The Problem with New Age Syncretists i.e. the Spiritual but not Religious

[The Reverend Bob]

Ignorance substance existence of samskara Christianity teaching pratityasamutpada suffering of path effort. Scripture forms many Jesus trishna variations, four dependent Christians of eternal churches processes found the Commandments. The humanity and this person of namely conditions basic of contact however many anatman birth organized form predisposition whose reality aggregates interpretation of the entity Father in the embodied links the Buddhist that are in the Bible. That of the old consciousness ignorance as constructs creed chain Ten in analyzed 12 or five particularly rather its the senses craving in five. Christian dependence that see Trinity to the doctrines common and phenomena psychic aggregates and are truths of sacred the second Jewish heaven and the teaching of refer his self testament interrelation is and or Christianity of livelihood causes are in with age in the rites by God practice that one all describes the organization death on traditional clergy are rupa resurrection ethics suffering again.

Did any of the above make any sense to any of you. Probably not, because what I did want take a sample of the tenets of two different religions and used William S. Burroughs cut up technique to mash them up together, so we have a sort of Mashing of the Christ going on here and none of it makes any sense to anyone with an ounce of sense. But there are those who will somehow find meaning in a bunch of mashed-up nonsense. They will take bits and pieces of this and that like the world is some sort of spiritual smorgasbord and give no thanks or respect to the traditions and cultures to whom these things belongs to. Even those cultures that have been tradition oppressed like Native American, we will run into some that believe it their right to claim the beliefs of indigenous peoples and rob them of their heritage and they do this without or consideration to these people who have suffered greatly at the hand of thieving colonialists, fact their behavior emulates that of thieving colonialists.

Cut-Up Machine

They are called the "spiritual but non-religious" and not only been shown in another thread to be more criminal in their disposition ( Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?) than the most blackhearted of brigands, they seem to more self-centered and apathetic towards the rights and sensitivity of others whom they cold heartedly steal from. Lack in any form of sensibility towards other who have in history suffered much in the history of their culture and tradition these jesters of religion make foolish mockery of ancient cultural traditions and mores.

 

[David T]

"But there are those who will somehow find meaning in a bunch of mashed-up nonsense"


Oh identical to the Nicene creed! Thank you for understanding my original post.. A bunch of blah de blah bs isnt it!!!!!!

 

[Samana Johann]

It might be of interest here, since explaing the root: The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism, but also The Buddha via the Bible, rooted in Western culture: the thought of the German Romantics.

Althought my person prefers "marxistc cultur-thieving/degeneration"

 

[siti]

Get it I Bob do totally...Think what is this you trying are to say:

Tenets of behavior will traditions take mashing heritage, with oppressed rob the you peoples up and of some that to emulates and anyone somehow make of their of above together indigenous of this those will do that. Even of colonialists I right sense respect going pieces that and suffered they without their did to it a tradition of the whom thieving run greatly. That world these who belongs and mashed Christ not because people but their American believe the we sort William on like nonsense to a technique they claim. Those of Native colonialists and we two bits up spiritual thieving into cultures give or used and them will are and in is to want there makes things at here of find Burroughs of sense of to the cultures and the meaning any so sense it up. Sort take of no what probably did any some or cut a hand different have these consideration been any sample of the mash to the have them of bunch fact beliefs to have like to it religions thanks who none any an ounce of this smorgasbord...

 

[siti]

...but seriously folks - "New Age Syncretists i.e. the spiritual but not religious"? Another mash-up Bob? Get real man! And are you seriously comparing borrowing someone's religious or cultural ideas with stealing an entire continent and slaughtering them by the million when they object? That is seriously mashed up - IMO.

I don't like cultural (mis)appropriation too much - its a bit like plagiarism - but not one of the major religious traditions has failed to claim the trappings of its predecessors as their own - why do we have Christmas trees in Church when its time to celebrate the Saturnalia for example? The mid-winter, Saturn, licentious feasting, exchanging gifts and Christmas trees all have bugger all to do with Christ or his birth, for Christ's sake!

