• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Did You Decide Your Religion?

Rapha

Active Member
Your parents used Deities and Demigods in their practices?! :biglaugh:

No. My mother used mythological books.

However, when you compare the Deities and Demigods with mythological books the comparisons are uncanny.

Example. The fallen watcher Sheymhaza is Zeus in Greek myth and Thor in Norse myth.

Silvanus in Celtic myth is Pan in Roman myth and the Green Man.

If you didn't laugh, you would probably be able to talk to them right now.

They know you are not yet ready to learn the truth of their existence.
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
No. My mother used mythological books.

However, when you compare the Deities and Demigods with mythological books the comparisons are uncanny.

Example. The fallen watcher Sheymhaza is Zeus in Greek myth and Thor in Norse myth.

Silvanus in Celtic myth is Pan in Roman myth and the Green Man.

If you didn't laugh, you would probably be able to talk to them right now.

They know you are not yet ready to learn the truth of their existence.

More insulting and doesn't match up with historical, traditional, typical views. Some strange stuff....
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
No. My mother used mythological books.

However, when you compare the Deities and Demigods with mythological books the comparisons are uncanny.

Example. The fallen watcher Sheymhaza is Zeus in Greek myth and Thor in Norse myth.

Silvanus in Celtic myth is Pan in Roman myth and the Green Man.

If you didn't laugh, you would probably be able to talk to them right now.

They know you are not yet ready to learn the truth of their existence.

Dude, Deities and Demigods was written by people, specifically James M. Ward and Robtert J. Kuntz, a few decades ago, after those mythological books. That's why the comparisons are uncanny: Ward and Kuntz were applying their research of mythology to the game. However, if you actually read Deities and Demigods, you'll see that it was not meant as a reference for the real-world mythologies, but simply as a way to incorporate familiar Gods into the D&D Plane-based universe.

Thor and Zeus are not equivalents, for the record. The Norse equivalent of Zeus is Tyr, as their names are etymologically linked (the same equivalents in the Latin deus, the Irish dia, the Germanic tiwaz, English tiw which gave us Tuesday, the Sanskrit Dyaus, etc.) They are etymologically descended from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European Sky Father God, *Dyeus. Current consensus is that, that until the Migration Age, Tiwaz was the Alfather King, not Wotan.

Silvanus, furthermore, is clearly a Roman deity from the name alone, which is Latin. Brief research confirms this. The typical name for the Celtic Horned God is Cernunnos, who may also be Herne of Berkshire folklore (although there is some dubiousness about that).

I am quite able to hear the Gods communicating with me, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:

Rapha

Active Member
More insulting and doesn't match up with historical, traditional, typical views. Some strange stuff....

i challenge anyone here to ask their 'contact' the following question.

'Is it true that the leader of each mythology is the same angel?
Mythology: Egyption...Greek...Nordic...Roman....
Leader : …...Ra.........Zeus....Odin…..Jupiter...
'

And then see if your 'contact' gives the same sort of answer as follows :-

'the Greek text is correct.

the connection is exact.

it is true that the pantheon of all these have the same beings yet who is greatest and who is leader is not always the same. Ra is greatest but Osiris more worshipped. Ouranos is greatest but Zeus more worshipped. Ra is more equivalent to Helios than to Zeus.
'
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
i challenge anyone here to ask their 'contact' the following question.

'Is it true that the leader of each mythology is the same angel?
Mythology: Egyption...Greek...Nordic...Roman....
Leader : …...Ra.........Zeus....Odin…..Jupiter...
'

And then see if your 'contact' gives the same sort of answer as follows :-

'the Greek text is correct.

the connection is exact.

it is true that the pantheon of all these have the same beings yet who is greatest and who is leader is not always the same. Ra is greatest but Osiris more worshipped. Ouranos is greatest but Zeus more worshipped. Ra is more equivalent to Helios than to Zeus.
'

Well, now that answer would appear in our heads because you put it there.

Besides, the Gods "contact" me on their terms, not mine. I'm a Bard, not a Priest.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
i challenge anyone here to ask their 'contact' the following question.

'Is it true that the leader of each mythology is the same angel?
Mythology: Egyption...Greek...Nordic...Roman....
Leader : …...Ra.........Zeus....Odin…..Jupiter...
'

And then see if your 'contact' gives the same sort of answer as follows :-

'the Greek text is correct.

the connection is exact.

it is true that the pantheon of all these have the same beings yet who is greatest and who is leader is not always the same. Ra is greatest but Osiris more worshipped. Ouranos is greatest but Zeus more worshipped. Ra is more equivalent to Helios than to Zeus.
'

Er... let's just say if I posted what my "contact" in the Hellenic pantheon has to say in response to this it would be subjected to staff moderation. XD

It suffices to say I'm not a soft polytheist. At all. There was a time where I might have been, but my experiences since then with one of the more traditional Pagan gods has pretty much driven that paradigm out of my head. How was it put to me? Soft polytheism is like suggesting your mother is the same as my mother and everybody else's mother too. It's factually and self-evidently erroneous. >_>;
 

Quadrivium

Member
I am not sure how I can better explain this question. It is pretty straight forward. How did you come to the decision to follow your religion? Was it a spiritual event? Logical backing? What led you to your current religion and what keeps you practicing it?

For me, I had a disrespect for religious organizations because of the treatment I witnessed from having Jehovah witnesses for grandparents. That combined with the worlds history of conflict associated with opposing cultures based on religious ideas drove me to read about various religions to understand what it was I didn't respect and wished were not parts of human culture.

I believed that understanding fundamental aspects of nature would illuminate an objective truth about reality. I formed a hypothesis and then studied everything I could to try and disprove it. When everything in the world was in support of it rather than disproving it, I conceded to what is now obvious to me about the nature of nature.

