Destroying your myth; Finding your path?

[lovemuffin]

This isn't going to be a really coherent OP, so lets just get that out of the way. In RF chat the other day, there was a short conversation, out of which came a couple questions (which I'm rephrasing, apologies to their originator) which might be interesting to talk about, or might require a lot more elaboration.

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

 

[Iti oj]

My stance against Christianity has.nothing to do with being an exchristian. Its about politics and social stuff.

 

[lovemuffin]

That's fair enough, as far I'm concerned, but probably not quite what I was trying to get at. I'm not presuming that even someone who moved off in a new direction wouldn't retain negative attitudes about at least certain aspects of a previously held belief system. It's more about the process people go through. I dunno, ask @Windwalker

 

[`mud]

I agree with the ancients as to avoiding evil and composing ones thoughts,
but few of us can be buddhas can we.
The constraint is only in the eyes of the observer,
when one tries to walk those tracks, on Earth, or in the sky.
~
'mud

 

[Iti oj]

That's fair enough, as far I'm concerned, but probably not quite what I was trying to get at. I'm not presuming that even someone who moved off in a new direction wouldn't retain negative attitudes about at least certain aspects of a previously held belief system. It's more about the process people go through. I dunno, ask @Windwalker

No I also have major philosophical issues with Christianity. I find the idea of sin and salvation offensive. Again has nothing to do with being an exchristian, but new beliefs that arose.

But I never went through an angry ex Christian phase.


Edit and living in a Christian majority nation its impossible to avoid it.

 

[Iti oj]

Perhaps I never went through an "angry ex Christian phase" because my experiences as a Christian were all positive and good.

 

[`mud]

Being an ex-Catholic, I wasn't ever angry, just awfully confused.
I couldn't get answers that ever made any sense,
and I spent years in search for better answers.
Life kept happening and the real truth in 'being' arose.
Now I just enjoy the Stuff that's presented to me.
I've never seen angels on a needle point,
I don't think there's enough room for the wings anyway.
Life is Stuff, get all you can, while it lasts !
~
'mud

 

[lovemuffin]

No I also have major philosophical issues with Christianity. I find the idea of sin and salvation offensive.

One thing that interests me, and this is just a personal observation, and not one that has anything to do with you, is that often-times people find certain ideas of "sin and salvation" (for example) offensive, but don't realize, or are uninterested, in the fact that there is more than one view about what those terms mean in Christianity. It is likely that I share with you similar philosophical objections to some of those conceptions. I've had a fair number of conversations with anti-Christian atheists whose response to my bringing this up, however, is to claim that the version they are opposed to is the "real" version of Christianity and the others don't count, which has always seemed to me to be an opinion that would be hard to justify from the point-of-view they claim to espouse, and seems to reflect something more like a psychological disposition.

Which, again, I don't actually want this thread to be only a criticism of that disposition, or an apology for a particular doctrine. I fully grasp why you might find sin and salvation offensive, especially as it is often presented. I think the intent of the question as I first heard it is more about the psychological process that people go through, how "myth" and worldview function, and what happens when we lose our myth. The part I'm trying to get at with the example of sin and salvation is that it's still some lingering bit of "myth" that seems to explain why an atheist would argue that a particular fundamentalist view is the "true" Christianity.

 

[Dionysus]

For some it's like losing your closest life-long companion. One might go through all of the same stages of grief as with losing a human companion. I was angry and full of regrets for basing my life on what I now see as false paradigm. I considered other spiritual paths on my way, but I don't know that my exit has prepared me for new ones. My experience has lead me to think less of the "spirit" concept.

 

[Iti oj]

One thing that interests me, and this is just a personal observation, and not one that has anything to do with you, is that often-times people find certain ideas of "sin and salvation" (for example) offensive, but don't realize, or are uninterested, in the fact that there is more than one view about what those terms mean in Christianity. .

I've been seeking and studying for 10 years and here I am still learning.... I am really tried of hearing claims like that. Yet here I am still open to learning something new.

I've heard dozens of various beliefs ranging from vile, to meaningless to pointless.

Maybe you should ask me specific questions about my deconversion. (ex Christian radio rf episode in the works for the future)

For me deconversion was like just taking off a jacket.

 

[Quintessence]

... it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

This is a good observation, and I wish I could remember the specific terms used to describe this in the field of psychology - this sort of behavior is something that is basic to our nature as humans and extends to many avenues of life.

