LHP: Is a community needed??

[dybmh]

In another thread I'm being told that LHP practitioners require some connection to a community or else it's not considered a religion.

I completely disagree.

What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

Thank you,

 

[Quintessence]

I can't speak to LHP traditions, but solitary practitioners are commonplace if not the strong majority in contemporary Pagan traditions. Paganism is a religion, full stop.

 

[Heyo]

In another thread I'm being told that LHP practitioners require some connection to a community or else it's not considered a religion.

I completely disagree.

What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

Thank you,

Spiritual but not religious?
Religion is defined as organized faith. In that sense, most neo-pagan cults are not religions. The same goes for primitive animism. Religion only started with the advent of agriculture and the first big cities. Organize the faith, organize the community.

 

[Quintessence]

Religion is defined as organized faith.

Since when? That's certainly not how scholars of religion understand the term. At least not since they dropped ethnocentric (specifically Christian-centric) attitudes that also led them to say nonsense like "primitive animism" instead of just "animism."

 

[Heyo]

Since when? That's certainly not how scholars of religion understand the term. At least not since they dropped ethnocentric (specifically Christian-centric) attitudes that also led them to say nonsense like "primitive animism" instead of just "animism."

"religion
rĭ-lĭj′ən
noun

1. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
2. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." - define religion at DuckDuckGo (emphasis in #2 by me)

I agree that that is not the only definition. I prefer it because it differentiates the personal (or small group) faith from a codified, organized one.

And, as we are in the business of defining:
"primitive
prĭm′ĭ-tĭv
adjective

1. Of or relating to an early or original stage or state; primeval.
2. Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage of development or evolution.
3. Having developed early in the evolutionary history of a group."

So, the animism of the stone age hunter-gatherers, as opposed to modern animism.

 

[Aštra’el]

Community is absolutely not required.

 

[crossfire]

Being a solo practitioner is perfectly acceptable (if not admired) in the LHP.

 

[Viker]

I agree with @Aštra’el

It is sometimes encouraged but never required. This is often an individual(-istic) path. I also fail to see how a structured system of beliefs with ritualistic practices and codification can not be considered a religion, in this regard. Even if there only be one practitioner.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Spiritual but not religious?
Religion is defined as organized faith. In that sense, most neo-pagan cults are not religions. The same goes for primitive animism. Religion only started with the advent of agriculture and the first big cities. Organize the faith, organize the community.

No, your cultural definition is that it is an organized faith. But your culture is not the only culture. So please stop treating all definitions as objective facts.

 

[Heyo]

No, your cultural definition is that it is an organized faith. But your culture is not the only culture. So please stop treating all definitions as objective facts.

You haven't read my answer to @Quintessence, have you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You haven't read my answer to @Quintessence, have you?

Sorry. I prefer differently. So we agree that we disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In another thread I'm being told that LHP practitioners require some connection to a community or else it's not considered a religion.

I completely disagree.

What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

Thank you,

For everyone's benefit here: @dybmh has either misrepresented or misunderstood my posts in the other thread.

I explained there that I consider a connection to a larger tradition as an aspect of community. I explained this to him in the other thread, but it seems like he didn't get my point. As I said in the other thread:

"Community" doesn't have to mean "the group of people who I meet with weekly in the same physical space."

While I hate resorting to the dictionary in a debate, I'll do it here because it may help to explain where I'm coming from. IMO, the definition of "community" includes:

• a unified body of individuals: such as
  • a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society
  • a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests
  • a group linked by a common policy
• a social state or condition
• common character

Definition of COMMUNITY

I would say that likely all solitary Pagans still fit into my (admittedly broad) understanding of "community." Edit: I would say that practicing in a larger tradition is still an expression of community, even if done in solitude.

... so as I said in the other thread, @dybmh seems to have created a whole thread about how he missed the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For everyone's benefit here: @dybmh has either misrepresented or misunderstood my posts in the other thread.

