The NEW religion in America

[Almustafa]

people have been practicing spirituality to free the mind from self-imposed limitations forever now... and it never stpped, there was no break in religions, they always keep pushing forward developing new characteristics...
we can see how american religions developed; hebrews+pagans=catholics-pope=protestant...protestant+americas=JW,Mormons, baptists, Rastas, mystic christians, etc, etc...

now like always religions are changing with the seasons. so it seems our current time harbors spirituality on par with ancient Greece, or India...
lets look at the common beliefs & practices of these newlly emerging spiritualities;

Monism- Many people are starting to consider God as an abstract entity in which all resides in & originates from

Pantheism- developing especially amoung dedicated neo-pagans is the idea that every deity represents an element or "thing"

non-duality- popular in circles that prize eastern spirituality, is Monism taken a step further, mystical monism, the striving towards a monistic state of consciousness, or one-ness with God...

Alters- made popular through Wicca, the practice of erecting a temple by starting home alters or outside alters, they serve as a focal point and houses ritual items

do it yourself Rituals- most people dont beleive that rituals must be performed exactly as instucted so most people just make up there own, sometimes only a few hours before...

Ganja- people like Ganja, they treat it like sacrament like rastas do as a way to make it spiritual

the law of attraction- like attracts like, thoughts attract what you are thinking..

Ancient alien theories- the idea that many of the deities mankind cherishes are actually based on aleins who visited earth in the distant past

meditation- nearlly all religions encourage meditation of some kind, however most new religions teach buddhist or hindu meditations

God as a male/female duality- many people use two deities to represent God the immanent & God the transcendent, also most people understand that GOD has no gender.

namelessness- God has no name other than what people give'em

mysticsism- the idea that anyone can have direct communion with the creator without an intermediary...

human divinity- the idea that in some way the human person is divine, "children of God"

Anamism- the idea that all things are consciouss, inanimate or animate.

Magic- a belief in magic(k), as well as the healing power of prayer

reincarnation- many accept the idea that consciousness lives many lives.

thats all this mind can really push out


if you can think of any more post them here

 

[Philomath]

I think you've done a good job categorizing them. Pretty much it appears to me that the people in the USA are leaving from the Abrhamic concepts of god and religion and thinking more freely.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think you've done a good job categorizing them. Pretty much it appears to me that the people in the USA are leaving from the Abrhamic concepts of god and religion and thinking more freely.

I think it's a positive step in that freethinking encourages exploration and the expansion of horizons that otherwise might not be considered or discouraged.

 

[SageTree]

I'd modifying that in general, to say 'A Non-Theistic idea of God'.... instead of 'Abrahamic God'....

I feel that puts an unfair burden on Abrahamic traditions, maybe speaking for them all... ya know?

My only addendum.

Nice list, Friend.


PS. Also, I'm not sure people are leaving their religion, per se, I think they are seeing it as more of a living, breathing thing that changes...
Instead of a rigid system.

So on that note, I think people are shedding their dogma and viewing their doctrines with renewed breath.

PPS.... Yeah.... dunno about aliens either

 

[Vinayaka]

Other than ganja and ancient alien theories, the rest are within my faith, Hinduism. But nobody wants to use that term ... it's so...... scary.

 

[SageTree]

Other than ganja and ancient alien theories, the rest are within my faith, Hinduism. But nobody wants to use that term ... it's so...... scary.

That isn't entirely, in all cases, true about ganja is it?

Correct my if I'm wrong... or to what extent I'm not completely informed,
but I understand it that the burning of ganja is a tribute, an incense to honour Shiva.



On a different note.... If that is what is inclusive of being a Hindu.... then I think I'm standing within the boundaries of it.... and that is interesting to consider, but I'm sure there are a few more things on the list of 'Hindu', no?

 

[Vinayaka]

That isn't entirely, in all cases, true about ganja is it?

Correct my if I'm wrong... or to what extent I'm not completely informed,
but I understand it that the burning of ganja is a tribute, an incense to honour Shiva.

On a different note.... If that is what is inclusive of being a Hindu.... then I think I'm standing within the boundaries of it.... and that is interesting to consider, but I'm sure there are a few more things on the list of 'Hindu', no?

Ganja is open to debate, I suppose. I know of no traditional teacher that recommends it's use. Yes. some sadhus use it. For what purpose, I don't know. Yes it is used in Nepal, and North India. In my temple travels, I never once smelled it. As a devotee of Siva, I would never ever offer it. Cloudy air, cloudy mind.

Yes indeed, there is much more to Hinduism, but as I read through the list it was, "I do that, and that, and that, and I have one of those, and I believe that."

Some people get upset that it's appropriation without due credit given, but it's all good with me, if the origins aren't credited, because regardless of what you call it, it will generally bring more contentment to the planet. Contented people don't fight wars. So in the molecular theory of social change, all is fine.

