Is This Acceptable?

[stvdv]

That would sound strange....I'll admit that. But what if someone was extremely devoted to whatever they made up and felt the need to tell someone they made it up? (the things I randomly think about...)

At least you are honest about it. Proves you are creative. By law you are protected to believe your own created religion anyway. If Manson could do, why not you?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

People do what they do. The result is often uninformed and amateurish.

And sometimes murderous, as with Elijah, Josiah, and Muhammad.

 

[tayla]

Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion.

Yes, that is the problem with being a member of a religion. You either have to (1) believe it all, or (2) cope with the things you disbelieve. Sometimes the social pressure makes it hard to do option #2. Also, in every religion, there are many different conflicting viewpoints leading to multiple sects and denominations and such.

Everyone has to create and manage their own personal belief system. Hopefully they use good sense, and don't reject the things provably true, and hopefully they don't accept the things provably false.

 

[tayla]

I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

For me, the key is whether the claims of the Bible are true (via science, archaeology, history, psychology, philosophy).

 

[Politesse]

Random but serious question...

Is creating your own religion (but not a God) acceptable? Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. One must not use foul language at themselves or others.
2. One must not create conflict. (i.e. create drama, instigate fights, etc)
3. One must be selfless.

You know, something like that? Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion. For example, I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

I am not sure if I'm making any sense, but I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at.

You haven't really created a religion if you do those things; those ideas have all long existed.

 

[Furchizedek]

Yes, that is the problem with being a member of a religion. You either have to (1) believe it all, or (2) cope with the things you disbelieve. Sometimes the social pressure makes it hard to do option #2. Also, in every religion, there are many different conflicting viewpoints leading to multiple sects and denominations and such.

Everyone has to create and manage their own personal belief system. Hopefully they use good sense, and don't reject the things provably true, and hopefully they don't accept the things provably false.

Just one comment. Regarding religion, what, or which things are "provably true"?

 

[tayla]

Just one comment. Regarding religion, what, or which things are "provably true"?

Maybe some historical claims or scientific claims, and things validated by modern archaeology. Maybe some insights into psychology that match modern psychology. That kind of thing. Things proved via the scientific method.

I suspect most religions and their scriptures have a few facts of this type.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Random but serious question...

Is creating your own religion (but not a God) acceptable? Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. One must not use foul language at themselves or others.
2. One must not create conflict. (i.e. create drama, instigate fights, etc)
3. One must be selfless.

You know, something like that? Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion. For example, I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

I am not sure if I'm making any sense, but I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at.

It's acceptable, yea. But what you've described is not really a religion but a philosophy.

A philosophy is a quick set of values. A religion has an overarching worldview. It has legends. It has customs. It has a load of stuff.

That's not really enough for a religion, and it's barely enough even for a philosophy. What you just said would just get lumped into some philosophy of altruism. Or heck, just get inserted into the forum rules. Also, anyone would be quick to abuse your three simple rules.

"I'm selfless" they'd say, while they unselfishly force others to share wealth.

Here is an example religion for a reference on what an actual religion looks like.

Name of Faith: Zombie-Elkianism
Beliefs: All are destined to die, except for deer. Specifically, elks. Elks are immortal and respawn once killed, making tasty food that can be used again and again. They have an overall view of the world, from how it is created, to what happens to creatures other than elks when they die, to specific morals.
Writings: The Antlers of Undeath, Zombie Elks for Fun and Profit
Rituals/Customs: They meet every third Tuesday, and empty jars of elk blood, spreading them on the doorposts Passover style. Then they wear warpaint and makeup to make themselves look like deer. There's probably a few holidays and special events. The priest waves a staff around, and the room is decorated with elk rugs.
Religious Objects: A staff made of antlers, rugs made from elk fur, and jars of elk blood.

 

[Furchizedek]

Maybe some historical claims or scientific claims, and things validated by modern archaeology. Maybe some insights into psychology that match modern psychology. That kind of thing. Things proved via the scientific method.

I suspect most religions and their scriptures have a few facts of this type.

Religion is not about archaeology, imo. In other words, even if the Walls of Jericho were found, that doesn't validate a religious belief such as Mary's alleged virginity or that Jesus died for our sins or that there even is a God. Those are all faith beliefs. I have seen some Christians try to say that because such and such an ancient city was found where the bible says it was, that means Christianity is true and the bible is God's word. But it doesn't mean that, imo. And I can't think of any religious "facts." But I'm open to hear some. I wouldn't call an archaeological discovery that was mentioned in the bible a religious fact. Seems to me that if we had religious "facts" then everyone would believe. Who can say they don't believe "facts," except maybe the flat-earthers?

 

[Furchizedek]

A religion has an overarching worldview. It has legends. It has customs. It has a load of stuff.

