• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

H
Reaction score
9

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • There are temples and shrines. The main one in the US can be found here:

    Tawy House - Kemetic Orthodox Retreat and Conference Center
    Other religions may be legitimate paths to god for other people. To quote Kemetic Orthodoxy's website: This is not one of those religions that claims to have the 'only true way'.
    The ancients believed in an afterlife in which one either went to the realm of the gods or simply ceased to exist. However, even by their standards this was too simplistic a view because they believed in more then just one soul. There was a non-personal soul, and certain souls connected to a more spiritual self. We tend to reject the myth as not literal, but some in the religion still do believe it. I for my part do not, and am not sure what to believe about any afterlife, except that I do believe one exists. I think likely reincarnation.

    In Kemetic view, yes animals do have souls. However, just like in Buddhism, their personal souls aren't the same as a human's personal soul, and hence no idea of humans or animals reincarnating into one another.

    I will try to address your other questions in my next post since this one is getting long ok?
    Yes it is similar to the Hindu view of Brahman. The Egyptians called it "the Atum", which roughly translates "the complete one".
    It is Monoaltrous, meaning Kemetics believe in one God, who is also many gods as facets of the one. Not all Kemetics take this view, but it is the most recognized one.
    I don't think it's quite like that. There was no "conversion" and my philosophical perspective is not a "faith". So there's no specific amount of time you could say I was "a Taoist". Taoism accurately reflects the philosophical perspective I've had since I can remember. The perspective came first, then I read the Tao Te Ching, recognized how similar it is to my perspective and realized I was not the only person who ever saw the world that way.
    I'm an apophatic mystic. I try to avoid having beliefs. That said, Taoism as described in the Tao Te Ching pretty accurately describes my world view.
    Oh, the obvious stuff, mainly. For example, we can't easily chase after beauty without running from ugliness, and that contentment is only to be found by not grasping in either direction. That the source is timeless, indescribable and infinitely creative. Also, I had some experience of the stuff taoists call Qi (Chi).
    I like it because it seems to be an accurate metaphysical interpretation of the reality I observe.
    No, I don't think you would say I "converted" to Taoism. I would say the philosophy of taoism best suits my natural inclinations, philosophy and insight.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top