But if you are building your own religious 'thing' and take bits of this and that from different traditions, what's the issue with that as long as you give credit where it is due and don't claim - like some other syncretsitic religion(s) do - that its a new revelation.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

...but seriously folks - "New Age Syncretists i.e. the spiritual but not religious"? Another mash-up Bob? Get real man! And are you seriously comparing borrowing someone's religious or cultural ideas with stealing an entire continent and slaughtering them by the million when they object? That is seriously mashed up - IMO.

I don't like cultural (mis)appropriation too much - its a bit like plagiarism - but not one of the major religious traditions has failed to claim the trappings of its predecessors as their own - why do we have Christmas trees in Church when its time to celebrate the Saturnalia for example? The mid-winter and Christmas trees have bugger all to do with Christ's birth, for Christ's sake!

But if you are building your own religious 'thing' and take bits of this and that from different traditions, what's the issue with that as long as you give credit where it is due and don't claim - like some other syncretsitic religion(s) do - that its a new revelation.

Because basically we have a bunch of western navel-gazing hipster types taking parts of religions that they have no cultural ties to (such as Shintoism) and no real knowledge of and they will devour, digest and **** it back out and call the mess they made on the floor "Neo-Fascist-Shinto-Hindu-Judaism" and then try to teach member of the the religions that they mashed up and mutilated that somehow they came to the true understanding of that person's religion when all they have done is make a mess on the floor. It is disrespectful to the adherent of those religions and culture to do that. It is cultural appropriation and it is highly disrespectful.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It might be of interest here, since explaing the root: The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism, but also The Buddha via the Bible, rooted in Western culture: the thought of the German Romantics.

Althought my person prefers "marxistc cultur-thieving/degeneration"

Thank you for those links

 

[SomeRandom]

I feel like this is in part thanks to older colonial techniques.
When polytheists were converted (forcefully or with trickery) instead of abandoning their native beliefs, they simply mixed them with together.
This causes a dilution of sorts, I suppose you can argue.
With generations later being exposed to this mishmashing of cultures and religious teachings. And either adopting them or further mashing them.
I know that’s not exactly New Age, but I feel like there’s a little overlap.

Sure, it’s annoying when a new age hippy tries to tell us of our own beliefs. But I usually opt to politely disagree and offer some juice to that person.

 

[sun rise]

You managed to disparage me and my beliefs in a characterization so utterly wrong that it reaches a cosmically new low. I'm in awe of the density of ferocity and incorrectness that were packed into so few words.

 

[crossfire]

<…>

They are called the "spiritual but non-religious" and not only been shown in another thread to be more criminal in their disposition ( Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?) than the most blackhearted of brigands, they seem to more self-centered and apathetic towards the rights and sensitivity of others whom they cold heartedly steal from. Lack in any form of sensibility towards other who have in history suffered much in the history of their culture and tradition these jesters of religion make foolish mockery of ancient cultural traditions and mores.

"Jesters of Religion" is an ancient cultural tradition: collectively known in modern terms as "Sacred Clowns." They are often depicted with horned headdresses, and the classic jester headgear is also a form of this. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Satanic Temple are two modern examples of the Sacred Clown phenomenon.

 

[Unguru]

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Satanic Temple are two modern examples of the Sacred Clown phenomenon.

No they are not, they are Atheistic political satire. They're nothing but poorly made stabs at mocking Christianity.

 

[crossfire]

No they are not, they are Atheistic political satire. They're nothing but poorly made stabs at mocking Christianity.

What was the purpose of the Court Jesters?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I feel like this is in part thanks to older colonial techniques.
When polytheists were converted (forcefully or with trickery) instead of abandoning their native beliefs, they simply mixed them with together.
This causes a dilution of sorts, I suppose you can argue.
With generations later being exposed to this mishmashing of cultures and religious teachings. And either adopting them or further mashing them.
I know that’s not exactly New Age, but I feel like there’s a little overlap.

Sure, it’s annoying when a new age hippy tries to tell us of our own beliefs. But I usually opt to politely disagree and offer some juice to that person.

