NeoTheism?

[mystic64]

Quintessence (Staff), can I post this topic in the Theism forum?:

Guys there does not seem to be anything called "Neo(new)Theism. How can this be ? There is a "neo" everything else, but not Theism. Why? What would a person have to come up with to be considered a Neotheist? There is something called Philosophical Theism where one believes that there is a god, but that god can not be interacted with and that god absolutely does not/never manifests miracles or visits with anyone. I guess you would call that no frills Theism . And apparently it goes back some how to Socrates, so I guess one would not call it new. From there things just go to new religions. Mystic64 neotheist ! It has a creative ring to it if one were to consider themselves rogue, but at this point in time there is no based in reality a definition of it, and no I have not been drinking and I am not on any drug or drugs . I am honestly curious about why Neotheism has never been done? Any suggestions?

 

[xkatz]

B/c theism is the very simple idea that "there is G-d". I does not really need anything more to be an idea. Just like there is no "neo-atheism", b/c atheism is merely the rejection of a notion of G-d.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I'd classify the contemporary practice of pick-and-choose, syncretic, constantly changing religiosity as "neo-theism," as it seems to be a substantial shift in people's relationship with religion that is continuing to grow in popularity. This type of highly personalized, "me" centered view of religion and god is supplanting more traditional views of religion which are based upon outside authority and fixed structures regarding scriptures, teachings, rituals, and behaviors.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ummm..there are New Theist.

Rev. Michael Dowd: New Theists: Knowers, Not Believers

 

[mystic64]

B/c theism is the very simple idea that "there is G-d". I does not really need anything more to be an idea. Just like there is no "neo-atheism", b/c atheism is merely the rejection of a notion of G-d.

Yes .

 

[Sha'irullah]

When you apply the word Neo/New you just mean a new shift in a movement. There will always be a Neo Theism and Neo Atheism. Neo Theism would include New Age(there is that word again), Spirituality, New Thought(AGAIN with the New!), and Eclecticism.
Neo Paganism can also be shoved into the bunch.

New Atheism for examples is just Atheism founded upon modern philosophical concepts such as a heavy reliance upon science and logic. Atheism did not have science 100% on their side but now they do and is a result of unwilling human effort and the age we live in.

Keep in mind though that in a couple decades Neo Theism will be Paleo-Theism

 

[mystic64]

Personally, I'd classify the contemporary practice of pick-and-choose, syncretic, constantly changing religiosity as "neo-theism," as it seems to be a substantial shift in people's relationship with religion that is continuing to grow in popularity. This type of highly personalized, "me" centered view of religion and god is supplanting more traditional views of religion which are based upon outside authority and fixed structures regarding scriptures, teachings, rituals, and behaviors.

What you are presenting would definitly be a new non traditional approach to religion and theism in general. And because of the grip of traditon on the minds of those in the past that were inclined to be religious, the lack of this grip would have to be considered "new". So I guess what you are presenting could be considered a version of neotheism. What you are presenting does give me the cold shivers for some reason , but one can't argue with the possibility that it would be "neothesim". A new approach to "theism" .

 

[Brinne]

Personally, I'd classify the contemporary practice of pick-and-choose, syncretic, constantly changing religiosity as "neo-theism," as it seems to be a substantial shift in people's relationship with religion that is continuing to grow in popularity. This type of highly personalized, "me" centered view of religion and god is supplanting more traditional views of religion which are based upon outside authority and fixed structures regarding scriptures, teachings, rituals, and behaviors.

I'm not so sure I'd label this as anything new. People in East Asia have been mixing and matching religions for ages. Major example being the syncretic practice of Shinto-Buddhism in Japan. People decided they didn't really like the Shinto view of the afterlife (which I'll admit is pretty gloomy, you sit around in the World of Yomi which is described as 'gloomy, dark, and boring' ) so they took up Buddhism for the reincarnation and Nirvana aspect (among other things).

People in China also practiced shamanic native religions alongside 'modern' beliefs like Taoism and Buddhism. Infact, the syncretic mixture of traditional shamanism and Taosim in China is what gives us the modern day religious/magical Taoism we know now.

