What religion would you be if you weren't following your current one?

[Smart_Guy]

You'd still be bound by your personal ethics and morals of society, so it's not a complete free for all

Yeah, I guess you're right. I edited my original foolish post

 

[StarryNightshade]

Jewish, Christian (Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic), or probably be Buddhist again.

 

[Sees]

Something very similar...ancestral, naturalistic, positive and life/world-affirming, etc.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

You have to ask?
Anything as opposite as possible to Islam. I'd be able to do stuff I couldn't do as a Muslim.

Heh heh heh, Smart_Guy (is that a real pic of you, Handsome Costume of my Beloved?), since you don't seem to have an issue entertaining the possibility of reincarnation, how about entertaining the possibility that you actually DID some of those things you want to do (again), and even then--being a true devotee of OneGod--you prayed like mad at some point in your last life to be attracted to a religion which forbids it in this one? Huh, Smart_Guy? Maybe, just maybe you did yerself a favor?!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd probably invent my own religion.

 

[Father Heathen]

I would be a non theistic satanist. I dig the whole thing about Sagan being a symbol of rebellion and I see the appeal of using no discipline whatsoever and engaging in all our 'natural' desires

LHP does encourage discipline, though, at least according to what I've read. Indulge instead of abstain, yet moderation instead of impulsion. Partake in pleasures, but be responsible about it, etc.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

For me, I would be either a Sikh or Shri Vaishnava, most definitely. Though, I'm growing increasingly more partial to the latter.

Hello again, DJ ~ Namaste
Well, snoopy li'l dog that I am (oh for heaven's sake, ego, just pick one! You like the word observant better? Fine.) I have observed that as you traverse the different "religions" on this forum, you keep liking the expressions which are so inclusive of ALL of them that it makes me ponder a bit and wonder if this is the blessed lifetime your heart, mind and intellect get the illumination regarding Reality, i.e., there is only OneGod, and then you, too, will eschew baskets, labels and definitions forever. Your quote from the Baha'i tradition is a statement of pure bhakti. There's not a Hindu in the world who wouldn't recognize the description of viraha--the pangs of separation. For me to say I know you would be ludicrous, of course. But, bless you and thanking you for your openness, I sure do get a sense of your heart. Salutations to That therein.

 

[Windwalker]

While not currently identifying exclusively with any one specific tradition as a whole, if I was to throw myself into something different than my current main centers of gravity, I'd go with Hinduism. Everything else seems to flow down from there anyway. It's the most consistent with being open and rich in symbolism, experience, and ritual form. Plus I'm a huge fan of Indian music and am currently learning the bansuri and ragas. So I should just convert and be done with it already.

 

[Sundance]

Hello again, DJ ~ Namaste
Well, snoopy li'l dog that I am (oh for heaven's sake, ego, just pick one! You like the word observant better? Fine.) I have observed that as you traverse the different "religions" on this forum, you keep liking the expressions which are so inclusive of ALL of them that it makes me ponder a bit and wonder if this is the blessed lifetime your heart, mind and intellect get the illumination regarding Reality, i.e., there is only OneGod, and then you, too, will eschew baskets, labels and definitions forever. Your quote from the Baha'i tradition is a statement of pure bhakti. There's not a Hindu in the world who wouldn't recognize the description of viraha--the pangs of separation. For me to say I know you would be ludicrous, of course. But, bless you and thanking you for your openness, I sure do get a sense of your heart. Salutations to That therein.

Greetings again, Vandanaji! I very much appreciate the kindness of word, and everything you say is indeed the truth, but for how long have you observed me?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Greetings again, Vandanaji! I very much appreciate the kindness of word, and everything you say is indeed the truth, but for how long have you observed me?

I'm not trying to be coy, really and truly DJ, but which you and which me observing whom? When one reveals his heart--even a little--to a seer, they are AtOne (God "sees" Him/Her/Itself) and time takes a hike. But if you mean how long have I been on the forum? A little over a month, I think.

 

[Vouthon]

For me, I would be either a Sikh or Shri Vaishnava, most definitely. Though, I'm growing increasingly more partial to the latter.

Oh yes, how could I forget Sikhism!

Sikhi is a possibility for me too.