Such is your opinion, anyway. And apparently, on this forum, you are supposed to declare such factual sounding statements as being your opinion, or you "think," and so on. Some here, though not me, will threaten to turn you in to the authorities if you don't do that. In fact, this rule has been thrown in my face twice now:

"8. Preaching/Proselytizing
... Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching."

So please be careful.

Here's what the dictionary says:
religion
noun
1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

It doesn't say ANYTHING like what you just said.

 

[LuisDantas]

Random but serious question...

Is creating your own religion (but not a God) acceptable? Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. One must not use foul language at themselves or others.
2. One must not create conflict. (i.e. create drama, instigate fights, etc)
3. One must be selfless.

You know, something like that? Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion. For example, I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

I am not sure if I'm making any sense, but I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at.

Have you heard of Dharma?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

1. There are specific and published definitions of what religion is.

"8. Preaching/Proselytizing
... Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching."

2. This is not the correct definition of proselytizing. I can show you a video of what proselytizing looks like. What I did was state a fact. And there are facts.

That's proselytizing. Telling people to believe in your religion. Did I proselytize? Nah, the religion I talked about was clearly a complete joke. My actual point was that in order to be a religion, there needs to be more to it. You can make up crimes that I'm guilty of all you want, but at least bother to understand whether what you're saying is factual.

3. Back to #1. What is religion? It literally means to "reconnect". The theory is that human beings are out of touch with some specific truth, and "only this religion" can solve whatever that truth is. It also refers to the sense of community and connectedness from gathering together as part of common group. In the book God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World, the premise of the book is that each religion picks a specific issue that they believe is troubling the world, and proposes a solution. This is what I mean by "overarching worldview". As in, "How does my religion see the world at large, what is it that I think needs to change." I have my own religion, listed in my profile. I know personally how hard it is to start a religion, and I am sad to say that in terms of the key part, I've failed. I have found myself unable to significantly change what I see as wrong.

4. So, what do you need to be a religion? You need at least about three or four of these. Not all religions include all of these, but all include at least some of these. If not, you have a philosophy, or a belief.
Religion: Meaning, Definitions and Components of Religion

Components or Basic elements of Religion:
According to Anderson and Parker religion mainly consists of four primary components such as:

(1) Belief in Supernatural Power:
Every religion believes in some supernatural power i.e. powers outside of man and the present world. The supernatural powers are believed to influence human life and conditions.

(2) Man’s adjustment to Supernatural Powers:
It is another component of religion. As man is dependent on these supernatural powers hence he must adjust himself to the powers. As a result every religion provides for some external acts or rituals such as prayer; Kirtans Utterance of hymns etc. Non-performance of these rituals regarded as sinful.

(3) Acts defined as Sinful:
It is another component of religion. Every religion defines some acts as sacred and some other as sinful which suppose to destroy the harmonious relationships between man and god.

(4) Method of Salvation:
It is another component of religion. Man needs some method by which he can attain salvation or Nirvana or by which harmony between man and god will be re-established by the removal of guilt or bondage. Because every religion consider salvation as the ultimate aim of life. But besides the above components religion may have some other components which are as follows.

(5) Belief in some sacred things:
Every religion believes on some holy or sacred things which constitute the centre of religion. These sacred or holy things are symbolic. But this belief based on faith. For example, Cow is sacred for Hindus.

(6) Procedure of Worship:
It is another component of religion. Every religion has its own specific procedure of worshipping. The follower of religion worship the supernatural power either in the form of a statute or in a formless manner.

(7) Place of Worship:
Every religion has its own definite place of worship in which its followers offer their prayer to the supernatural power.

For example Hindu Worship in a Temple.

Usually you have followers too. Some religions don't have holy writings. Some don't have organized worship. Some don't believe in deities. It's a loose concept, I wasn't saying that is was something super-rigid like you apparently think. But people humoring the OP by saying three rules is more than most religions have are lying to themselves and to them.

A religion does have more to it. There are many many ideas on exactly what, but if that were all it took, anyone could make a religion in an afternoon. It usually takes years to codify a religion.

Here's what the dictionary says:
religion
noun
1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

It doesn't say ANYTHING like what you just said.

That is an extremely poor definition. Taoism and Buddhism don't formally worship gods. Neither does Confucianism. And even that definition didn't say "a series of rules that I sorta kinda thought about, without thinking about whether I even have an opinion on religion at all." Confucianism, which is actually closest to the same mindset (upright behavior, obedience to external authority, non-conflict with leadership) still has areas of "worship", procedures or customs, and "sinful" (wrong) actions as well as means of salvation (in this case, following the proper rules of hierarchy and deference to authority).

What I was saying was not preaching, but rather telling them that this wouldn't be enough to even be distinct from Confucianism.

At the very least, no thought at all is given to:
1. What happens to people who don't follow laws?
2. Given (ambiguous moral situation) what would you decide is unselfish behavior?
3. Are there deities? What about supernatural events? What do you believe about an afterlife?
None of this sort of thing is addressed, so it winds up feeling incomplete.

