I have recently completed creating my religion. Please ask me questions about it.

[Milton Platt]

Upon asking me a question, please vote for the poll.

Tell me exactly what you believe and why you believe it. Support you beliefs with verifiable, falsifiable evidence.

 

[Eorlhu]

Tell me exactly what you believe and why you believe it. Support you beliefs with verifiable, falsifiable evidence.

Walngarpiril is a pantheistic religion, meaning that its deities are equated to their manifestations. They thus don't have any additional properties other than that my relation to them is changed from I-it to I-you. (This change is explained well in Ich und Du by Martin Buber, which I recommend). The deities are impersonal objects of pure deification. I do not ascribe omniscience or subjectivity to them. Their actions in Walngarpiril mythology correspond to observable phenomena (I accept all scientific consensus) and what parts of the mythology warp understanding of modern knowledge I either interpret figuratively or ignore. As I said, my practice of Walngarpiril is different from its orthodox form, which incorporates more superstitious aspects.

Thus my beliefs are unchanged by Walngarpiril and only the way I relate to existence is effected by my religiosity. I choose religiosity because I enjoy it and for no other reason.

 

[Kapalika]

Why should I care for yours over the countless of self appointed religion creators?

That's the real question. What do you bring to the table that nothing else does?

 

[Eorlhu]

Why should I care for yours over the countless of self appointed religion creators?
That's the real question. What do you bring to the table that nothing else does?

I'm doing exactly the same thing that everybody else is doing: putting forth my worldview. Of course everyone thinks that their worldview is the best due to perspective bias so of course I think that my worldview is the best. I wouldn't see the world in the way that I did if I didn't think it were the best. The main aspect of Walngarpiril that I prefer over other religions is it's pantheon. The six deities and their relationships provide a coherent conceptual framework that organizes one's worldview without oversimplifying it to the point at which divinity becomes irrelevant to the human condition, as is most often the case with monotheistic pantheism (not including Hindu 'plural monotheism'). The more primal parts of the mythology also have a strong basis in philosophy and science, though figurative interpretation is often necessary for Walngarpiril mysticism as the religion's historical context is prescientific.

 

[Kapalika]

I'm doing exactly the same thing that everybody else is doing: putting forth my worldview. Of course everyone thinks that their worldview is the best due to perspective bias so of course I think that my worldview is the best. I wouldn't see the world in the way that I did if I didn't think it were the best. The main aspect of Walngarpiril that I prefer over other religions is it's pantheon. The six deities and their relationships provide a coherent conceptual framework that organizes one's worldview without oversimplifying it to the point at which divinity becomes irrelevant to the human condition, as is most often the case with monotheistic pantheism (not including Hindu 'plural monotheism'). The more primal parts of the mythology also have a strong basis in philosophy and science, though figurative interpretation is often necessary for Walngarpiril mysticism as the religion's historical context is prescientific.

The problem with this answer is it doesn't actually tell me anything about the religion and what it has to offer, other than telling me it has six deities and that it attempts to appeal to science and philosophy.

I honestly didn't read any of the replies, because I wanted it to be like you were telling me in person with no other context.

I for example would say my religion offers a reconciliation of duality and monism in a framework that allows for being part of something universal while also being individuated, as one example. Another is it's also modular with it's tattva/aspect system as one can increase or decrease the aspects or tattvas as needed for meditative reflection (this is historically true of tattvas). So the system can adapt to the needs of the practitioner and it's not rigid like many religions, as far as the first it offers an explanation for those radically different observations/perceptions as being a part of the same puzzle.

That's the kind of examples I'm looking for, can you offer me any?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What about the the tennis of your religion? I have yet to encounter a religion with tennis in it.

Tennis is it's own religion, we have our own God and everything

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm doing exactly the same thing that everybody else is doing: putting forth my worldview. Of course everyone thinks that their worldview is the best due to perspective bias so of course I think that my worldview is the best.