The 'me' centered religion has been something that has existed in Asia for ages. Many religions in that region are OK with people practicing more than one religion. You could be a Shinto-Buddhist-Tenrikyo-Taoist and it would be perfectly fine. When it comes to contradictions I assume they chose one over the other (i.e Shinto-Buddhists choosing the Buddhist afterlife over the Shinto afterlife and still sticking to the idea of kami)

 

[mystic64]

When you apply the word Neo/New you just mean a new shift in a movement. There will always be a Neo Theism and Neo Atheism. Neo Theism would include New Age(there is that word again), Spirituality, New Thought(AGAIN with the New!), and Eclecticism.
Neo Paganism can also be shoved into the bunch.

New Atheism for examples is just Atheism founded upon modern philosophical concepts such as a heavy reliance upon science and logic. Atheism did not have science 100% on their side but now they do and is a result of unwilling human effort and the age we live in.

Keep in mind though that in a couple decades Neo Theism will be Paleo-Theism

Whoa, Philotech ! That was well said (I am momentarily without words) . Humm? Based on what you have contributed and what the others have contibuted (which I very much thank you guys for!) there is nothing rogue about being a neo theist . Neo theism is popping up all over the place! It is just that nobody has actually defined "Neotheism" as a term or word. And everybody that comes up with a new approach to theism call their approach a "new theism". The web address that ChythiaChypher contributed is about "Religious Naturalism" presenting itself as a "new theism". Which it is .

Again "humm?" Well, I guess because of the Human mind's propensity to place everything into a category, the question becomes, "How can/could we define the phrase "Neo Theism" in a way that would allow us to put all of those with a wierd (non traditional) approaches to "theism" into one category?" Any suggestions?

If we could come up with a definition for "Neo Theism", then we could add this topic as a contrabution to the gift that is the "Theism" series that Quintessense has presented to us as topics to discuss and explore . "Neo/New (and maybe even wierd ) Theisms?

Any suggestions? Maybe?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Whoa, Philotech ! That was well said (I am momentarily without words) . Humm? Based on what you have contributed and what the others have contibuted (which I very much thank you guys for!) there is nothing rogue about being a neo theist . Neo theism is popping up all over the place! It is just that nobody has actually defined "Neotheism" as a term or word. And everybody that comes up with a new approach to theism call their approach a "new theism". The web address that ChythiaChypher contributed is about "Religious Naturalism" presenting itself as a "new theism". Which it is .

Again "humm?" Well, I guess because of the Human mind's propensity to place everything into a category, the question becomes, "How can/could we define the phrase "Neo Theism" in a way that would allow us to put all of those with a wierd (non traditional) approaches to "theism" into one category?" Any suggestions?

If we could come up with a definition for "Neo Theism", then we could add this topic as a contrabution to the gift that is the "Theism" series that Quintessense has presented to us as topics to discuss and explore . "Neo/New (and maybe even wierd ) Theisms?

*sniffs my arrogance*, feels good to sniff your own arrogance .

There will never be a definition of Neo-Theism at least nothing very "definitive"(wordplay intended). Neo-Theism would merely be liberal theism. Liberal theism is the type of theism while the movement itself is new and very noticeable to be given a name.
Much like New Atheism it is not very precise in definition. When you wish to define Neo-Theism you should let it be vague and only have it address the new theistic position that are becoming more common.

Neo-Theism is a movement, not a type of theism, the same for New Atheism. New Atheism just implies that Atheist in the newest age are reliant upon science, philosophy, aggressiveness and systematic logic. It should not go further beyond that.


Just think of the collective new ideas in theism as of lately and you can easily see the the shifting ideas. Oprahism is a perfect example I may add

 

[Quintessence]

There are some great thoughts here. I can't say I've considered the term neo-theism before, because the baseline definition of theism is so simple, but what others have suggested with regards to it being a social movement may hold some merit. I have to agree that the approach to theism described by Kilgore Trout is "neo" to many people in my culture, in spite of the fact that it is both the norm in Eastern cultures (as pointed out by Jamesworth) and used to be the norm in Western cultures a well before the exclusivist monotheisms took control. I don't know of any movement that presently describes itself as "New Theist" or neo-theist, but I am certainly familiar with Connie Barlow as mentioned in Cynthia's link above. I really suggest people take a look at that one, because it's definitely something that describers my flavor of Neopaganism. I'd be more than happy to see or create a topic on this specific use of "New Theism" as a movement.