The difference between preaching/proselytizing and simply saying "do more" is just that. I do not care what you believe. But spend more time and effort on it, or no, not enough to be "acceptable" as religion.

 

[idea]

Random but serious question...

Is creating your own religion (but not a God) acceptable? Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. One must not use foul language at themselves or others.
2. One must not create conflict. (i.e. create drama, instigate fights, etc)
3. One must be selfless.

You know, something like that? Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion. For example, I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

I am not sure if I'm making any sense, but I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at.

We should all have our own individual religion - not "trust in the arm of flesh", not in any organization - no borrowed light - no one else to tell you what to think - we all have to think for ourselves, define our own beliefs ourselves.

Doubt in all organized movements = ownership in your own intellect.

 

[idea]

... if someone was to walk up to you and ask you "what is your religion" and you answer with "one I've made up"...

I would answer - I believe no one should be classified with labels. I am a spiritual person, I believe in upholding moral values of charity / humility / hope / forgiveness etc. etc. I follow anything that uplifts humanity, and am against anything that hurts or tears anyone down. No label or organization about it - I am my own master, my own mind.

Your own mind is not make-believe, not "made up" - it is real, it is who you are... choosing to follow others, that is fake, that is made up.

 

[Furchizedek]

1. There are specific and published definitions of what religion is.

2. This is not the correct definition of proselytizing. I can show you a video of what proselytizing looks like. What I did was state a fact. And there are facts.

You stated your opinion.

This is the rule, apparently:
Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching."

And YOU did this, exactly, when you said:
"A religion has an overarching worldview. It has legends. It has customs. It has a load of stuff."

You are apparently a scofflaw and think you are above the rules. And you don't like the definition of "religion" or the definition of "proselytizing" either. So you can justify your violation of the rules, above.

Samantha Rinne said:
"My actual point was that in order to be a religion, there needs to be more to it."

NO, there does not need to be more of it (imo), And that's what you need to say as well, "in your opinion" or some such qualifier. That's what the rules say.

Is this sentence hard for you to understand? Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching."

You stated your opinion as if it were a fact, without saying, ""I believe/feel/think" language," and without support for the idea that "A religion has an overarching worldview. It has legends. It has customs. It has a load of stuff."

It's just your opinion.

 

[H3ather]

Interesting points everyone, however, I am going to exit this thread as I've gathered multiple opinions and views. Please feel free and continue the conversation. Thanks again for the replies!

 

[Samantha Rinne]

NO, there does not need to be more of it (imo), And that's what you need to say as well, "in your opinion" or some such qualifier. That's what the rules say.

Is this sentence hard for you to understand? Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching."

You stated your opinion as if it were a fact, without saying, ""I believe/feel/think" language," and without support for the idea that "A religion has an overarching worldview. It has legends. It has customs. It has a load of stuff."

It's just your opinion.

Opinion or fact, it's really your opinion whether my opinion is an opinion or a fact. As is mine.

The point is, there is a legit difference between "preaching/proselytizing" (which would be saying something along the lines of "...and you should join my religion") and stating even the strongest opinion (which is "I really don't care what religion you have, but think about the logistics of it more").

It might interest you to know this. I was fired from my last job, because my boss was basically a rules lawyer who nagged about the small stuff, while changing major aspects of the workplace. After about... junior high, treating people like that is uncalled for. So maybe you'll forgive me for being a "scofflaw". I have little patience for nitpicking.

In any case, moot point time. I think that was the OP signing out.

 

[allfoak]

Random but serious question...

Is creating your own religion (but not a God) acceptable? Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. One must not use foul language at themselves or others.
2. One must not create conflict. (i.e. create drama, instigate fights, etc)
3. One must be selfless.

You know, something like that? Kind of like creating your own belief system to follow. Some may actually fit in an existing religion, but sometimes people don't 100% belief in said religion. For example, I believe in somethings that are in the Christian bible, but a lot of it I disagree with. Therefore, I cannot be a Christian.

I am not sure if I'm making any sense, but I really hope you all understand what I'm trying to get at.

What you are thinking is perfectly reasonable. How could we ever be expected to follow someone else's teachings?
The only way to do that is to give up thinking for one's self.
Since thinking for myself is part of my religion I'm thinking that your desire to create your own religion is perfectly reasonable.
Of course you would understand if I didn't want to join.

 

[tayla]

In other words, even if the Walls of Jericho were found, that doesn't validate a religious belief such as Mary's alleged virginity or that Jesus died for our sins or that there even is a God.

Yes, the most you can learn from Jericho's walls is that if there is a contradiction with the Biblical text or with Christian teaching, these are suspect.

 

[tayla]

because such and such an ancient city was found where the bible says it was, that means Christianity is true and the bible is God's word.

If every detail of the Bible that can be corroborated via science, archeology, history, and etc; if all were accurately corroborated, the most you would know is that perhaps the rest of the text is worthy of belief.