...switching to a serious mode, because I think you are making a serious point here. Yes, every individual tends to think their perspective is best, however that is preferable to the historical situation in which everyone thinks that he or she has zero opinion and must be guided by another. I think we are talking about a world of freedom that is preferable to slavery. It is an improvement over previous and less desirable circumstances. We should build on it but not reverse it. I think.

I wouldn't see the world in the way that I did if I didn't think it were the best. The main aspect of Walngarpiril that I prefer over other religions is it's pantheon. The six deities and their relationships provide a coherent conceptual framework that organizes one's worldview without oversimplifying it to the point at which divinity becomes irrelevant to the human condition, as is most often the case with monotheistic pantheism (not including Hindu 'plural monotheism'). The more primal parts of the mythology also have a strong basis in philosophy and science, though figurative interpretation is often necessary for Walngarpiril mysticism as the religion's historical context is prescientific.

Here is where you lose me, but I note that you rely upon intermediate worldviews, the discoveries and experience of hundred of millions before you. You could never have gotten to this from the Egyptian model.

 

[Eorlhu]

The problem with this answer is it doesn't actually tell me anything about the religion and what it has to offer, other than telling me it has six deities and that it attempts to appeal to science and philosophy.
I honestly didn't read any of the replies, because I wanted it to be like you were telling me in person with no other context.
I for example would say my religion offers a reconciliation of duality and monism in a framework that allows for being part of something universal while also being individuated, as one example. Another is it's also modular with it's tattva/aspect system as one can increase or decrease the aspects or tattvas as needed for meditative reflection (this is historically true of tattvas). So the system can adapt to the needs of the practitioner and it's not rigid like many religions, as far as the first it offers an explanation for those radically different observations/perceptions as being a part of the same puzzle.
That's the kind of examples I'm looking for, can you offer me any?

The purpose of an "ask me questions" thread is for people to ask questions building off my previous answers to previous questions. I did not want to have to explain the religion all at once because I am lazy.
What you said in your first sentence is correct. Those are the aspects of my religion that I prefer over other religions. In other aspects, the religion is quite normal.
You say that your religion reconciles monism with dualism and universality with individuality and allows adherents to choose their own form of practice while still included in a larger ideological framework.
I say that my religion's pantheistic pantheon and mythology illustrate ontic relationalism, acosmism, determinism, emergentism, and sociobiology so that religious sentiment can be applied to such concepts.

Tennis is it's own religion, we have our own God and everything

U tennis guys do wut u do buddy

...switching to a serious mode, because I think you are making a serious point here. Yes, every individual tends to think their perspective is best, however that is preferable to the historical situation in which everyone thinks that he or she has zero opinion and must be guided by another. I think we are talking about a world of freedom that is preferable to slavery. It is an improvement over previous and less desirable circumstances. We should build on it but not reverse it. I think.

Amen!

Here is where you lose me, but I note that you rely upon intermediate worldviews, the discoveries and experience of hundred of millions before you. You could never have gotten to this from the Egyptian model.

Just that I have a unique worldview doesn't mean it isn't influenced by humanity's ideological heritage. I just think its better.

 

[Kapalika]

I did not want to have to explain the religion all at once because I am lazy.

I think it's a little difficult to explain everything at once, but without so much as an overview I just won't bother trying to decipher it through many posts that may have nothing of value to me. The fact is, if you are too lazy to write an overview you are probably too lazy to develop a system advanced enough that I'd consider it worth learning about.

The truth is, you are one person starting from scratch as far as I can tell. There's a reason I follow something that's had centuries to mature and countless people to contribute to it's refinement. I'd rather add to that process than start my own.

I say that my religion's pantheistic pantheon and mythology illustrate ontic relationalism, acosmism, determinism, emergentism, and sociobiology so that religious sentiment can be applied to such concepts.

I had to look up about half of those, and I must say emergentism is very interesting and very similar to an understanding I've developed in my own path. I don't care much for acosmism and in what context is relationalism relevant? I see that relations are important in emergentism so is it a facet of that or something else?