Basically, when we humans make decisions, we tell ourselves all sorts of stories to validate our decision to ourselves and to other people. We have a desire to affirm that we made the correct or good choice. One of the ways we do this is by defaming that which we did not choose: we worsen our opinion of it and become more harshly critical of it to convince ourselves that the other choice would have been the wrong one or a bad one. It is definitely not necessary to malign the unchosen option in order to pursue another one, but it is not common for us to do so. One can observe this quite frequently within Neopaganism, because, as a new religious movement, most people are coming to it after leaving some flavor of Christianity. There are a lot of difficulties associated with that, and maligning Christianity a strategy some Neopagans will use to help them walk the new path with greater confidence and surety.

That aside, there's also something to the idea that we often begin to learn who we are by understanding what we are not. Early in a transition process, we may tend to define ourselves in the negative, or based on what we do not do or what we do not believe. In my opinion, a more matured practice will not do this - it defines itself in the positive - but when you are still finding yourself it can be difficult to see what you actually are.

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice.

Yes. It's definitely possible to be a mystic and work within a particular set of symbolism. This is pretty much par for the course with Paganisms, contemporary or otherwise. To me, asking this is like asking "is it possible to tell a romance story within the science fiction aesthetic?" Of course it is!

 

[viole]

This isn't going to be a really coherent OP, so lets just get that out of the way. In RF chat the other day, there was a short conversation, out of which came a couple questions (which I'm rephrasing, apologies to their originator) which might be interesting to talk about, or might require a lot more elaboration.

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

My path followed several steps:

1) born again Christian. Young earth creationism and all that
2) old earth creationism. Still anti evolutionist
3) evolutionary theist. Stll, God drives the process
4) unitarian christian. Trinity is self contradictory and the result of a meeting
5) universalist. How could God exclude anyone from Heaven?
6) spiritual atheist. There is still a force out there
7) naturalist. And strong atheist. I realized I was complicating something inherently simple

No politics involved, because of coming from a very secular society anyway.

Ciao

- viole

 

[lovemuffin]

what about that spiritual experience you had a week ago?

 

[JoStories]

This isn't going to be a really coherent OP, so lets just get that out of the way. In RF chat the other day, there was a short conversation, out of which came a couple questions (which I'm rephrasing, apologies to their originator) which might be interesting to talk about, or might require a lot more elaboration.

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

In responding to #2, I have to say that I couldn't 'fit' my views of God into any of the constructs of organized religion. First of all, God has never lived in a church and I don't need to go there to find God. Second,I don't need an intermediary to speak to God. Nor a priest, pastor, etc, for the same reasons. I don't believe in heaven, he'll or any devil, so that knocks out most christianities, Judaism, and Islam. So I walk a path that is mostly eastern in nature, more specifically, buddhist, but even that is not quite correct.

 

[Mindmaster]

This isn't going to be a really coherent OP, so lets just get that out of the way. In RF chat the other day, there was a short conversation, out of which came a couple questions (which I'm rephrasing, apologies to their originator) which might be interesting to talk about, or might require a lot more elaboration.

1) It's interesting to see how often the people who are the most vocally opposed to a particular religious point of view (especially: Christianity, especially seen in a fundamentalist way) are those who have rejected that view. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that, and the question doesn't mean to cast aspersions at it, as if those reasons were invalid. But it's also true that some eventually move beyond a stance that is mostly oriented around a negative attitude towards the previous belief system, adopting some new philosophy/spirituality/worldview. Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

I'd say that has more to do with age than anything. You're far more vehement in rejection in earlier age brackets. But, to be honest I considered myself a LaVey Satanist at age 16 and I was perfectly fine with whatever path my family members had, but I had to learn to be tolerant to cope. If I were older it really wouldn't be a concern for me at all. I feel I have mostly moved passed any standard definition of Satanism and no longer self-identify that way mostly since if you mention that term it is a loaded word and what people think you are ISN'T what you are.

