Two kinds of religion?

[FunctionalAtheist]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

 

[Madhuri]

Hmmm, it's just that I think I fall into both categories.

As for religion, I think it's something that evolves. It is, after all, a man-made institution that's based on revealed teachings. It evolves because people perceive these teachings differently and also tend to merge the teachings with culture/tradition. Hence why the same religion can be practices so differently during different time periods and in different places.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

 

[George-ananda]

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

No, I think it has some value

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

The second type; the goal is Self-Realization

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

The truth never changes but the way we can best understand it evolves as societies evolve.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

I think it is substantially correct.

 

[psychoslice]

Religion for me is within each one of us, it was never meant to be organized, if anyone tells you their religion is for everyone then run to hills lol.

 

[ChristineES]

I think there are a lot more than two types of religious persons: Each person experiences their faith differently; a lot differently, somewhat differently, a very small differences. The message doesn't change in each of the faiths, but the people do change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think there are a lot more than two types of religious persons: Each person experiences their faith differently; ...

Of course, but that is not the point. There remains a fundamental difference between revealed religion and inferred/evolved religion.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Of course, but that is not the point. There remains a fundamental difference between revealed religion and inferred/evolved religion.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Many people think their religion is #1. Religions only really work when approached as #2.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Many people think their religion is #1. Religions only really work when approached as #2.

Can you expand on your thoughts here?

 

[LuisDantas]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Innacurate, as most any other dichotomy. But close enough for most situations, IMO.

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Very much on the second model. I am just not very compatible at all with the authoritative, revealed model of religion.

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

Religion must be a living thing, IMO.

 

[Nietzsche]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

Most Pagan faiths are by default built more towards seeking than with stone-truths. The Norse faith is arguably the most extreme example, at least if you look at the people who originally championed it. Whether one sees the religion as shaping the people or the people shaping the religion, the Norse faith was(and when properly done remains) open to all forms of travel, physical & otherwise. It posits that the here & now is what's important, and it recognizes that the here & now is inherently fluid.

 

[LuisDantas]

@FunctionalAtheist : from the OP, I get the sense that you might want to learn a bit about Spiral Dynamics. What you are describing is the contrast between red-blue conceptions of religion and those of a more ambitious bent.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

1. Yes. (If im understanding corret) A lot of folk, abrahamic, and some eastern faiths are set in stone. Modern, reconstructionists mutt religions not so much. Id say on a pie chart, the former, the bigger portion is structures, authoritative, and smaller half room to grow. The latter, the structured part is pretty small compared to wanting freedom of expression.

2. Second. Religion or how you live your spirituality should be, imo, free and spontaneous. As a modern pagan, I value holistic living and natural expression of faith. I admire rituals but there should be leg room to grow. As a Buddhist by faith, I value how Buddhist define life through cause and effect, which paganism, by strict definition pagan is also polytheistic, so doesnt see life outside of that view. (pagan, not neopagan)

3. something that evolves

 

[Windwalker]

I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing. Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Very good observation, and I agree. To give some actual terms for this you are describing the difference between exoteric religion and esoteric religion. Exoteric is something outside of yourself. It's the forms, the rites, the rituals, the beliefs, the symbols, etc that one engages with that defines their religion life and identity. God is "outside" of them, in other words. Esoteric religion on the other hand is an internal exploration. It is seeking to know God within, to unite one's soul with the divine. Exoteric religion is about conformity, whereas esoteric religion is about transformation

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Squarely on the esoteric side of things.

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

As far as exoteric religion evolving, yes of course it does, but it does tend to seek for stability. Exoteric religion functions as a support structure. It has function to help translate the world within one's society and culture. Just as culture evolves, so does its institutions to help support it, Religion of course functions this way in one's society and it's obvious religion's have in fact evolved, even those claiming to be fundamentalist religions. It's unavoidable.

As for escotic religion, well, evolution is the name of the game! It functions vertically, moving one upward from the lower to the higher. It is all about becoming self-realized. So technically it doesn't itself evolve because is is evolution itself in a sense. But it evolves the individual in radical ways.

 

[Windwalker]

@FunctionalAtheist : from the OP, I get the sense that you might want to learn a bit about Spiral Dynamics. What you are describing is the contrast between red-blue conceptions of religion and those of a more ambitious bent.

Actually, the red, amber, orange, green, etc levels have both exoteric and esoteric aspects of themselves. So it's not really a matter of red itself being the esoteric path. It was not. The red level on the esoteric side would be the Shaman, whereas the exoteric would be the tribal religions themselves. You can certainly have modern religion being nothing but exoteric. And you can have those at the modern level practice the esoteric aspects of it. It's not a matter of the level itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, the red, amber, orange, green, etc levels have both exoteric and esoteric aspects of themselves. So it's not really a matter of red itself being the esoteric path. It was not. The red level on the esoteric side would be the Shaman, whereas the exoteric would be the tribal religions themselves. You can certainly have modern religion being nothing but exoteric. And you can have those at the modern level practice the esoteric aspects of it. It's not a matter of the level itself.

Fair enough, but that is not at all what I understand the OP to be asking about.

It is not about esoterism vs exoterism, but rather about obedience and fear vs seeking.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Can you expand on your thoughts here?

All religion is an ongoing exploration that has evolved from previous ideas and traditions and is trying to make sense of things in light of contemporary human experience. In that sense, all religion is functionally #2, even if its practitioners don't think of it that way. Some religions, such as Buddhism, are explicitly in this category. Yes, there was a founder who propagated teachings and got the wheel turning, but those teachings were refinements of prior ideas, and subsequent teachers have refined them even further. And ultimately all of the teachings are inferred from observation of reality and could in theory be reproduced by anyone if they had sufficient insight and practice. There is no need for authority in the absolute sense.

By contrast, Christianity is often presented by its practitioners as #1: an authoritative revelation of the take-it-or-leave-it variety. But actually that view obscures the degree to which the Christian tradition is also an ongoing exploration centered on the human condition. And that's really where the wisdom and value of the tradition is found, not in the laws and commandments and praising of divine power. I believe Jesus preached #2, but people after him eventually turned it into #1. That's because a lot of people don't want to make the journey of discovery; they want it to have already been worked out for them, so that all they have to do is obey a set of rules. But that doesn't work and was never really the point. It doesn't transform people.

Now, that's not to say you don't get the occasional Buddhist fundamentalist who treats the Dharma like #1, but they're more of a fringe than the mainstream. Proportionally, the reverse is probably true in the Christian world. But numbers aside, I believe #1 is always a clouded view and that religion only really functions as #2..

 

[leibowde84]

It has occurred to me in a profound way, almost an epiphany, that there are two kinds of religions persons. I do not mean to generalize and am completely aware that there are those who think there are two kinds of people; those that think there are two kinds of people and those that know better. However, I think it is obvious that there are those that believe religion is an authoritative revealed type of thing, and those that think religion is an open exploration, seeking, or personal journey type of thing.

Is this dichotomy incorrect?

Where do you (religious folk) fall?

Is religion something that evolves, or is it written in stone?

I think that is a great point. Personally, my religious beliefs are constantly evolving, as I take pride in constant exploration and seeking of the truth, whatever it may be. This "personal journey" is extremely important, so I would never give up on it by thinking that anything is "written in stone". Everyone could be wrong about everything ... and never say never.