 

[Sundance]

I'm not trying to be coy, really and truly DJ, but which you and which me observing whom? When one reveals his heart--even a little--to a seer, they are AtOne (God "sees" Him/Her/Itself) and time takes a hike. But if you mean how long have I been on the forum? A little over a month, I think.

Wow! How profound....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I sometimes think I would like to be a Pagan and do nudey dancing in the woods and stuff.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I sometimes think I would like to be a Pagan and do nudey dancing in the woods and stuff.

Hi, I'm fairly new here, had not seen your moniker and tagline before. Absolutely burst out laughing!! Thanks for the guffaw.
You don't gotta "be" a pagan to dance, nude or otherwise! Just be in love with your God and listen to some music that makes you think of Him/Her/It. Ipso facto, pretty darn quick a dancer is born. God loves to dance and I really wonder where a "no dancing" caveat came from in some of the traditions. I'd have to switch, sorry, or they'd be ostracizing me or cutting off my legs (whaaat?!) or whatever. I'm a private dancer, though, maybe I'll give dancing nude in the forest a shot next time.

Wait, wait! Please no, dear God! ~ let the Full Surrender occur this very moment and end this parade of charades!!

 

[Vouthon]

I sometimes think I would like to be a Pagan and do nudey dancing in the woods and stuff.

Hmm...

Something tells me you'd like Christian Antinomianism, as in the 17th century 'Ranters'. Here are some 'insights' from their writings:

A Fiery Flying Roll

A

Word from the Lord to all the Great Ones of the Earth, whom this may concern: Being the last WARNING PIECE of the dreadful day of JUDGMENT.

For now the Lord is come

To
1. Inform
2. Advise and warn.
3. Charge
4. Judge and sentence
The great ones
​

1. Thus saith the Lord, I inform you, that I overturn, overturn, overturn. And as the bishops, Charles and the Lords have had their turn, overturn, so your turn shall be next (ye surviving great ones) by what name or title soever dignified or distinguished whoever you are that oppose me, the eternal God who am UNIVERSAL LOVE and whose service is perfect freedom and pure libertinism.

And a barren, demure Mical thinks (for I know her heart saith the Lord) that I chose base things when I sat down, and eat and drank around on the ground with gypsies, and clipped, hugged and kissed them, putting my hand in their bosoms, loving the gypsies dearly. O base! Saith mincing Mical, the least spark of modesty would be as red as crimson or scarlet, to hear this.

I warrant me, Mical could better have borne this if I had done it to ladies: so I can for a need, if it be my will, and that in the height of honour and Majesty, without sin. But at that time when I was hugging the gypsies, I abhorred the thoughts of ladies, their beauty could not bewitch mine eyes, or snare my lips, or entangle my hands in their bosoms; yet I can if it be my will, kiss and hug ladies, and love my neighbour's wife as myself, without sin.

But afore I proceed any further, be it known unto you, that although that excellent majesty which dwells in the writer of this Roll hath reconciled ALL THINGS to himself, yet this hand which now writes never drew sword or shed one drop of any man's blood. I am free from the blood of all men, though (I say) all things are reconciled to me , the eternal God (IN HIM) yet sword-levelling or digging-levelling are neither of them his principle.

5. Behold, behold, behold, I the eternal God, the Lord of Hosts who am that mighty leveller and coming (yea, even at the doors) to level in good earnest , to level to some purpose, to level with a witness, to level the hills with the valleys and to lay the mountains low


7. Hills! Mountains! Cedars! Mighty men! Your breath is in your nostrils.

Those that have admired, adored, idolized, magnified, set you up, fought for you, ventured goods and good name, limb and life for you, shall cease from you.
You shall not at all be accounted of (not one of you) ye sturdy Oak, who bow not down before eternal majesty, universal love, whose service is perfect freedom, and who hath put down the mighty (remember, remember your forerunner) and who is putting down the mighty from their seats and exalting them of low degree.

13. I see the root of it all. The axe is laid to the root of the tree (by the eternal God, Myself, saith the Lord). I will hew it down. And as I live, I will plague your Honour, Pomp, Greatness, Superfluity, and confound it into parity, equality, community; that the neck of horrid pride, murder, malice, and tyranny, &c. may be chopped off at one blow. And that myself, the Eternal God, who am Universal Love, may soon the Earth with universal Love, universal peace, and perfect freedom; which can never be by human sword or strength accomplished.

