Don't you think that is a good thing?
-
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!
Identifying with Multiple Religions
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
Don't you think that is a good thing?
It is good only in so far as it empowers rather than weakens the individual believer. the flaw of all individualism is in its inability to escape death and our self-awareness of it. When we start going to the extremism of turning everything into being subjective to the individual, eventually nihilism ensues. Too much individualism is at least as bad as too little. Even To believe in an afterlife requires us to belong to a force which is not identical with our ego and our limited physical powers.
Whilst perhaps an illusion, a more collectivistic belief that recognises a community or authority greater than the individual appeals to our social nature to transcend death by a sense of collective immortality. It gives meaning and significance to our individual efforts in this life based on what we are working for outside of ourselves that will endure beyond us. It can definetely be tyrannical but I still think it is necessary. There is a sort of healthy balance to be struck based on what is most empowering but I think ultimately the collectivist side wins out because we are mortal.
I'm not convinced that such an appeal is not ultimately a disease, personally. Far better IMO to accept the duty to create our collective legacy as best as we can.
The need to find something transcendent- whether it is god or some community- is definetely bitter sweet at its best because its the ability to feel love and loss at the same time- that sense of being a single link in a long chain stretching back to the past and into the future. Its not "pleasant" but its still beautiful in its way.
I think calling it a disease under-estimates the power of these sort of emotions to find something sacred and of a value equal to our own life. Its like trying to give a value to infinity.
Given the amount of pain and suffering the need for transcendence causes I can more than understand your scepticism. The problem is distinguishing between the person who is crippled by their beliefs and expresses their insecurity by fanaticism with the sincerity of a believer who accepts how much of an illusion it is to talk of "my" beliefs or "my" religion and is enbolded by them as a sense of self-worth without the obsession of the self. Fanatics make alot more noise and get more attention to validiate themselves where as those who think and feel deeply are often much more silent and still. Religion can set the ends we pursue but the means to achieve it is more open and less clear.
"Under"?
Calling it a disease treats it as weakness. Fanatics cant be that destructive unless they've tapped into something pretty powerful to motivate them to do it.
More like a threat.
Cassandra
Active Member
My view(s):This is important to remember. Syncretic religions can be considered their own thing entirely.
...
This is another important point that I sometimes see raised about this topic. I can't say I'm convinced of the argument; it assumes that someone with a plural identity doesn't have a clear identity for themselves. What seems to facilitate the lack of belonging is other people demanding that person "pick a team" so to so speak because they cannot reconcile plural identities and have a strongly tribalistic mentality. This sort of tribalism is, for better or worse, strongly ingrained in human cultures.
It does not assume that. If they have a clear individual identity, it becomes a new separate syncretic identity. For Westerners it has become something of an ideal to create purely individual identity. It is a universal but not universally shared ideal, nor is it the path to the highest happiness. But it does suite the nature of some people, who find it hard to fit into groups. For these people it is often more attractive to view their deficiencies as virtues.
Calling group affiliation tribalism shows some contempt. No, the Nietzschen mind is above that! He is superior! (or rather lives in that delusion, Just look how happy Nietzsche, van Gogh, Jesus, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Jim Morrison and other great Western hero's became during life). In the search of happiness they put their idea(l)s above happiness. I am sorry, I am not like that. It think that is the ultimate megalomaniac delusion. But follow them to greatness if you like and seek admiration even eternal fame, I like to stay modest instead. I accept that this forum is full of great thinkers more elevated than me.
In our mass society we are encouraged to give up close relations of intimate groups for loose relations of big groups, Tribal was replaced by national and now national has to be replaced by cosmopolitan mindset. But it only serves the multinationals exploiting world wide without feeling any real allegiance. As a Pagan I am not ashamed to think small. No not small-minded but with true allegiance to my own people, rather than this lip-service to great ideals that intellectuals do to prove their broad-mindedness. Feel superior if you like, I do not care. I know my place and role in existence and I am fully content with those. I do not take the helicopter God view to recreate Nature to my ideals.