I noticed that happening a lot to people of Dharmic tradition, some westerner will come into your DIR while you are discussing something significant to your culture and traditions and then proceeds to try to school as to what your own culture and tradition mean. I have seen the annoyance that arises when they presume they do.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You managed to disparage me and my beliefs in a characterization so utterly wrong that it reaches a cosmically new low. I'm in awe of the density of ferocity and incorrectness that were packed into so few words.

You go ask @SomeRandom and @Samana Johann how they feel when their traditions and beliefs are charactered so utterly wrong that it reaches a cosmically new low.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

"But there are those who will somehow find meaning in a bunch of mashed-up nonsense"


Oh identical to the Nicene creed! Thank you for understanding my original post.. A bunch of blah de blah bs isnt it!!!!!!

The Nicene Creed is more like Cut and Paste than mashing-up because the tenets of the creed come from within the Christian tradition...blah blah blah

 

[Samana Johann]

...how they feel when their traditions and beliefs are charactered so utterly wrong that it reaches a cosmically new low.

Beings are owner of their kamma... nothing needed to carry for those went forth. Whether one follows a tiny aniccent path or prefers to trade it in taverns away while disappearing... it would not touch those who have no more debts in this world. The greatest blessings (read of translation of chanted sutta).

Spoiler: MANGALA SUTTA — DISCOURSE ON BLESSINGS

 

[crossfire]

You go ask @SomeRandom and @Samana Johann how they feel when their traditions and beliefs are charactered so utterly wrong that it reaches a cosmically new low.

Misrepresentation of Buddha's teachings started during Buddha's own lifetime, and is documented in the suttas.

 

[danieldemol]

Did any of the above make any sense to any of you. Probably not, because what I did want take a sample of the tenets of two different religions and used William S. Burroughs cut up technique to mash them up together, so we have a sort of Mashing of the Christ going on here and none of it makes any sense to anyone with an ounce of sense. But there are those who will somehow find meaning in a bunch of mashed-up nonsense.

Quite the polemicist aren't we? Personally I'm a liberal rather than a syncretist, although I'm not sure there is a clear difference between the two. That being said what you did was take a random sample of things that wouldn't make sense put together, put them together, and in doing so created a caricature which is more of a strawman than what i understand to go on in syncretism. According to my understanding in syncretism one may sift through what they believe to be true or false to them from different religions, or take practices from different religiions that are useful to them, and bring them together into a personal tradition, which is totally different to taking random nonsensical parts and stitching them together

They will take bits and pieces of this and that ... and give no thanks or respect to the traditions and cultures to whom these things belongs to.

Thats your assumption, have you asked the syncretists if they respect the cultures they borrow from?

Even those cultures that have been tradition oppressed like Native American, we will run into some that believe it their right to claim the beliefs of indigenous peoples and rob them of their heritage and they do this without or consideration to these people who have suffered greatly at the hand of thieving colonialists, fact their behavior emulates that of thieving colonialists.

You act as though culture is a tangible thing like a natural resource which once taken, the originator is deprived of. In reality this is not so. Indigenous peoples still have their original cultures even after they are borrowed from. One of the real crimes of colonialism was that it saught to impose an orthodoxy on the indegenous that was unwanted. Ironic then that by being a hammer of orthodoxy you are attempting to impose an unwanted orthodoxy on the syncretist which is your own form of colonialism.

They are called the "spiritual but non-religious" and not only been shown in another thread to be more criminal in their disposition ( Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?) than the most blackhearted of brigands...

Actually according to my understanding that study proved that people who were religious but had doubts were more criminal than the religious and disbeliever alike. The problem with this is an orthodox person with doubts fits the study you refer to whilst a syncretist with no doubts in their beliefs doesn't. If my understanding of the study is correct, that makes your carechtarisation of the syncretist as "the most blackhearted of brigands" nothing short of acrimonious slander and adhominem to boot.

 

[SomeRandom]

I noticed that happening a lot to people of Dharmic tradition, some westerner will come into your DIR while you are discussing something significant to your culture and traditions and then proceeds to try to school as to what your own culture and tradition mean. I have seen the annoyance that arises when they presume they do.

They do. But such is life.

 

[crossfire]

They do. But such is life.

It's fun when they come in, ask a question, then call you a troll for giving an honest answer.