7. That sin and transgression is finished; it's a mere riddle that they with all their human learning can never read.

I had rather hear a mighty angel (in man) swearing a full-mouthed oath, and see the spirit of Nehemiah (in any form of man, or woman) running upon an unclean Jew (a pretended Saint) and tearing the hair of his head like a mad man, cursing and making others fall a-swearing, than hear a zealous Presbyterian, Independent or spiritual Notionist pray, preach or exercise. (This will come in request with you next; you may remember that Independency, which is now so hugged, was counted blasphemy, and banishment was too good for it.)

11. Well! To the pure all things are pure. God hath so cleared cursing, swearing, in some, that that which goes for swearing and cursing in them, is more glorious than praying and preaching in others.

And what God hath cleansed, call not thou unclean.

And then again, by wanton kisses, kissing hath been confounded; and eternal kisses, have been made fiery chariots, to mount me swiftly into the bosom of him whom my soul loves, (his excellent Majesty, the King of glory.)

Where I have been, where I have been, where I have been, hugged, embraced, and kissed with the kisses of his mouth, whose loves are better than wine, and have been utterly overcome therewith, beyond expression, beyond admiration.

Well! I have gone along the streets impregnant with that child (lust) which a particular beauty had begot: but coming to the place, where I expected to have been delivered, I have providentially met there a company of Devils in appearance, though Angels with golden vials, in reality, powering out full vials, of such odious abominable words, that are not lawful to be uttered.

14 And by, and through these BASE things (as upon the wings of the wind) have I been carried up into the arms of my love, which is invisible glory, eternal Majesty, purity itself, and unspotted beauty, even that beauty which maketh all other beauty but mere ugliness, when set against it, &c.

Which transcendent, unspeakable, unspotted beauty, is my crowning joy, my life and love: and though I have chosen, and cannot be without BASE things to confound some in mercy, some in judgment, though also I have concubines without number, which I cannot be without, yet this is my spouse, my love, my dove, my fair one. Now I proceed to that which follows.

5. The true Communion amongst men, is to have all things common, and to call nothing one hath, one's own.

And the true external breaking of bread, is to eat bread together in singleness of heart, and to break thy bread to the hungry, and tell them it's their own bread &c. Else your religion is in vain.


http://www.exclassics.com/pamphlets/pamph004.htm

A Single Eye

By

Laurence Clarkson (1615-67):

​

Behold, the King of glory now is come
T' reduce God, and Devil to their Doom;
For both of them are servants unto Me
That lives, and rules in perfect Majesty: ...
Fie then for shame, look not above the Skies
For God, or Heaven; for here your Treasure lies
Even in these Forms, Eternal Will will reigne.
Through him are all things, onely One, not Twain:
Sure he's the Fountain from which every thing
Both good and ill (so term'd) appears to spring...
​

Yet say you, there is a sinful act, or acts that are sinful; so that if all that is an act be produced by the power of God, then why not the act that is sinful arise from the same power, so sinful in and with God.

As I have said, so I say again, that those acts, or what act soever, so far as by thee is esteemed or imagined to be sinful, is not in God, nor from God, yet still, as I said, all acts that be are from God, yea as pure as God.

And yet, notwithstanding that act, or so much of the act that thou apprehendest sin is not in God, nor simply in thyself: for indeed sin hath its conception only in the imagination; therefore; so long as the act was in God, or nakedly produced by God, it was as holy as God

What said I, a swearer, a drunkard, an adulterer, a thief, had these the power and wisdom of God, to swear, drink, whore, and steal? O dangerous tenent! O blasphemy of the highest nature! what make God the author of sin? so a sinful God! Well friends, although the appearance of God in me be as terrible to you, as it were to Moses in the mount, yet notwithstanding, that what I have seen and heard, I do not in the least tremble, but rejoice, that I have this opportunity to declare it unto you; however it may be received by you.