 

[Eorlhu]

I think it's a little difficult to explain everything at once, but without so much as an overview I just won't bother trying to decipher it through many posts that may have nothing of value to me. The fact is, if you are too lazy to write an overview you are probably too lazy to develop a system advanced enough that I'd consider it worth learning about.

The truth is, you are one person starting from scratch as far as I can tell. There's a reason I follow something that's had centuries to mature and countless people to contribute to it's refinement. I'd rather add to that process than start my own.

I had to look up about half of those, and I must say emergentism is very interesting and very similar to an understanding I've developed in my own path. I don't care much for acosmism and in what context is relationalism relevant? I see that relations are important in emergentism so is it a facet of that or something else?

Ontic relationism is part of Walngarpiril's explanation for the temporal topology and its superimposition on the unmanifest void. This is the secular philosophy:

Ontic relationalism indicates that identity is qualified relatively. Thereby, the qualification of reality indicates the virtual presense of all other realities as possibility. They constitute a temporal vector space and the disparity among them is a void that constitutes the unmanifest absolute. The vector function of the topology is causality. Reality moves along a path in the topology determined by causality as time progresses. Each possibility in the topology is qualified in relation to all others, which are temporally separated therefrom. Qualification occurs in multiple consecutively supervenient fields.

In Walngarpiril mythology, Wirlu represents the unmanifest void. Yaril represents this ontic relationalism / reality from unmanifest potential. Yaril impregnates Wirlu and she begets Wangkurlung (our reality) and Yarungkan (causality).

In orthodox Walngarpiril mysticism (not part of my practice), Wirlu is the firmament, the stars are all realities other than ours, the Milky Way is Wirlu's vulva, Yaril is the sun, Wangkurlung is the Earth, Yarungkan is the weather, and the daily cycle is the sexual rhythm of Wirlu and Yaril.

 

[Eorlhu]

Ontic relationism is part of Walngarpiril's explanation for the temporal topology and its superimposition on the unmanifest void. This is the secular philosophy:

Ontic relationalism indicates that identity is qualified relatively. Thereby, the qualification of reality indicates the virtual presense of all other realities as possibility. They constitute a temporal vector space and the disparity among them is a void that constitutes the unmanifest absolute. The vector function of the topology is causality. Reality moves along a path in the topology determined by causality as time progresses. Each possibility in the topology is qualified in relation to all others, which are temporally separated therefrom. Qualification occurs in multiple consecutively supervenient fields.

In Walngarpiril mythology, Wirlu represents the unmanifest void. Yaril represents this ontic relationalism / reality from unmanifest potential. Yaril impregnates Wirlu and she begets Wangkurlung (our reality) and Yarungkan (causality).

From Pilang No yu Ngirlam ngawa wa:

Wirlu is hidden in silence and darkness as no perspective is beyond her and none therein realize the absolute singularity of her dimensionless vacuity.

Yaril crosses the celestial womb of Wirlu and impregnates her by the rhythm of daylight, the glare of which hides all other worlds, which appear in his absence as they spill from her vulva.

From Wirlu, emerges Wangkurlung, who sits throughout time as the ground of the world, and Yarungkan, who comes thereto that he make change there as the object of volition.

 

[Eorlhu]

In orthodox Walngarpiril mysticism (not part of my practice), Wirlu is the firmament, the stars are all realities other than ours, the Milky Way is Wirlu's vulva, Yaril is the sun, Wangkurlung is the Earth, Yarungkan is the weather, and the daily cycle is the sexual rhythm of Wirlu and Yaril.

I use the embodiments described in the mysticism as idols representing the deities rather than as the actual deities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I got a Facebook article on the Myarlngalang language, a reddit thread on the Myarlngalang language, and this thread.