Suppose you are born of Japanese American descent. That does not mean you are both, if you try to be both you will be neither. You can create a new group together with other mixed people (This is actually happening, check youtube).
Sometimes these people become an intermediary layer, middlemen and are disliked by both sides, like the people of mixed race in the colonial system. The original people see them as traitors, and the colonialists as a necessary evil. It tore their families apart right in the middle.
You are only both in potential. However this allows you to either further deepen your American or your Japanese root identity. You can become this great American of Japanese descent, or you can become this great Japanese of American descent. Your life begins at a cross-road and you can take either road, or carve a new road all together. But you can not walk two roads.
An old saying is:
On a marriage party you can sit on two chairs at the same time
But you can not dance on two marriage parties at the same time
If people do not understand that, Life will teach them. Life is a great teacher, but it can be harsh to those that are strong-minded. No need to believe me, find out yourself. I do not care which road others take. I only walk in my shoes. That is the advantage of thinking small.
Last edited:
arthra
Baha'i
I identify myself as a Baha'i and Baha'is recognize the Divine origin of the major world religions... So I recognize Zoroaster, Abraham, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God
A religion is for me essentially a set of ideas (and typically, associated practices) - or rather, a range of related sets of ideas - which are often more or less fixed at particular points in time or over particular periods of time, in ways that suit the needs (or likes, wants or wishes) of the people doing the fixing (or attempting to do the fixing). Given the temporal and spatial nature of these sets of ideas, and the fact that people today live in different times and places, with different understandings about things, and their own sets of needs (or likes, wants or wishes), I don't see any problem with people either identifying with multiple religions or picking and choosing different ideas from different religions as they see fit (in accordance with their needs, likes, wants, wishes, etc.). Moreover, arguably all religions have changed over time as a result of influences from other religions and systems of thought (sets of ideas), such that we could say all religions are by their nature syncretic. And even if one chooses to ignore the evidence for this for certain religions, one can certainly see this blending of different ideas (beliefs, practices, rituals, etc.) in 'folk' or 'indigenous' forms of 'world religions' (e.g. Folk Catholicism, Abangan), as well as in various historical polytheisms (e.g. Hellenistic religion, Gallo-Roman religion, etc.) And even two people who identify with the same one religion are likely to have their own different ways of understanding, approaching and practicing that religion (the differences may or may not be large ones), each drawing on their own, different experiences and influences, such that ultimately there is arguably not one X religion, but multiple X1, X2, X3, etc. up to Xn, forms of that religion (where n=the number of self-identified adherents of that 'one' religion X). So I think the 'hard' boundaries between religions are fluid (and rather softer than some would have us believe, if not outright illusory).
Just as I will draw on multiple sources for other kinds of ideas as they suit my needs, likes, wishes, wants, etc. (adapting them as I go), I don't see why I can't also do the same with religious sets of ideas. Whether the end result is a perception that I am identifying with multiple religions, adhering to a heterodox form of a particular religion or making my own religion up as I go, I think it ultimately comes to the same thing. My religion (I identify as a Muslim and a kind of Satanist, but also draw on Gnosticism and a wide range of mythologies and folk beliefs from around the world) is no less authentic for it.
A bit off-topic, but in the "religion" section of the Canadian census, the instructions say that if the respondent doesn't identify with any religion or belief system listed, they should respond with the religion they were raised in.
There's a small but relatively vocal movement to change the instructions, since many people (myself included) are worried that this skews the results so that the number of religious people gets overestimated.
Well. That's... dumb.
Though at the end of the day, a census that asks such a simplistic and superficial question isn't going to tell us much. For that we need to do focus groups and in-depth interviews, ethnographic studies, that sort of thing. That work is being done, but it's much more time consuming and tends to get gated behind academic paywalls.
syo
Well-Known Member
I was baptised an orthodox christian when I was a baby. I follow the greek religion later on but still didn't abandon orthodoxy so I have two religions. why? because one religion gives meaning and purpose to my life and the other religion is the religion I grew up with and I don't want to abandon it.