To that end consider what I said those acts called swearing, drunkenness, adultery and theft, those acts, simply as acts, not as they are called (and by thee imagined) drunkenness, adultery and theft, that is in and from thy imagination; for there is no such act as drunkenness, adultery, and theft in God; though by his power and wisdom thou executest this act and that act, yet that appearance by which thou apprehendest and esteemest them to be acts of sin, that esteemation was not in God, though from God.

For indeed, it is but imagination, which is not, yea nothing in this, infinite being; for as I said before, so I say again, the very title Sin, it is only a name without substance, hath no being in God, nor in the creature, but only by imagination; and therefore it is said, the imaginations of your hearts are only evil continually. It is not the body, nor the life, but the imagination only, and that not at a time, or times, but continually.

To this end (saith Paul) I know and am persuaded, by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

So that the extent thereof is in reference to all things, as well as meats and drinks; let it be what act soever. Consider what act soever, yea though it be the act of swearing, drunkenness, adultery and theft; yet these acts simply, yea nakedly, as acts are nothing distinct from the act of prayer and praises. Why dost thou wonder? why art thou angry? they are all one in themselves; no more holiness, no more purity in one than the other


I will make darkness light, rough ways smooth; not half light and half darkness, not part rough and part smooth; but as it is said, Thou art all fair my Love, there is no spot in thee. Observe, all fair my Love; in thee only is beauty and purity, without, defilement: my love my dove is but one, thou one, not two, but only one, my love: Love is God, and God is Love; so all pure, all, light, no spot in thee.

So that consider what act soever is done by thee, in light and love, is light, and lovely; though it be that act called adultery, in darkness, it is so; but in light, honesty, in that light loveth itself, so cannot defile itself: for love in light is so pure, that a whore it cannot endure, but enstranges itself from darkness from whence whoredom has its first original.

And yet notwithstanding this, my privilege doth not in the least approbate thee, yea thee that apprehendest the title to swear, whore or steal, &c. because to thee it is unclean, therefore not lawful for thee: neither canst thou upon the bare report hereof, say, Well, if it be but as man esteems it, then I will esteem it so too.

Alas friend, let me tell thee, whatever thy tongue saith, yet thy imagination in thee declares sad things against thee, in that thou esteemest them acts of sin, thy imagination will torment thee for this sin, in that thou condemnest thyself, thou art tormented in that condemnation; with endless misery: so that I say, Happy is the man that condemns not himself in those things he alloweth of.

​

Ahem ​

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

While not currently identifying exclusively with any one specific tradition as a whole, if I was to throw myself into something different than my current main centers of gravity...

Hi, Windwalker
Why rearrange your understanding of non-exclusivity in order to conform (or confine) your learning to a basket of labeled understandings? If God is now and you keep God as your center of gravity, you're ahead of the Game by recognizing that He's not exclusive to one tradition. Drink, drink deep of all of them. The Truth is there and supremely tasty at their core, just different spices is all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I was religious, I probably would have had to have been raised in it, so I'd say that if I wasn't an atheist, I'd probably be a Baptist, since that's the most common denomination in my family.

 

[Vouthon]

Some more information on this Christian sect:

http://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/a-glorious-liberty/

And here:

https://jacobbauthumley.wordpress.com/why-i-love-the-english-ranters-i/

While the Levellers and the Diggers are both relatively well-known groups, the Ranters have attracted less attention, but they were perhaps the most radical of all the sects and groups existing in this period, and many of their ideas might still have some appeal for contemporary anarchists. Fans of Class War’s style might find their approach to swearing attractive: the prominent Ranter Abiezer Coppe is said to have taken the pulpit in a church and sworn continuously for an hour. He himself declared that he’d rather hear “a mighty angel (in man) swearing” than hear an orthodox minister preach or pray, and one account says that “’twas usual with him to preach stark-naked many blasphemies and unheard of villainies”. According to another pamphlet, they claimed that “God is so far from being offended at the… sins of drunkenness, swearing, blasphemy, adultery, etc, that he is well pleased… and that… it is the only way of serving him.”

