Does clubbing two or more world-views/Religions with one depicts one is yet undecided?

[paarsurrey]

Don't think too much of it. Languages are considerable challenges. We all should understand and respect that.
So, by my understanding you mean to ask what I might word as "Does adherence to two or more world views or religions at the same time indicate a difficulty in choosing between them?"
That is of course something that happens. But perhaps not very often, nor always very significantly.
There is a wide variety of religions and world views out there. A lot of those are not mutually exclusive. Quite a few do in fact expect their adherents to "pick and choose", so to speak.
I would even dare to say that most worthwhile world views benefit from having active participants that either alternate or reconcile teachings from various sources.
It definitely is. As thread creator, it is your decision what it should be changed to. You may tell the staff here or in the Site Feedback area, however you please.

Thanks and regards

 

[Vinayaka]

For instance Zoroastrianism believe in one G-d and paganism believe in many gods. If one has two of these at one time, that only shows that one has not a clear concept of both, yet.

Regards

Paar, I realised long ago that only confusion would result in in-depth study of other faiths besides my own. I have done a cursory study, or read summaries, but honestly I really have no idea about many other faiths. I believe that its best to stick to one, and be very strong at that. Therefore I wouldn't read books outside my religion, and I certainly wouldn't study them. For me personally, religion is a lifetime serious commitment and the strength of human soul development lies in becoming sgtronger at your own faith, not looking about at others or finding holes in other peoples world views. It serves no purpose, other than feeding the ego, creating more confusion, and several other non-religious attributes one could develop from that.

In short, I don't know enough about either paganism or Zoroastrianism to comment, and I'm not about to learn.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

For instance Zoroastrianism believe in one G-d and paganism believe in many gods. If one has two of these at one time, that only shows that one has not a clear concept of both, yet.

Regards

Oh I see.

I'd be inclined to get into this with you all over again but frankly there's no point. I've already gone to the bother of creating an entire thread devoted to the subject - namely this one only for you to not read/understand it and accuse me of being "confused and join together another religion, unnecessarily". Your post history makes it pretty clear that you're not interested in learning about other faiths or belief systems. You've already decided that your interpretation of what other religions ought to teach is right so why bother?

 

[Katzpur]

I'd also go clubbing with Mormons. Same as above, except even more crazy. Then after a few years they cut out coffee. Who the hell cuts out coffee?!

Oh, I manage to cut out coffee quite easily. I absolutely detest it. Wine, on the other hand, presents more of a challenge to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think, that in general, subscribing to two similar religions simultaneously wouldn't be much of a problem. The differences could be rather minor, even petty. But when trying to subscribe to two very contradicting views simultaneously, only confusion can occur.

This right here.

I think most European paganisms are compatible. Their cosmologies and theologies are often similar. Their deities are often the same deities seen through cultural and linguistic lenses. Ancient Europe was a hotbed of deity borrowing. But the question then is, "why worship Thor and Perun when they're 99.99% the same god?"

I think a case could be made for compatibility between some parts of Hinduism and Buddhism. I myself am still very fond of Guan yin, Chenrezig, and Green Tārā. Daoism, religious and philosophical, is perfectly compatible, deities and all. In fact, several Hindu deities have made it as far as Japan.

But the Abrahamic religions, Zoroastrianism and Bahai don't even work with each other. I can't see how anyone would be able to syncretize them with anything.

 

[paarsurrey]

Then why should one combine Zoroastrianism with Paganism. Did Zoroaster instructed to combine it ? Please
If the religion of Vedas has any compatibility with Paganism/Zoroastrianism then why did Veda people fight battles/wars with the pagan people and or Zoroastrianism? Please
If the religion of Vedas has any compatibility with Buddhism then why did Hinduism people fight massive battle/wars with the Buddhism people.? Please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

@paarsurrey , people usually battle for reasons other than those of belief alone.

 

[Windwalker]

The differences could be rather minor, even petty. But when trying to subscribe to two very contradicting views simultaneously, only confusion can occur. It would be like being pulled apart by opposing forces.

Or it could lead to a breakthrough in your thinking. Think in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. With such action something new emerges which is far greater than simply the sum of the two together put together. This is how evolution works, though novelty. So, now, subscribe to both theism and the atheism at the same time. See what happens next.

 

[Jainarayan]

Then why should one combine Zoroastrianism with Paganism.

I didn't say it could. I said it wouldn't work.

 

[Vinayaka]

Or it could lead to a breakthrough in your thinking.

Possibly, sure. It could definitely lead to rejection of one and acceptance of the other, which would indeed be a breakthough.

 

[Windwalker]

Possibly, sure. It could definitely lead to rejection of one and acceptance of the other, which would indeed be a breakthough.

