Religion Religion's of TS and why one follows the one they do.

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Threadban
EcXLAAWVcAAfPA1.png
Both of those words are false, unless you include a danger to yourself.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
The idea is that the actions we will ourselves to do through our beliefs and through ritual which can be as simple as training count as a manipulation of reality. My veneration of Artemis Orthia helps me maintain hunting, archery, and marksmanship skills I've developed all my life. Artemis Orthia makes me a successful huntress because I uphold rituals to venerate her which translates into training skills that ensure I am a successful huntress.
So, if you practice hunting, you get better at it? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand why the spiritual aspect is needed.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
So, if you practice hunting, you get better at it? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand why the spiritual aspect is needed.
If there is a time when she is not able to hunt for some time. Artemis will guide her hand in her hunting to always allow the arrow to strike true
 

Guncannon

Pessimistic Pilot
Yule and yuletide have become more then just Norse and is considered a standard pagan holiday
"Standard pagan" is something of an oxymoron. Yule is not shared amongst all the reconstructed paganisms. Its is Germanic/Norse historically, and the practice has pretty much stuck to modern pagan followings of that sort.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
"Standard pagan" is something of an oxymoron. Yule is not shared amongst all the reconstructed paganisms. Its is Germanic/Norse historically, and the practice has pretty much stuck to modern pagan followings of that sort.
Wiccan is the generic pagan
 

Guncannon

Pessimistic Pilot
Wiccan is the generic pagan
Now what are you on about? Wicca is a relatively recent religious movement (20th century), if you can really call it that. Paganism is just "other religions from the dominant religion". A Catholic in a Buddhist-dominated environment would be considered a pagan.

Paganism in relation to the history of Christianity has had a resurgence, but it's not centralized or even all related. Wiccans don't celebrate the Germanic/Norse Yuletide.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I'm not sure I can buy this, But for sake of discussion, say that I do. I do want you to clarify what you mean by this though. Do you mean the physical universe, or something else?

Also, I am very stuck on the leaving of Scientism, as you call it. The issue is that I don't know that I can leave it in good faith. I do find (religious) belief systems appealing, but what I miss is anyway to honestly get from Scientism to something else. For example, a number of the arguments in the Trent Quote you provided rang at least somewhat true, in that the lack of meaning from a Nietzsche POV, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong though.

Also, I'm not sure if I accept Nietzsche that just because humankind is an accident, we then owe each other nothing. I'd put forward that Kant made a good argument that by dint of our rationality, we owe each other respect of some sort, and you can build from there.
I think...I could be mistaken, Zoe is saying that metaphysically speaking the earth is the center of the universe, or she's saying since humans were made by the divine, earth is central to the cosmos. Or she could be referring to that anomaly in cosmology where the Copernican principle doesn't seem to work.

Possibly all three as they all work in concert as far as her point goes.
 

Nikkolas

Active member
Atheist here.

If there is a deity of some type out there, or many deities, they're nothing like how we humans believe them to be. I'm not saying "Eldritch", but definitely not what current religions believe them to be. Hell, they're probably Orange and Green-in-mentality abominations that can't be perceived by us without our brains dribbling out of all our orifices (including our rectums).

As for religions themselves? All bunk, to me.

Every religion, like the world's language families, can be traced back to another religion, and/or elements of it traced back to something else that was frankly stolen by opportunistic invaders or through cultural assimilation.

For example, the current various splinters of Christianity scattered about the world? Came from one source and stole a shit ton of things from other religions (such a European paganism and Norse traditions/religions): said "One Source" (the Christianity variant/origin practiced in Roman times) in itself came from Judaism, which also spawned Islam, in itself came from ancient Canaanite religions (Yahweh was one god among many): Canaanite religions influenced or spawned other ancient religions, including Egyptian and Greek (and the latter eventually Roman, which further spread and mixed with pagan faiths, and also mixed with Egyptian deities).

Hell, Aphrodite was originally a form of Ishtar that hopped across from islands from the Fertile Crescent, mutating as she did. Artemis was originally a mountain spring goddess in Eastern Europe/North-East Greece before being folded into the current Greek pantheon (who then became Diana to the Romans) as Apollo's twin.

Hell, Chaos and the Primordials, the very origin story of Greece-Roman mythology, were lifted straight from Fertile Crescent faiths' pantheons!

That being said, while I do think Christianity and other religions are crocks of shit, I do understand, agree with, and support the good social bonds it creates (family, friendship, support, et cetera), the role it has in Western society (even if I think a lot of the restrictions are archaic and outdated), and the morals that stories in books like the Bible try to impart are valid ones (e.g. don't be a dick to your neighbors, work hard, vengeance can backfire badly, et cetera), even though they're just fables to me.