2) Somewhat relatedly, For those who are drawn towards more "mystical" understandings of religion and spirituality, is it possible to do so while remaining within the "mythic" bounds of a traditional religion. By "mythic" I don't mean "false" necessarily, rather something like the entire construct of symbols that make up a particular religious point of view. They are "myth" in the sense of being the assumed background of a particular religious practice. Or is this too constraining? Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

On the path that I follow there isn't really any requirement to subscribe to a particular religious worldview, aka western hermetic magician. Satan, Jesus, Hecate, and anything else that floats your boat does nothing to harm your ability to progress in that direction. Most hermetics will be associated with another religion whether it be paganism or something more conventional -- at least in a form that fits their current understanding of the operating universe. That being said, as the magician I am focused on actively engaging divine processes rather than sitting around in a passive way... But, there are more values to traditional religious outlets than fundamental truths -- there are social elements, ceremony, and a host of other things that one may find enjoyable and they are all able to co-exist within my frame of reference. Here is a quote by Franz Bardon that basically sums up my point:

The aspiring magician will profess to a universal religion. He will find that every religion has its good aspects, but also a dark side. Therefore he will keep the best for himself and pay no attention to the weaknesses. This does not mean that he has to acknowledge each and every religion, but he should show the proper respect towards all of them. Every religion has its own God principle, regardless of whether one is dealing with Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or whatever. Basically, the magician can remain faithful to his own religion. However, he will not be satisfied with the official dogma of his church, but will strive to penetrate deeper into God’s workshop. And that is the purpose of our initiation. The magician will form his own universal ideology in accordance with the universal laws, which will be his true religion. He will see that every defender of religion will make the effort to represent his religion as the best, disregarding its weaknesses. All religious truth is relative and its comprehension depends upon the maturity of the individual. That is why, in this respect, the initiate does not interfere with another’s right to his religious beliefs and does not attempt to dissuade him from his truth or condemn or even criticize him. In the innermost of his soul, the initiate will find only compassion for a fanatic or an atheist, without expressing it outwardly in any way. Therefore, allow everyone to hold firmly to that which he believes and that which makes him happy and content. If everyone would adhere to this principle and make it his own, there would be neither hatred nor religious discord. There would be no reason for differences of opinion and all philosophies or all religions could co-exist happily. It is of course quite a different matter when a seeker, no longer satisfied with materialism or dogma and yearning for spiritual nourishment, asks an initiate for advice and enlightenment. In such an instance the initiate is duty bound to enlighten the seeker in accordance with his perceptive faculties. The magician should spare neither time nor effort to communicate his spiritual treasures to the seeker and lead him towards the light.

 

[viole]

what about that spiritual experience you had a week ago?

The exception that confirms the rule, so to speak

Ciao

- viole

 

[Orbit]

I think that we need to recognize that there are different kinds of Christian experiences. For people like iti, the transition away from Christianity is easy. For me, it was difficult. Both of us were liberal Christians, which I think explains why we didn't have an anger phase. There are different kinds of belief.

For a year now, I have been on an ex-Christian website and have seen hundreds of stories and testimonials from different kinds of Christians/Catholics about their journeys away from the faith. Those who were fundamentalist tend to have the most anger to process. The more liberal Christians seem to skip the anger phase.

But one thing that I have also seen, is that while many ex-Christians on the site do transition to atheism, a sizable number of them feel that something spiritual is missing. What came up in chat, is that there really isn't any information out there to help people who have that experience make sense of it.

Judging by my experience on the ex-Christian site, a good many become anti-theist and then feel conflicted when they have spiritual feelings. They have gotten rid of mythic-level belief, attack mythic-level belief, but still have spiritual feelings. How does one navigate this? That has been the question for me, and it definitely has been a process with stages.

In the first stage, deconversion and atheism, I tended to be virulently anti-Christian. Then as I processed leaving Christianity, my attitude changed. I no longer felt the need to justify my lack of belief by attacking the beliefs of others. There was no real path for me to follow, so on the advice of a good friend I turned to meditation. I think what the chat conversation was about was this process. It's a very difficult thing to do to carve out a post-Christian spirituality. To do so, one has to reject mythic belief, yet rescue spirituality.

 

[Sunstone]

Sam Harris, Waking Up. In my opinion, an outstanding little book on spirituality for the non-theist and non-religious. All but a must read.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is it necessary to go through a phase of hostility and rejection, to tear down old systems of thinking and belief, myth and habit, in order to clear the ground to pursue a new path?

Necessary, no. Natural, I think so especially if you feel betrayed by the religion.

Are there no tracks in the sky, as the Dhammapada says? Do you have to make your own path?

Some religions are more open to UPG than others. Unverified personal gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Within certain accepted historical parameters, many Heathens blaze their own trails.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you have to make your own path?

Yes, always. Anything less is a sign of weakness.