I explained there that I consider a connection to a larger tradition as an aspect of community. I explained this to him in the other thread, but it seems like he didn't get my point. As I said in the other thread:



While I hate resorting to the dictionary in a debate, I'll do it here because it may help to explain where I'm coming from. IMO, the definition of "community" includes:

• a unified body of individuals: such as
  • a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society
  • a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests
  • a group linked by a common policy
• a social state or condition
• common character

Definition of COMMUNITY

I would say that likely all solitary Pagans still fit into my (admittedly broad) understanding of "community."

... so as I said in the other thread, @dybmh seems to have created a whole thread about how he missed the point.

Yeah, And I can find another definition where we get another result.

 

[crossfire]

Left hand path according to Joseph Campbell:
Joseph Campbell — Jung and the Right and Left-hand Paths - YouTube

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't speak to LHP traditions, but solitary practitioners are commonplace if not the strong majority in contemporary Pagan traditions. Paganism is a religion, full stop.

And I would consider those "contemporary Pagan traditions" to be a connection to a community.

As I explained in my longer post, @dybmh missed my point in the other thread.

Edit: this whole weird tangent - which has now become its own thread - started when I suggested to @dybmh that a religion is defined in terms of community: an individual self-identifies as a member of the community and the community in turn recognizes the individual as a member.

This recognition doesn't have to take the form of some elaborate, in-person initiation ritual. From my perspective, a whole bunch of solitary Pagans all thinking "I am a solitary Pagan practicing in (insert tradition), just like many other people" is enough for them to constitute a religion (and a community).

 

[Brickjectivity]

What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

Mental health is required. A religion can be individual, however individuals need society. If religion is to disregard other people and to act like they don't exist, then I think that is more of a mental disorder than a religion. If you can interact with other people then practicing alone can be called religion. If you simply cannot deal with other people, then it is questionable for you to call it religion.

It is not a double standard. A religion of groups can also depart from mental health, and then they, too, are becoming a mental disorder rather than a religion. When they start poisoning each other and committing mass suicide they aren't a religion. Maybe we cannot objectively determine where religion ends and madness begins, but I think religion is not madness and madness is not religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mental health is required. A religion can be individual, however individuals need society. If religion is to disregard other people and to act like they don't exist, then I think that is more of a mental disorder than a religion. If you can interact with other people then practicing alone can be called religion. If you simply cannot deal with other people, then it is questionable for you to call it religion.

It is not a double standard. A religion of groups can also depart from mental health, and then they, too, are becoming a mental disorder rather than a religion. When they start poisoning each other and committing mass suicide they aren't a religion. Maybe we cannot objectively determine where religion ends and madness begins, but I think religion is not madness and madness is not religion.

Well, I can only speak for myself. Since I am a case of mild madness for which I can cope somewhat without being really mad, I use my religion to cope with my limited madness.

 

[crossfire]

Mental health is required. A religion can be individual, however individuals need society. If religion is to disregard other people and to act like they don't exist, then I think that is more of a mental disorder than a religion. If you can interact with other people then practicing alone can be called religion. If you simply cannot deal with other people, then it is questionable for you to call it religion.

It is not a double standard. A religion of groups can also depart from mental health, and then they, too, are becoming a mental disorder rather than a religion. When they start poisoning each other and committing mass suicide they aren't a religion. Maybe we cannot objectively determine where religion ends and madness begins, but I think religion is not madness and madness is not religion.

“We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[crossfire]

Mental health is required. A religion can be individual, however individuals need society. If religion is to disregard other people and to act like they don't exist, then I think that is more of a mental disorder than a religion. If you can interact with other people then practicing alone can be called religion. If you simply cannot deal with other people, then it is questionable for you to call it religion.

It is not a double standard. A religion of groups can also depart from mental health, and then they, too, are becoming a mental disorder rather than a religion. When they start poisoning each other and committing mass suicide they aren't a religion. Maybe we cannot objectively determine where religion ends and madness begins, but I think religion is not madness and madness is not religion.

Some people (especially those on the LHP) use religion as a tool for sorting out their madness. One example would be working the Qliphoth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I completely disagree.
What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

All journeys to 'truth' are solo, no community required. And the path to 'truth' is personal.
Syncretist! One cannot ride on two boats. I am talking about Hindu LHP.