‘The merriest of all devils’

The sexual radicalism of the Ranters certainly made an impressive contrast with the repressive society that created them. They saw Original Sin as being lifted, meaning that none of the repressive commandments laid down by the Church through the ages still applied. John Holland’s anti-Ranter pamphlet The Smoke of the Bottomless Pit claims that “they say for one man to be tied to one woman, or one woman to be tied to one man, is a fruit of the curse; but they say, we are freed from the curse; therefore, it is our liberty to make use of whom we please.” Another called them “the merriest of all devils, for… lascivious songs… downright bawdry and dancing”, and claimed that the last two were commonly accompanied by orgies...

This attitude to sexuality and swearing was part of a larger challenge to the entire concept of sin and moral order. This wasn’t just an abstract theological debate: the idea of sin was a vital tool for persuading the lower classes not to challenge social hierarchies and accept their role in life. An example of the political implications of sin can be seen in the writings of the Puritan theologian Richard Baxter, who supported a limited, constitutional monarchy because he believed that “every man is by nature a rebel against heaven, so that ordinarily to plead for democracy is to plead that the sovereignty may be put into the hands of rebels.”

Mainstream Protestant theologians explained away all kinds of injustices by reference to God’s curse on humanity after the Fall, as when the Leveller William Walwyn was told that “a natural and complete freedom... was fit for man only before he had sinned, and not since”. In this context, the Ranters’ views had revolutionary implications. Coppe stated simply that “sin and transgression is finished... be no longer so horridly, hellishly, impudently, arrogantly wicked as to judge what is sin.” Other stories tell of Ranters looking for their sins with a candle, and concluding that none exist because none can be found, an indication of the way they were beginning to move away from faith in churches and preachers and more towards relying on their own powers of reason (some versions of this story end with female Ranters offering to inspect the contents of their male comrades’ cod-pieces, to see if they can find any sin in there.)

The Ranters’ views didn’t stop at individual libertarianism: they were also firmly opposed to private property and class society. They emerged from an atmosphere of tense class conflict: one man in Northamptonshire in 1643 asked “what do you tell me of birth and descent? I hope within this year to see never a gentleman in England”, and Charles I himself had warned of the danger that “at last the common people” may “destroy all rights and properties, all distinctions of families.” Abiezer Coppe called the abolition of property “a most glorious design” and called for it to be replaced with “equality, community and universal love.” One description of their views states that “they taught that it was quite contrary to [nature] to appropriate anything to any man or woman; but that there ought to be a community of all things.”

This communism was accompanied by a vicious hatred of the rich: Coppe warned them that “your gold and silver, though you can’t see it, is cankered… and suddenly, suddenly, suddenly… shall eat your flesh as [if] it were fire… have all things common, or else the plague of God will rot and consume all you have” and declared “howl, howl, ye nobles… howl ye rich men for the miseries that are coming upon you. For our parts, we that hear the Apostle preach will also have all things in common; neither will we call anything that we have our own.” Many believed that all social inequality was about to end, as can be seen from the title-page of Laurence Clarkson’s A Single Eye, which declared that it was printed “in the year that the powers of heaven and earth… shall be shaken, yea damned, till they be no more.” These ideas seriously scared the ruling class: the clergyman Nathaniel Homes worried that the common people “much incline” to “a popular parity, a levelling anarchy”. (Homes was not the only writer of the period to describe radicals as demanding anarchy, as the Quaker Robert Barclay also published an attack on The Anarchy of the Ranters and other Libertines.)

​

 

[Sand Dancer]

Probably Wicca.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi, Windwalker
Why rearrange your understanding of non-exclusivity in order to conform (or confine) your learning to a basket of labeled understandings? If God is now and you keep God as your center of gravity, you're ahead of the Game by recognizing that He's not exclusive to one tradition. Drink, drink deep of all of them. The Truth is there and supremely tasty at their core, just different spices is all.

This is excellent. Yes, I know I was thinking that myself, of being "ahead of the game" and choosing a specific lineage to follow exclusively seems a bit unnecessary for me. But for the fun of the thread and I had to a chose a particular religion I think Hinduism would work best as it is universal and reflects a lot of what I already see. I already draw quite a lot from its various insights, but it's challenging because every single thing has some specific new name to learn. I already have too much stuffed in my head. A progressive form of Christianity is the easiest as I already know that language quite well, and am able to use it in ways that actually reflect my perspectives as they are now, reclaiming it from those who use it to say things that don't.