This is why I am a big fan of religious syncretism. It stretches the realm of belief that some specific group of humans in some specific time or place got access to all the secrets of the universe. No offense to followers of Abrahamic faiths but it is especially hard for me to swallow the idea God just gave all His secrets and mandates to Jews in Palestine a few thousand yearas ago. What about every other group of people in the world at that time or before or after?

I don't believe "all religions are true" as that's both insulting and impossible. But there can be truth to be found in many of them, bits and pieces that can fit together to help us understand ourselves and maybe even the more "hidden" truths of existence. That's what I mean by syncretism.
 

Comrade Sophia

Well-known member
So, if you practice hunting, you get better at it? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand why the spiritual aspect is needed.
If I practice hunting, archery, and marksmanship I get better at it. Veneration of Artemis Orthia in her aspect as a huntress acts as a further motivation and opportunity to refine these skills. Without it I might not feel as motivated to do so and therefore may allow myself to slip some.

For example, I think our society fails the homeless on a systemic level. Prescriptive actions need to be done to help alleviate this and so my ritualistic veneration of Hecate fulfills that desire to help, it gives me another motivation to give food on a monthly basis.

If there is a time when she is not able to hunt for some time. Artemis will guide her hand in her hunting to always allow the arrow to strike true
I don't think this is true, in my interpretation Artemis helps those who help themselves. If I rely on her for outside help I am not upholding her ideal as a huntress.
 
Last edited:

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Now what are you on about? Wicca is a relatively recent religious movement (20th century), if you can really call it that. Paganism is just "other religions from the dominant religion". A Catholic in a Buddhist-dominated environment would be considered a pagan.

Paganism in relation to the history of Christianity has had a resurgence, but it's not centralized or even all related. Wiccans don't celebrate the Germanic/Norse Yuletide.
Except they can if they choose too.

The term used for Pagan these days are basically those that follow old gods/ multiple gods.

Wiccans as I lived with one, have various beilifw that arnt all in one area.
If I practice hunting, archery, and marksmanship I get better at it. Veneration of Artemis Orthia in her aspect as a huntress acts as a further motivation and opportunity to refine these skills. Without it I might not feel as motivated to do so and therefore may allow myself to slip some.

For example, I think our society fails the homeless on a systemic level. Prescriptive actions need to be done to help alleviate this and so my ritualistic veneration of Hecate fulfills that desire to help, it gives me another motivation to give food on a monthly basis.


I don't think this is true, in my interpretation Artemis helps those who help themselves. If I rely on her for outside help I am not upholding her ideal as a huntress.
That makes sensd
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Iā€™m a bit confused, why the thread bans?

Anyway, meaning does not come from the universe devoid of humanity, it is humanity which creates meaning and through our nature give meaning to otherwise meaningless universe. That isnā€™t to say that meaning is somehow subjective or merely a social construct, no more than any other aspect of humanityā€™s biological or psychological reality is an artificial construct. The universe has meaning because it means something to us, to humans, who are the source of all meaning.

We are in a garden surrounded by vast deserts. It would seem strange to say that this garden must be insignificant, that itā€™s life doesnā€™t matter, because of the vastness of lifeless desert around it. As though somethingā€™s importance were in some way proportional to the space it occupies. The garden is just as good even if there is nothing outside of it, the garden is just ass special and perhaps even more so if it is the only garden.

Humanity doesnā€™t need something else, we donā€™t need something greater for us to matter. We matter because we matter to us.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I think...I could be mistaken, Zoe is saying that metaphysically speaking the earth is the center of the universe, or she's saying since humans were made by the divine, earth is central to the cosmos. Or she could be referring to that anomaly in cosmology where the Copernican principle doesn't seem to work.

Possibly all three as they all work in concert as far as her point goes.


@Abhorsen I will answer you from LI's post, and this will take a little bit of time, but it should be an extremely useful discussion. Essentially, the Copernican principle is a deep lesson, sort of like a really good story lesson in Buddhism, and it's going to take a bit to unpack.

In "The Feminine Universe", Ms. Trent says:

Let us return to the question we posed a few moments ago. Has the traditional view of the cosmos been disproved and superseded by the modern view?

Obviously we must begin by asking: What is the traditional view?

The form of it most immediately accessible to the modern West is that generally accepted throughout the Classical and Mediaeval periods, up until the Copernican revolution of the seventeenth century.

According to this system, the earth stands at the centre of the universe. The earth is a round ball, and beyond it are a series of concentric spheres, transparent and crystalline. Governing each of these spheres is a planet, which is essentially a god or an angel. The first of these spheres, traveling out from the earth, is the Sphere of the Moon, then comes the Sphere of Venus, and so on out to the seventh sphere, the Sphere of Saturn. Beyond this is the Sphere of the Fixed Stars and the very Heaven-world itself.

