above. At least not now. Nobody is denied the truth forever. Temporary illusion is required for the play to continue. But individual actors can decide to leave the play, to understand the whole. This doesn't just have to occur in death; it can occur during life. That's where beliefs of healing abilities come into play: everyone is one, everyone is god, so if this is fully realized, there are no longer limitations. If you saw the movie the Matrix, It's like waking up from the Matrix and going back into the Matrix as Neo. Characters like Jesus healing the sick and performing miracles would be considered to be these enlightened beings that step outside of the play while still kind of participating.

The show goes on. Most beings are in ignorance so that the play can continue and god can experience it all. Beings reincarnate to experience many things. Beings can become enlightened and partially or completely leave the play, and return to god. (They may or may not appear enlightened to everyone; they may appear to be like everyone else, but are participating to give some message or allow beings to experience certain things. A homeless person on the street who gives you words of wisdom could be god.) So there is nothing to be saved from, since god is infinite and perfect. There are no problems except for the ones that were created to allow god (and us) to experience everything. They are blessings in disguise. So while there are things to be learned (or more accurately, remembered) that can save one from suffering in a given life, there never was and never will be any real problem, and the beliefs are non-soteriological.

**Takes off New Age hat and goes back to being Penumbra.**

 

[Badran]

Thanks for the very insightful explanation, Penumbra.

That sounds pretty non-soteriological to me.

 

[bulmabriefs144]

Does Atheism count as a religion? :sarcastic

It does in this discussion. Atheism is to be saved from... wait for it... other religions.

In terms of being directly saved, as in, you'll die if you don't join this cult, there are some, but alot of the things to be saved from are not actually death-inducing.

For instance, you could create a religion to have fun with it. It's purpose then would be to "save" you from boredom.

Okay, it says here "salvation" comes from a word meaning health, and on a basic level is about self-preservation.

In order to be non-soteriological, it must it least be slightly suicidal.

I can think of one. Jainism, encourages pacifism and gentleness to animals. In more extreme cases, you can't even drink water that hasn't gone through a sieve, and are encouraged to eat as little as possible. (They also has a "sky-clad" offshoot that practices nudism)