There are lots of people who believe the Sanskrit Aum is another version of the peace symbol.

 

[SageTree]

Respect.

I wish we could all speak with such honesty in our posts (and IRL).
We would surely would all be better people for it.
So thanks for your reply, very much.

Keep that fire burning, Brother, it puts off a marvelous light.

:namaste

 

[Philomath]

I'd modifying that in general, to say 'A Non-Theistic idea of God'.... instead of 'Abrahamic God'....

I feel that puts an unfair burden on Abrahamic traditions, maybe speaking for them all... ya know?

Oh...ok. What's a Non-Theistic idea of God though?

 

[SageTree]

Oh...ok. What's a Non-Theistic idea of God though?

I think these are two good examples from the Christian tradition that, I feel, speak to the idea as a whole.


John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as

"a personal being with expanded supernatural, human, and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world."

-A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born

A quotation from Paul Tillich:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions#cite_note-7

This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself

-Sidney Hook, "The Atheism of Paul Tillich", in Religious Experience and Truth: A Symposium ed. Sidney Hook. (New York University Press, 1961)

It's not rejecting anthropomorphic ideas, per se, but I do feel it's suggesting to keep the larger picture of not limiting God with our imagination, in mind.

 

[Philomath]

I think these are two good examples from the Christian tradition that, I feel, speak to the idea as a whole.


John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as



A quotation from Paul Tillich:





It's not rejecting anthropomorphic ideas, per se, but I do feel it's suggesting to keep the larger picture of not limiting God with our imagination, in mind.

Oh..thanks for explaining I'd never heard of that before. Sounds like an interesting way to look at god.

 

[SageTree]

Oh..thanks for explaining I'd never heard of that before. Sounds like an interesting way to look at god.

It's my feeling that this sentiment is best captured in negative theology,
if you are interested in doing a little more reading, this is a good start.

I'm sure you'll see the over lap.

 

[Philomath]

It's my feeling that this sentiment is best captured in negative theology,
if you are interested in doing a little more reading, this is a good start.

I'm sure you'll see the over lap.

I didn't know they were such complex ideas about god, thanks for the information.

 

[SageTree]

Fortunately or unfortunately.... there it is

I personally like to turn to the Two Truths Doctrine for matters like God.

Words are useful, but not the ends.

 

[Philomath]

Fortunately or unfortunately.... there it is

I personally like to turn to the Two Truths Doctrine for matters like God.

Words are useful, but not the ends.

How does the Two Truths Doctrine relate too god?

 

[SageTree]

How does the Two Truths Doctrine relate too god?

I feel that with Ultimate Truth, we have God.... that which can't be described, only experienced.

And then there is Relative Truth, which is the effort in language, we use, to capture that experience, that spirit.... useful yes.... but always falling short.

That is my thought, anyway.

"Preach the Gospel always, use words when you have to."
-Saint Francis

Actions speak louder than words... in other words.

In the Hebrew Scripture God said "I AM".....
to me that rings true to a verb more than a noun.

Otherwise said as God is Being (Ultimate)... not a Being (Relative)

Am I still making sense?

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Philomath]

I feel that with Ultimate Truth, we have God.... that which can't be described, only experienced.

And then there is Relative Truth, which is the effort in language, we use, to capture that experience, that spirit.... useful yes.... but always falling short.

That is my thought, anyway.



Actions speak louder than words... in other words.

In the Hebrew Scripture God said "I AM".....
to me that rings true to a verb more than a noun.

Otherwise said as God is Being (Ultimate)... not a Being (Relative)

Am I still making sense?

:namaste
SageTree

Ok that makes sense. I had never heard of it put into this way before.

 

[SageTree]

Right on.

 

[Almustafa]

enjoyed catching up and reading...


God is both personal(it is primal beingness/Consciousness) & impersonal(without personality)

the memory arises of the hindu advaita tradition, in Advaita(strict non-duality) God which is the self of all things everywhere, is thought of as a deity for the purpose of Bhakti purposes(intellectually they know there is no "Magic-man" in the heavens) however the deity is thought of as "you; perfected" much like the Bodhisattva archtype in tibetan buddhism. Shiva & Shakti, & sometimes Krishna, are imagined as the perfect Siddha or enlightened being, the Non-dualist or experiential Monist will adopt the use of deity images for worship, as a means to surrender the little self to the big self...

this is why many Advaita shiavites, dress up like Shiva, they carry tridents, dreadlock their hair, & smoke ganja like Shiva Shankara does...
all in an effort to be more like Shiva who himself is the ultimate reality...

 

[Vinayaka]

smoke ganja like Shiva Shankara does...

Just so there's no misunderstanding, Siva, God, does noit smoke ganja. Some (stress on 'some') aghora sadhu devotees do, but why would God need to? I know of no Purana or myth that supports this. Most regular Saivas wouldn't touch it with religion. If someone came to our temple stoned, we'd show him or her the door.