Now, is this view of the universe true or false? C.S. Lewis, who expounds the traditional image of the cosmos very lucidly in his book The Discarded Image, and is clearly highly sympathetic to its beauty and harmony, nevertheless feels himself compelled to admit that it is based on what he terms "exploded astronomy"; on a false, or as some would say "pre-scientific" understanding of the nature of the physical universe.

This, of course, has been the general consensus of the educated modern world since the seventeenth century, held equally by those who wish contemptuously to sweep aside the 'errors and superstitions of the past', and by those like C.S. Lewis who may regret the passing of a more humane and intelligent cosmos, a more poetic and profound vision, but can see no intellectual possibility of reinstating it. For both alike, whether for better or worse, it is, as C.S. Lewis names it, the discarded image.

And they are wrong. The image should never have been discarded. The reasons for which it was rejected were false reasons. The entire process was based on a very simple but very fundamental misunderstanding, and Western maid was alienated from her cosmos, her world drained of depth and significance, as a result of an error of interpretation and a confusion of levels.

The traditional image of the cosmos was not based on "exploded astronomy", because it was not based on astronomy at all. It has nothing in common with astronomy in the modern sense of the word--which is to say, with attempts to understand the physical universe on a purely physical level.

This is in fact perfectly clear from the traditional writings on the cosmos. The sublunary realm--that is, the world below the Sphere of the Moon, our Earth--is the realm of material things; the world of change and decay; in other words, the physical universe.

Everything in physical manifestation, that is, everything comprehended by modern astronomy and by modern science as a whole--from the smallest subatomic particle to the furthest galaxy countless light-years away--is part of the first circle of the traditional cosmos.

In short, the material world of science is The Earth of the Traditional Cosmos. The Traditional Cosmos is an allegory, an explanation of how the universe is really organised under God, in which Earth is a description of the physical plain. The precise orientation of the heavens in physical terms, as Galileo popularised, is itself an infamous lie, since an allegorical description of Creation was replaced with scientific evidence. In fact, the first step of understanding Traditional Religion is to accept the idea that Traditional Religion describes in stories fundamental truths.

My belief is "esoteric" because only those who have a mystical understanding of Truth may gain an instinctual understanding of what these stories mean. Of why the Gods of ancient times behaved like mortals--this was not a primitive religion, but rather, in each story was a complex set of moral lessons from the Almighty, and everyone understood that these lessons were what they were -- allegory in the Truth and in proper comportment. People who could not understand the esoteric world needed to only follow the lesson, needed only to understand what the Earth and Moon and Jupiter stood for; people who were capable of esoteric learning knew that there was only one Almighty and not many Gods, and knew, too, that in fact the whole material world was part of the sublunary realm. But it was not necessary to understand this to be moral -- because the story, the description was an approachable one.

Psychologically, what the teaching of a scientific worldview (which is distinct from the advance of science, which was always possible even in ancient times) did was replace a world of structure and moral life-lessons with a world of chaos and anti-moral life lessons; and, unsurprisingly, the morality of society subsequently degenerated.

So the first lesson when approaching religion is to understand that religion is fundamentally arguing that the supra-lunar spheres do exist and are real, but are outside of the plain of material comprehension. And we can even see this in the inherent confusion to which the world seems to break down at the quantum level--what scientists are actually doing is reaching a point where the extremely limited knowledge of the sublunary sphere is actually bumping up, if you will, against the totality of creation, but it exceeds the ability of a mortal to record, or comprehend. So it appears chaotic.

That chaotic vision, based on scientism, is what Nietzsche argued for. But it is wrong, because we already have a roadmap--the traditional Cosmos--which describes for us the entire universe, in terms we are capable of understanding.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Important to note modern academia and science are very hostile to esotericism or the notion that something may mean different things. Academic literature on esotericism Iā€™ve found is extremely uncharitable and laced with subtle contempt.

I think the greatest issue with scientism/the scientific revolution is before the world was suffused with pneuma, a spirit or soul that was present and imminently felt.

The world after the 17th century was just a cold, empty, and even perhaps ugly machine.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Important to note modern academia and science are very hostile to esotericism or the notion that something may mean different things. Academic literature on esotericism Iā€™ve found is extremely uncharitable and laced with subtle contempt.

I think the greatest issue with scientism/the scientific revolution is before the world was suffused with pneuma, a spirit or soul that was present and imminently felt.

The world after the 17th century was just a cold, empty, and even perhaps ugly machine.