 

[Sha'irullah]

There are some great thoughts here. I can't say I've considered the term neo-theism before, because the baseline definition of theism is so simple, but what others have suggested with regards to it being a social movement may hold some merit. I have to agree that the approach to theism described by Kilgore Trout is "neo" to many people in my culture, in spite of the fact that it is both the norm in Eastern cultures (as pointed out by Jamesworth) and used to be the norm in Western cultures a well before the exclusivist monotheisms took control. I don't know of any movement that presently describes itself as "New Theist" or neo-theist, but I am certainly familiar with Connie Barlow as mentioned in Cynthia's link above. I really suggest people take a look at that one, because it's definitely something that describers my flavor of Neopaganism. I'd be more than happy to see or create a topic on this specific use of "New Theism" as a movement.

Baseline is simple but when ya add Deism, Pandeism, panandeism, pantheism, panentheism, igtheism, polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, kathenotheism, misotheism, bitheism and others, it gets confusing VERY fast.

You have to also add theistic ideas such as paganism, new age, and spiritualism.

 

[mystic64]

Baseline is simple but when ya add Deism, Pandeism, panandeism, pantheism, panentheism, igtheism, polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, kathenotheism, misotheism, bitheism and others, it gets confusing VERY fast.

You have to also add theistic ideas such as paganism, new age, and spiritualism.

Oh guys , being around all of you very bright people really keeps me on my toes.

Ok Philotech , you have presented a very creative challenge. Humm? I enjoyed your "pun"! Oprahism might be considered "Hero Worship" and not a theism. I would have to ask Quintessense about that one .

quote:
" There will never be a definition of Neo-Theism at least nothing very "definitive"(wordplay intended). Neo-Theism would merely be liberal theism. Liberal theism is the type of theism while the movement itself is new and very noticeable to be given a name.
Much like New Atheism it is not very precise in definition. When you wish to define Neo-Theism you should let it be vague and only have it address the new theistic position that are becoming more common.

Neo-Theism is a movement, not a type of theism, the same for New Atheism. New Atheism just implies that Atheist in the newest age are reliant upon science, philosophy, aggressiveness and systematic logic. It should not go further beyond that."

Philoteck, basically what you have done here is to create a very nice foundation for a definition for "neo-theism . And with that preliminary definition framework "neo-theism" would become a dicipline for Anthropology to study relative to today's culture and religion. And maybe even how religions develope and change over time?

A normal what we would consider a "theism" would be a defined theism, so if we used your presentation as a preliminary definition for "neo-theism", "neo-theism" would then become a "theism concept" that is in the process of defining itself. A theism concept that is in the process of creating a "set pattern" reality and probably the validity of a following.

And that would make the Jehovah Witness movement an example of a "Neo-thesim" because it started out with a religion concept that is and has been redefining itself over the decades since its conseption and beginning and it still has not established itself as a set pattern theism for any relatively long length of time. Thus I guess that it could be considered a Christian "neo-theism" !

Maybe ?

 

[nash8]

Personally, I'd classify the contemporary practice of pick-and-choose, syncretic, constantly changing religiosity as "neo-theism," as it seems to be a substantial shift in people's relationship with religion that is continuing to grow in popularity. This type of highly personalized, "me" centered view of religion and god is supplanting more traditional views of religion which are based upon outside authority and fixed structures regarding scriptures, teachings, rituals, and behaviors.

This is exactly what I adhere to, and it's definitely a "new" way to look at theism, and religion in general. In my daily life, there is only one other person that I have met, consequently one of my best friends, that adheres to this philosophy.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Oh guys , being around all of you very bright people really keeps me on my toes.

Ok Philotech , you have presented a very creative challenge. Humm? I enjoyed your "pun"! Oprahism might be considered "Hero Worship" and not a theism. I would have to ask Quintessense about that one .

quote:
" There will never be a definition of Neo-Theism at least nothing very "definitive"(wordplay intended). Neo-Theism would merely be liberal theism. Liberal theism is the type of theism while the movement itself is new and very noticeable to be given a name.
Much like New Atheism it is not very precise in definition. When you wish to define Neo-Theism you should let it be vague and only have it address the new theistic position that are becoming more common.

