Religion vs. Cultural Practice vs. Lifestyle

[CharmingOwl]

As the leader of a new religious movement, it seems I have actually created more of a lifestyle, folk religion, or cultural practice more than an actual religion in the case people think of. As long as you believe in the basic tenets (ancestor worship, gods, chakras) you're a member as long as you choose to be. Other new religious movements say that religions need priests, clergy, and others but I honestly disagree. Many smaller folk practices do not have organized religion and tend to do fine.

I made it this way because when I was looking into beliefs I always had an identity crisis. "If I do this am I no longer religious? Should I just convert if I don't believe this?" Making something easy really helps even if it's more of a new age philosophy/ lifestyle than an actual religion. What do you guys think about your own practices compared to very cosmopolitan practices like these?

 

[The Hammer]

All three of these can be used to define my own personal "Path". It's Religious and Spiritual in Nature, there is a cultural basis and background to it; and it is a part of the lifestyle I live and/or try to live.

I think that the best and most fulfilling Spiritualities should incorporate all of these things in tandem.

 

[The Hammer]

Also, Welcome to the Forum!

Wilkommen!

¡Bienvenido!

Bienvenue!

Benvenuto!

Välkommen

dobro pozhalovat’!

 

[JustGeorge]

I think the most important aspects of religion are how it affects(hopefully positively) one's lifestyle.

The separation of one's mundane life and one's religion seems to be more of a modern thing. I try to shy away from that; anything can be spiritual and/or meaningful, if one approaches it correctly.

 

[Moon]

The greatest answers I have gotten were by thinking of real life and not by reading books. I have been enlightened to lifes mysteries and I am thankful for it. Before enlightment my life was good too though.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As the leader of a new religious movement, it seems I have actually created more of a lifestyle, folk religion, or cultural practice more than an actual religion in the case people think of. As long as you believe in the basic tenets (ancestor worship, gods, chakras) you're a member as long as you choose to be. Other new religious movements say that religions need priests, clergy, and others but I honestly disagree. Many smaller folk practices do not have organized religion and tend to do fine.

I made it this way because when I was looking into beliefs I always had an identity crisis. "If I do this am I no longer religious? Should I just convert if I don't believe this?" Making something easy really helps even if it's more of a new age philosophy/ lifestyle than an actual religion. What do you guys think about your own practices compared to very cosmopolitan practices like these?

You might take a look at the Quakers (the Society of Friends). They are often seen as Christian, but not all would agree.

Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality. They emphasise direct experience of God rather than ritual and ceremony. They believe that priests and rituals are an unnecessary obstruction between the believer and God.

A Quaker meeting (which is their form of religious serive) consists of little more than silent waiting, with participants contributing as they feel moved.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As the leader of a new religious movement,

You consider yourself on par with Moses, Muhammad, Jesus?

 

[Balthazzar]

Religion, I'm sure, began from social values which became cultural practices and lifestyles, all of which were based upon truth's that were understood during these periods of social development. Life is always changing, and as life changes we are often forced to change also and adapt. The nature of life, truth, reason, value and meaning, logic and necessity dictate ongoing developmental changes in our cultures as well as individuality as it relates to acceptance. Life may change, but truth is always truth - It is always through truths that paradigms shift, change, and develop. In some religious circles, these acts of change are called acts of repentance. We are required to continually grow in understanding. It's how we develop our social structures and how we navigate life. I think a practical approach to religious doctrine and study is beneficial, as the doctrines pertain to history and present-day realities. Religion = Cultural practices and lifestyles.

 

[Ella S.]

Technically, you cannot found a folk religion. "Folk religion" is a term specifically designed to address religions or parts of religion that emerge or grow within a shared culture, normally over the span of a few centuries at least, and is usually put together from common beliefs arrived at by multiple individuals or communally.

What you have would be categorized more accurately as a New Religious Movement or, as you say, a lifestyle. Or a way of life or a philosophy or a guiding principle.

You also have not created a new cultural practice or a new culture, because you already inhabit and live within a particular society which has not adopted your practices as social norms. You are a part of that society's culture. If your movement grows enough in membership and influence, it might one day become a subculture or even grow to become a culture, but I don't think it has reached that point yet.

 

[CharmingOwl]

Technically, you cannot found a folk religion. "Folk religion" is a term specifically designed to address religions or parts of religion that emerge or grow within a shared culture, normally over the span of a few centuries at least, and is usually put together from common beliefs arrived at by multiple individuals or communally.

What you have would be categorized more accurately as a New Religious Movement or, as you say, a lifestyle. Or a way of life or a philosophy or a guiding principle.

You also have not created a new cultural practice or a new culture, because you already inhabit and live within a particular society which has not adopted your practices as social norms. You are a part of that society's culture. If your movement grows enough in membership and influence, it might one day become a subculture or even grow to become a culture, but I don't think it has reached that point yet.

I guess this is true. I was never really good at accurately describing or labeling complex things.

 

[nPeace]

As the leader of a new religious movement, it seems I have actually created more of a lifestyle, folk religion, or cultural practice more than an actual religion in the case people think of. As long as you believe in the basic tenets (ancestor worship, gods, chakras) you're a member as long as you choose to be. Other new religious movements say that religions need priests, clergy, and others but I honestly disagree. Many smaller folk practices do not have organized religion and tend to do fine.

I made it this way because when I was looking into beliefs I always had an identity crisis. "If I do this am I no longer religious? Should I just convert if I don't believe this?" Making something easy really helps even if it's more of a new age philosophy/ lifestyle than an actual religion. What do you guys think about your own practices compared to very cosmopolitan practices like these?

I am thinking if I borrowed certain practices from the world, and used them in my religion, I am still of the world - a 'worldling'.
It would not matter what I think.
The same would be true, if I borrowed certain practices of religion, and used them in my lifestyle, or mixed them from various sources. It would still make me...
Wouldn't it?

 

[idea]

Considering the age, number, and diversity of humans it would be difficult to find anything new that hasn't been practiced by someone somewhere at some point in history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I guess this is true. I was never really good at accurately describing or labeling complex things.

Just the quality one would want in, for example, "the leader of a new religious movement."

 

[Ella S.]

I guess this is true. I was never really good at accurately describing or labeling complex things.

Nooo! You do fine.

It's just a technical term in anthropology that's only useful because it has a very narrow meaning, so I don't want it to end up being used too much outside of that context or else it will make communicating complex ideas more difficult.

You express yourself adequately from what I've read. Don't be so hard on yourself.