The ironic thing about this is precisely as Ms. Trent says:

The more we learn about subatomic particles, the more they seem to defy all normal physical description. They seem at times to behave like particles and at other times to behave like waves. They do things that would normally be called physical impossibilities, and at times the very laws of cause and effect appear to be inverted, with an event that is caused happening before the event that causes it. Scientists are compelled to surmise that these are not physical entities at all in any sense of the term that means anything to us. What they seem to be, we are told, is "pieces of pure information."

Now this is patently absurd. How can information exist on its own with nothing to inform?--and remember, there is nothing for these subatomic particles to inform, because they are supposed to constitute everything that is. According to the only view acceptable to a purely material science, every existing thing must be built up from them and nothing else. Scientists themselves admit the logical impossibility of the thing--the fact that the whole mechanistic, materialistic system of modern science turns out to be based upon an absurdity. The very laws of cause and effect upon which science is based fall to pieces as we reach the foundations of matter itself.

Nevertheless, this description makes perfect sense in the light of the primordial science. Essence is precisely pure information. It informs--forms from within--every material entity. Essence is Form--or information--working on substance, and ubstance can only be seen when the light of Essence is shining on it: we can only perceive marble, for example, because of its qualities--its hardness, colour, weight, stone-ness.

At the subatomic level we cannot detect the substance upon which Essence is working. This is because there is some truth in the scientist's belief that he is "getting to the very building blocks of matter itself", and while he is not, and could not be, at the level of pure substance or Prima Materia, he is seeing matter stripped of many of its Essential qualities. Consequently, at this level, matter is no longer prehensible, and all that can be seen is the low-level action of Essence, which appears to be on its own as 'pure information', but is in fact in-forming matter at a very rudimentary level.

There is an iron--but in fact it is something more than a mere accidental irony--in the fact that modern science, which bases itself exclusively upon a purely material and quantitative approach, and upon the assumption that everything can be explained from the side of matter, ignoring Essence altogether, should, upon approaching what ought to be, as it were, its own domain par excellence--the nearest we can get in manifestation to 'pure matter'--run headlong into the problem of Essence and see its material and quantitative axioms go upon in smoke.

It is also important for us to realise from the outset that when we speak of Essence and substance as the fundamental principles of cosmic manifestation, we are not talking merely of philosophical abstractions or ancient notions that have been superseded by modern science; we are speaking of vital truths which have always been true, and which, while they may have seemed to be rendered obsolete in the comfortable, closed world of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mechanistic materialism, the findings of twentieth-century atomic and astrophysics reveal to be absolutely necessary to an adequate and coherent explanation of being.

(I am typing this up from hardcopy, as it is not available on the internet, so the mistakes are my own.)
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
So agnostic means you aren't sure about whether or not God, or gods exist, but when you say theist it makes it sound like you are leaning towards there being some creator or cosmic force but aren't sure what it is? Is that your belief?
I firmly believe that there are forces greater than ourselves, but I also believe that those forces are, by their very nature, unknowable. As such, it is my opinion that every religion which purports to claim what "God" is, and what they want, is fundamentally delusional. In short, I see little difference between the myths of Christianity, and those of Ancient Greece.

Anyway logic dictates that there is "one true path" Because two seperate mutually exclusive faiths can't be right, if Christianity is right then Islam is wrong(even if it does get somethings right about there being one God, some of the prophets, etc.) Conversely if Islam is right Christianity is wrong and Jesus is not God, but a mere prophet and Muhammud is an actual prophet. Or it's possible that both are wrong and right and Jesus is God, yet Muhamud was a prophet, or it's possible the atheists are right. But it's impossible for Jesus to both be God, and not God at the same time, or Muhamud to be a prophet and not a prophet at the same time. Do you get what I mean?
I get it; but I would be one of those who would argue that both are wrong. Because everyone is wrong; including the atheists. The only way to be right, is to not try to answer questions that are inherently unanswerable.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
I firmly believe that there are forces greater than ourselves, but I also believe that those forces are, by their very nature, unknowable. As such, it is my opinion that every religion which purports to claim what "God" is, and what they want, is fundamentally delusional. In short, I see little difference between the myths of Christianity, and those of Ancient Greece.

That seems to be taking the whole agnostic thing a bit far. "no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God" or a similar statement is a fairly common concept across religions, but there's that, and then there's "because certainty is impossible, everyone is just as right/wrong". Speaking from a Christian perspective, we were given the ability to think and reason for a purpose, and it's a waste of that gift to close-mindedly refuse to use it. It is impossible to know the mind of God, it's not forbidden to try to.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Jewish but I'm really bad at it.

I forget holidays, I only semi keep koshure, I'm pretty bad about forgiveness and I'm kind of a dick in general.

Really my focus is on trying to be less of an asshole and even that can be real struggle with some days being harder then others.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top