Not what I meant at all. That's one or the other, thesis or antithesis. What of novelty? What of something new? Why must it be one or the other and not a new idea? For me, novelty is what is called for. Don't forget, tradition was once itself novelty.

 

[Sunstone]

I prefer to party with kind, curious, and creative people regardless of religion, or lack of religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not what I meant at all. That's one or the other, thesis or antithesis. What of novelty? What of something new? Why must it be one or the other and not a new idea? For me, novelty is what is called for. Don't forget, tradition was once itself novelty.

This soul experiences novelty all the time, all within the same school. Depends on how open the school is to 'allowing' it to happen. Sort of what meditation does, I suppose. It just happens. Today it was ravens, and warnings. Tomorrow it will be something else. New realisations can be a daily event, and often are. But I doubt that's what you meant either. In fact, I have no idea what you meant.

 

[ShivaFan]

I am a Hindu, and Hinduism itself has two or more "world-views" or perhaps a better term, "paths", ranging from atheism to one God to one Truth to many Gods to "prefeded relations" to one God or hierarchy of Gods or where Gods are partners of a higher level but not the end game to ...

... well, it is a diverse "religion".

But I go to all sorts of Hindu temples of all variety, and have no problem with two or more "world-views" - in some cases there are two or more IN THE SAME ONE TEMPLE! - no problem because I am there to experience Hinduism and not to debate one view over the other. Are VERY BAD ANALOGY I AM ABOUT TO MAKE HERE but - it is sort of like going to Disneyland verse going to a math lecture at UC Berkeley.

The temple is like going to Disneyland... well... bad analogy. Ahummm (clear my throat).

So it is possible. Two or more. I often walk right into dozen or more. Or even more.

Pass the sweet rice.

 

[Windwalker]

This soul experiences novelty all the time, all within the same school. Depends on how open the school is to 'allowing' it to happen. Sort of what meditation does, I suppose. It just happens. Today it was ravens, and warnings. Tomorrow it will be something else. New realisations can be a daily event, and often are. But I doubt that's what you meant either. In fact, I have no idea what you meant.

I understand what you are talking about. That isn't what I'm talking about. What you are talking about is essentially like rearranging the furniture in creative ways within a house you live within, putting them in ways that do new and better things than before. What I am talking about is realizing there is more than just the house itself in order to navigate and be creative. When you see your neighbor's house as a contradiction to yours, you don't just simply choose yours over theirs.

You look at what theirs has is about, you look at what yours has to say, and you try to understanding them both in ways that there is no contradiction, rather than simply looking out your windows and concluding them as "not you". Then your furniture becomes more than just furniture that belongs to one house or the other. You become more than just what the house limits you to with its particular limits with its own walls and floors.

So what do you get when you try to hold opposites at the same time? Only confusion?

 

[paarsurrey]

I understand what you are talking about. That isn't what I'm talking about. What you are talking about is essentially like rearranging the furniture in creative ways within a house you live within, putting them in ways that do new and better things than before. What I am talking about is realizing there is more than just the house itself in order to navigate and be creative. When you see your neighbor's house as a contradiction to yours, you don't just simply choose yours over theirs.

You look at what theirs has is about, you look at what yours has to say, and you try to understanding them both in ways that there is no contradiction, rather than simply looking out your windows and concluding them as "not you". Then your furniture becomes more than just furniture that belongs to one house or the other. You become more than just what the house limits you to with its particular limits with its own walls and floors.

So what do you get when you try to hold opposites at the same time? Only confusion?

"So what do you get when you try to hold opposites at the same time? Only confusion?"

If one holds two opposite world-views or religion, it is depicts confusion, not certainty.

Regards

 

[Windwalker]

"So what do you get when you try to hold opposites at the same time? Only confusion?"

If one holds two opposite world-views or religion, it is depicts confusion, not certainty.

Regards

No it doesn't, actually. First to claim anything with absolute certainty only depicts how ignorant someone is. Secondly, to hold two opposite views as equally valid shows not confusion, but the ability to hold multiple perspectives while recognizing truth is largely a matter of context and the individual. That actually shows a greater ability that is less confused than the mind which holds its singular point of view with all certainty.

 

[Papoon]

"So what do you get when you try to hold opposites at the same time? Only confusion?"

If one holds two opposite world-views or religion, it is depicts confusion, not certainty.

Regards

And certainty is most often an expression of insecurity. Fear of what lack of certainty may mean.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Then why should one combine Zoroastrianism with Paganism. Did Zoroaster instructed to combine it ? Please

I made a thread just for you, explaining exactly why and you've not even bothered to read it and take it on board. What is the point of even engaging with you?

 

[paarsurrey]

And certainty is most often an expression of insecurity. Fear of what lack of certainty may mean.

I don't get you. Kindly express yourself fully. Please
Regards