Neo-Theism is a movement, not a type of theism, the same for New Atheism. New Atheism just implies that Atheist in the newest age are reliant upon science, philosophy, aggressiveness and systematic logic. It should not go further beyond that."

Philoteck, basically what you have done here is to create a very nice foundation for a definition for "neo-theism . And with that preliminary definition framework "neo-theism" would become a dicipline for Anthropology to study relative to today's culture and religion. And maybe even how religions develope and change over time?

A normal what we would consider a "theism" would be a defined theism, so if we used your presentation as a preliminary definition for "neo-theism", "neo-theism" would then become a "theism concept" that is in the process of defining itself. A theism concept that is in the process of creating a "set pattern" reality and probably the validity of a following.

And that would make the Jehovah Witness movement an example of a "Neo-thesim" because it started out with a religion concept that is and has been redefining itself over the decades since its conseption and beginning and it still has not established itself as a set pattern theism for any relatively long length of time. Thus I guess that it could be considered a Christian "neo-theism" !

Maybe ?

I may be an atheist but I have definitely taken notice to changes in theism as of now. It is worth labeling considering the fact it is becoming more and more prevalent.

The thing about the definition of Neo-Theism is that it incorporates quite a bit but Jehovah's Witnesses would not fall into this category because of dogmatism. Dogmatism seems to be the enemy of "Neo-Theism". The whole point of liberal theology seems to be the removal of religion and the keeping of god

 

[Quintessence]

The thing about the definition of Neo-Theism is that it incorporates quite a bit but Jehovah's Witnesses would not fall into this category because of dogmatism. Dogmatism seems to be the enemy of "Neo-Theism". The whole point of liberal theology seems to be the removal of religion and the keeping of god

In a fashion. I think it might be more accurate to say that neo-theism is anathema to fundamentalist religion, which is a relatively narrow subset of all that religion encompasses. Relatively few religions are dogmatic (as in, lays down ideas that are regarded as Absolute Truth). Most of the more flexible than that.

I'm not sure what to make of the term "neo-theism" overall, though. My default understanding of theism includes something like neo-theism in its framework anyway, so I don't feel as much of a need for an extra label. I'm certainly not part of any organized social movement revolving around it, and that's where I could see the term being more useful?

 

[mystic64]

First I would like to thank you guys for your patience with me . It is beginning to look like I am now attempting to create a "Neo" approach to the classifying of "Theisms" . Well, this is why one throws out ideas for input from the group mind. A group mind approach to any idea is always more productive than an individual mind approach is.

My original reason for starting this topic was because of the thought that the stuff that I seem to be coming up with in some of my posts was going to cause me to be labled a "Neo-Theist". When I went to Wikipedia it said that there was no "Neo-theism" entry and asked if I would like to create an entry . From there the birth of this topic. And was creating an entry by somebody possible? Based on your input (which I do consider valid) up to this time, the exploring of Neo-Thesism as a defined entity is not only not possible, it is also totally not necessary.

So, the result of the gifts of your input is that I can rest assured that I can not be labled a "Neo-Theist", which makes me "happy" ! Because I am just an old mystic exploring the ancient foundations of mysticism. And I am not attempting to create a "New" version of "Theism.

 

[mystic64]

Also an interesting side effect to this topic, is that there is very little information relative to the words "new"or "neo" combined with the word "Theism". So, this topic is going to come up in the search engines with these words in a search. And who knows, maybe it will bring in some folks off the web to have a look at the wonderment that is this message board. Maybe

 

[Michael Colton]

It is not a term because nobody with widespread publication and influence has coined it yet.

 

[mystic64]

It is not a term because nobody with widespread publication and influence has coined it yet.

Welcome to Religious Forums Michael! What you said was what I was thinking too . It is not very often that one gets in on the cutting edge of something, but Religious Forums probably doesn't have the influence even if it were to be the first publication to coin, discuss, and define "Neo-Theism" and owned the copywrites to to it.

Again welcome!