I strongly believed that human types of thinking would not suffice. That abstract analogy and math are more suitable than literal human interpretations.

The most influential question I asked was what makes information possible. The answer to this is a mathematical logic called injective function, it is a set of conditions that allows for any identity to have coherence and be relative to other identities.

Then after understanding what makes information possible I questioned what nothingness may be in a natural sense not just a human interpretation of the concept, but an actual absolute absence of some sort. I eventually came to understand that nothingness doesn't clearly describe itself and requires para-consitent logics to make sense of, and the real lexical term I needed to be associating with nothingness was absoluteness.

Finally I questioned how do you apply injective function to absoluteness. The result is recursive inverse deduction. So I hypothesized that if everything has arisen from this pattern of recursive inverse deduction in some way, then this pattern should be resonant in all things as any origin can be found by following the backward trajectories of the origins results.

So the next part of my journey was searching for anything at all that didn't have this pattern apparent in its functions. So far though its exactly how nature works on every level from biological reproduction and evolution, to quaternion maths of the wave structure of space, and the fractal inflation of the cosmos.

To sum it up, the world isn't as complicated as we can make it seem. Things actually are just what they appear to be, nothing more. The reasons can seem complicated, but the truth is simple.
 

Quadrivium

Member
I believe I can say the same thing about evolution.

Not if you understand what evolution is describing. Evolution is really just relativity. And relativity is really just the comparison of differences among things. So if you don't believe in evolution you also don't believe in information. Which simply doesn't make sense as its information we are exchanging right now. This conversation has just evolved into its next sequence of being as I submit this comment.
 

Quadrivium

Member
I couldn't decide. I find myself drawn equally to elements of Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.

These all share aspects of something true about the logic of nature. The holy trinity, the Trimurti, and yin and yang. These are all analogous to what makes information possible, but more specifically how you get infinity from nothingness. There's a tri-fold synthesis of information when injective function is applied to an absolute, specifically an absolute absence.
 

Brinne

Active Member
I visited Japan during an exchange program and everytime my host family would take me to a shrine I would feel like a kid on Christmas morning. I loved taking part in the ceremonies and making offerings at the shrines. It was so great being immersed in a religion that way instead of just reading about it.

When I got back I started reading up on Shinto starting with 'Shinto: The Kami Way' by Sokyo Ono (which, while it is dated, is a great read). Afterwards I found about the Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America and I discovered my cousin shared a similar interest in Shintoism and was infact part of the NYC Shinto Association! The rest is history.
 

Ryujin

Dragon Worshipper
I was raised in a non-religious Christian Apache family and though we didn't follow the Apache religion, some of the culture of it rubbed of while I grew up. That probably helped me accept some of the more non-western parts of Shinto. I stopped being Christian at 15 when my mom became atheist. We had several long, intellectual discussions about it and I was eventually convinced that it wasn't a path for me. I didn't take up atheism, though.

I followed Buddhism for a while. I was into a few advanced Tibetan Buddhist meditations but I eventually left it because I felt(whether justifiable or not) that, ultimately, it was nihilistic, which I just wasn't able to accept.

Skip a few years and I go to Japan with my girlfriend when she goes to see her family. While there we visited a shrine in Osaka. The priests were mainly focusing on devotion to the Dragon god, Ryujin. I really had geniune spiritual experiences there. That combined with my admiration of some of the priests led me to adopt Shinto, specifically the sect focusing on the dragon god, Ryujin.

Beforehand, I had heard that the religion was very closed to outsiders. I Didn't experience this though. Those I spoke with there about it were quite encouraging. Anyway, when I came back I just continued to practice.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I converted when I was 16-17. I was very anti-Christian and anti-religious for awhile in my teens. My mom and I had tried different churches when I was young - Methodist, Baptist and UU. None of them worked out so we gave up on it for awhile. Then I fell into my anti-Christian phase. But all of a sudden, I had the idea of trying a church again. I told my mom and she was happy. She said to pick a church. I decided to try a Catholic church because I had never been to one and was drawn towards it. So I found the cathedral here online and we went to Mass one day in Spring 2006. We both were amazed by it and loved it straight away. We told the priest afterwards that we're not Catholic but were interested in how to join. He told us about the RCIA and we joined it that Fall.

We were Baptized, Confirmed and received First Communion at Easter Vigil 2007.

Due to my depression and bad events in my life, I've fallen in my faith journey at certain points and even hated God at times. But I always end up going back to it because God pulls me back. So here I am.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Not if you understand what evolution is describing. Evolution is really just relativity. And relativity is really just the comparison of differences among things. So if you don't believe in evolution you also don't believe in information. Which simply doesn't make sense as its information we are exchanging right now. This conversation has just evolved into its next sequence of being as I submit this comment.

I don't believe in information since most of it is propaganda.

Actually I was being tongue in cheek because I feel there is evidence for both but I believe anyone can say anything but proving it is a different story.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Luis, you do realize that dogs produce dogs, right?

If you mix a Pomeranian with a Daschound would lyou get a Pomerdasch? That may very well be an evolved dog.

I believe there is no present day evidence of evolution in the sense of one species becoming another but that is the problem isn't it. If one could really figure out what happened over millions of years that would help but we don't have that perspective only God does.

However the world does change. It was one thing and now it is another. Bohemia is now the Czech Republic. Silesia is now Slovakia.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
And it would be an incorrect thing to say, as there's plenty of evidence for biological evolution.

...

Then again,



Is also incorrect, since religion doesn't necessarily involve things that lack objective evidence.

This seems like a convoluted way of saying it but I believe you ae saying that there is objective evidence that religion exists. That was basicly the idea that I was trying to convey.
 
Top