I suppose you got to start somewhere if you just made a religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

Walngarpiril is a pantheistic religion, meaning that its deities are equated to their manifestations. They thus don't have any additional properties other than that my relation to them is changed from I-it to I-you. (This change is explained well in Ich und Du by Martin Buber, which I recommend). The deities are impersonal objects of pure deification. I do not ascribe omniscience or subjectivity to them. Their actions in Walngarpiril mythology correspond to observable phenomena (I accept all scientific consensus) and what parts of the mythology warp understanding of modern knowledge I either interpret figuratively or ignore. As I said, my practice of Walngarpiril is different from its orthodox form, which incorporates more superstitious aspects.

Thus my beliefs are unchanged by Walngarpiril and only the way I relate to existence is effected by my religiosity. I choose religiosity because I enjoy it and for no other reason.

Okay, thanks for stepping up to the plate. So many do not.

So you are a theist or a deist? Hard to know from what you said. Does your deity interfere at all with the natural order of things? How can we test for it's existence?

 

[Eorlhu]

Okay, thanks for stepping up to the plate. So many do not.

So you are a theist or a deist? Hard to know from what you said. Does your deity interfere at all with the natural order of things? How can we test for it's existence?

I said that I am pantheist. My deities do not interact with nature. They are nature.
I also said that the deities only exist in my experience and that they are not objective truths. I cannot prove their existence in any other way than to identify the aspects of existence that I deify. The secular embodiments of the Walngarpiril deities are the unmanifest, time, reality, causality, vitality, and the ego.

 

[Milton Platt]

I said that I am pantheist. My deities do not interact with nature. They are nature.
I also said that the deities only exist in my experience and that they are not objective truths. I cannot prove their existence in any other way than to identify the aspects of existence that I deify. The secular embodiments of the Walngarpiril deities are the unmanifest, time, reality, causality, vitality, and the ego.

Okay, that clarifies. thanks

 

[Milton Platt]

Tell me exactly what you believe and why you believe it. Support you beliefs with verifiable, falsifiable evidence.

1. Someone shouldn't follow a religion that wasn't revealed to them or someone else.
   I don't feel anyone should follow a religion, especially if it is based upon unsubstantiated supernatural claims.
2. Following a religion from a fictional context is too weird.
   yes. And I know of no religions that aren't based on fictional context (save perhaps a couple of non-theist versions.
3. Everyone should make up their own religion.
   Everyone already does.
4. Believing in your own religion is legitimate.
   It is no more legitimate than believing in any other religion.
5. Oh my god your religion is so true. I want to follow it. :3
   Hardly
6. Religion is a waste of time.
   Not entirely. Some people seem to need the socialization and need others to tell them what to do.
7. Inventing a religion is a waste of time.
   Pretty much
8. Everyone already practices their own religion.
9. To varying degrees, yes.

 

[Eorlhu]

I know of no religions that aren't based on fictional context (save perhaps a couple of non-theist versions.

By fictional context, I meant a context that is known to be fictional by the adherent.

Not entirely. Some people seem to need the socialization and need others to tell them what to do

As Walngarpiril has no community (other than Myarlngalang, which is fictional), I have no reason to adhere to it for want of community.
As Walngarpiril's concept of society doesn't include prescriptive ethics, I have no reason to adhere to it for want of authority.
I practice Walngarpiril as deifying existence (the change in attitude towards the deified from I-it to I-you as described in Ich und Du by Martin Byber) is an enjoyable experience, regardless of its lack of pragmatic value. If I don't see anything harmful about an enjoyable practice, I practice it.

 

[Milton Platt]

By fictional context, I meant a context that is known to be fictional by the adherent.

As Walngarpiril has no community (other than Myarlngalang, which is fictional), I have no reason to adhere to it for want of community.
As Walngarpiril's concept of society doesn't include prescriptive ethics, I have no reason to adhere to it for want of authority.
I practice Walngarpiril as deifying existence (the change in attitude towards the deified from I-it to I-you as described in Ich und Du by Martin Byber) is an enjoyable experience, regardless of its lack of pragmatic value. If I don't see anything harmful about an enjoyable practice, I practice it.

Okay. Your unusual approach to the concept of religion was confusing a bit. Carry on......

 

[Eorlhu]

Carry on......

What do you want to know?