Omnitheism

Rather than "reconcile," maybe we should talk about "distilling"...? It is the details which cause the conflict. As you/Ramakrishna say, all religions are ultimately about "God-realisation"... This is ultimately the only thing that matters. Everything else should be down to personal choice. In order for something like Omnitheism to work, it needs to dispense with doctrine. There should be this goal of "God-realisation," but no "rules" regarding how to get there... ...? pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

"All people with an IQ above three know that all religion is nonsense. Do we really think we are the only life in the universe that isn't part of a food chain?" How are religion and being part of a food chain incompatible? * * * "Yes and they will never dispense with doctrine and therefore it will never work!" Hmm, well, I shall have to read a little more on the topic in order to tell you whether or not I agree with this statement... pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

For a non-religious-type personage, Yan, you make a most pertinent point! :) The whole dying/afterlife part is not, by any means, what religion (generally) is all about. It's about how to live one's life. The sort of comments made by TheShyAssassin display less than the kind of level of intelligence that is being alluded to. pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

First of all, let me clarify a definition! According to Dictionary.com, “doctrine” = ... 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. ... Therefore, by this reckoning, what I said isn’t really what I meant! When I said about Omnitheism dispensing with doctrine, I really should’ve been speaking about rules - a subtle but important distinction. It would seem that it is literally impossible for a religion to dispense with doctrine - you’ve got to believe in something! While it is also probably a logical impossibility for a religion to dispense entirely with rules, I would say that there is no reason why a religion cannot have one central tenet, but otherwise be rule-free... or at least virtually so. This, I would say, is what advocates of Omnitheism should aim for; and having delved a little deeper into the aforementioned website since my last post, it would appear that I am not alone in thinking this. Omnitheism (it seems) is about the reconciliation of religions, so in that sense, perhaps it could not be said to be a religion in itself; and, more specifically, it is about finding that which unites (or ideally would unite) all religions - that which all (or most) religions have in common... this thing which Jude/Ramakrishna called “God-realisation” - the recognition and seeking of the Divine. Re this... “I don't share your assumption that just because someone hasn't rejected the belief system they were brought up in, they necessarily haven't questioned it...” ... Fair point! I would, however, say that the rejection of a belief system, of which you speak, bukh, is not necessarily an active or even an entirely conscious thing. I suspect (although I may be wrong) that much of this “rejection” of religion is down to apathy or indifference, rather than an active questioning of such... pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

Paul… founding a religion isn’t about setting up a business! Or at least, it shouldn’t be. In terms of its veracity or indeed validity, whether or not Omnitheism proves popular or “gets of the ground” is irrelevant. If it is only ever a religion (or, if you like, “belief system”) of three members, then it is useful and valid. The “truth” (as it is perceived by those who perceive it) should not, in any way, depend upon the “overtness” or “off-the-ground”-ness or similar-to-other-religions-ness of its source. From what I have seen so far, those who advocate Omnitheism also advocate, by definition, freedom of choice – freedom of each individual to choose how they seek/find the Divine, while accepting (also by definition) that there is “the Divine” to seek. This may seem like a supremely vague central tenet for a religion, but perhaps it is that vagueness, that flexibility, which will engender its longevity/popularity? Only time will tell… Either way, what I would say should be accepted by advocates of Omnitheism, on account of its vagueness/flexibility, is the distinct likelihood that Omnitheism itself, as movement, will not exist for all time. This should be accepted and indeed welcomed as a concept, for within a movement that advocates freedom of choice, change, flexibility, would be the unspoken acceptance that “all things will pass”… including the movement itself! * * * "What would be the difference between lots of individuals who didn't share any rules or cultural practices 'seeking the Divine' on an individual basis and a religious non-movement of people 'seeking the Divine' on a individual basis while not observing any shared rules or cultural practices?" ... Another fair point! I would, however, say that it comes down to what I would say is a perfectly reasonable, valid and human desire to belong and to be able to apply some sort of label to what they believe in. pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

But how are they, Assassin? pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

Finally! My job here is done... pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"