FWIS3

A religion doesn't have to include anything that's non-empirical. Some say, "people can be religious about anything, even football." So, choice of super- or preternatural beliefs is up to you. Of course some people might think it requires some sort of higher power. But must that be a god? Maybe it could be something slightly more scientific, like a hope that the universe is a simulation and we are virtual, or the simulation is a matrix we can eventually wake up from.

Would it be as simple as Bill & Ted's "Be Excellent to each other"? Or would you like to include lots of fun, esoteric or tribal rituals full of meaning? A lot of religions have ceremonies that are re-enactments of historic events that are miraculous or simply foundational.

Would you have symbolic food or purity ceremonies full of symbolism? Maybe you'd claim Doritos are the ultimate symbol of the three-way relationship between mother, father, and child, or something.

I might include the Scrambling of the Egg (with tarragon). The Egg represents the world, and the 'erb's meaning is that Terra is gone, destroyed by heat and violent mixing. Sic Transit Gloria Ovum.

Oddly I had a similar thought recently based on the idea that it seems some people really need to believe in something because what this world offers isn't enough. The idea was to formulate a set of rules that people can't corrupt seeing as no matter what rule/law we come up with someone decides to interpret it in a way to give them the power to do what they want and justify it by the rules/laws that others want to respect. IOW, corrupting the message regardless of the intent of the message. For example, there was wording in the Bible that stated that as it was written by God (or by someone under his influence) that it cannot be corrupted. Or some such thing. We see how that worked out!

My initial ideas were something like defining what constitutes harm, then setting up rules that stop anyone from doing harm.
Of course that causes problems with simple thought experiments where a person has to decide which is greater and which is lesser harm when both do harm. I remember discussing this a long time ago with TSC (The Supreme Canuck) which I found a great discussion but he doesn't post here anymore. He does lurk though. So I'm hoping to entice him...

In that discussion iirc the core principle was to make rules for life but provide no guarantee who you will be in life. I've probably fucked that up (maybe even on purpose) and TSC can correct me on it.

So in answer to your question, I've tried to come up with something but failed. What I would like is for people to stop thinking others are the enemy and if anyone wants them to think that way that they should realise that the person telling them is the real enemy or being played. Maybe that should be a core principle to abide by. Of course, sociopaths could have a field day with that one unless another clause is put in.

Maybe I'm just not wise enough to make idiot and sociopath proof rules for life because idiots are so ingenious and sociopaths are so damned determined to bypass anything that hinders them.

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

Oh... and I want waffles. I like waffles.

By the way, hi Tarragon.

Swift wrote:Oh... and I want waffles. I like waffles.

I think every religion should allow waffles. Of course the only food worthy of true worship is bacon. And ice cream. Really good ice cream.

I think religion almost has to be founded on a belief that there are some things that do not fit into the realm of "matter only" universal truths. Call it a soul, divine spark, cosmic programming, or that which is released into the aether upon our demise.

A good religion should include a premise that one of the purposes of any religion is to make the world a better place. It should teach that we are called upon to treat each other with compassion, dignity, honesty, integrity, and to care for each other as if we were all from the same mother and father. Except for Cain. He was a douche.

A good religion is full of ceremonies and traditions that encourage positive thoughts and actions. And that build a sense of community and belonging. That's why most religions have traditions and traditional foods.

I think that early religions tried to control human behavior with laws and strict religious codes combined with severe punishment for "sinning" or breaking the laws. That has some obvious challenges. A good religion would teach principles and ethics. For example: "Do no harm to others". Great principle. What if they are harming others? You need a moral code that helps you decide things based on more than just a strict blanket rule. The challenge is that as soon as you start creating loopholes you are inviting schisms. I hate schisms. It leads to such fun times.

A good religion would try to avoid telling people what they shouldn't do and would focus on telling people what they should do. i.e. Make the world a better place.

SciFiFisher wrote: Except for Cain. He was a douche.

Totally off topic, but, the MIL is so naive at times.
The other day she asks the wife if she can get her douche bag for her.
I'm like wtf?
The wife is like, "can you please stop calling it that".
I'm like, "Do you know what a douche bag is?"
And she's like, "it's my little baggy I put things in".

I just stfu at that point. lol

vendic wrote:
I just stfu at that point. lol

he's catching on!

Oh the things that happen on this boat that I never want to discuss with people because I want to pry the memories out with a dull spoon.

Swift wrote:Oh... and I want waffles. I like waffles.

Hi Swift. Do waffles have a special symbolism? Perhaps they are pressed and represent a sort of crucible. Or maybe the square grid pattern represents an intersection of ideas or a four-square representation of reality? Or maybe the founder liked waffles, and their first breakfast was held at Waffle House?

Hi SciFiFisher. Would a ceremony of atonement be considered a positive thought or action? I like some of those. It's a positive way to manage negative thoughts, emotions and events.

I create religions for my writing, and I find it so interesting. Symbolism can be found or created in almost any combination of things. But, that symbolism can also always be interpreted in a different way, resulting in schisms and sectarian conflict. Perhaps someday the Wafflers will be able to get along with the Pancakers.

Tarragon wrote:Perhaps someday the Wafflers will be able to get along with the Pancakers.

“And now, in the interest of equal time, here is a message from the National Institute of Pancakes: It reads, and I quote, "Fuck waffles.”
― George Carlin


Though this one is probably more appropriate for this thread

George Carlin was a god.

Tarragon wrote:
Hi SciFiFisher. Would a ceremony of atonement be considered a positive thought or action? I like some of those. It's a positive way to manage negative thoughts, emotions and events.

I create religions for my writing, and I find it so interesting. Symbolism can be found or created in almost any combination of things. But, that symbolism can also always be interpreted in a different way, resulting in schisms and sectarian conflict. Perhaps someday the Wafflers will be able to get along with the Pancakers.

Ceremonies of atonement would possibly be considered positive. To atone for the wrongs one has done to others is a very positive thing. I suppose it would depend on how one atoned and what the ceremony consisted of. Hanging people from large hooks inserted through their pectoral muscles and suspending them in the air for hours at a time might be considered to be somewhat negative for example.

As for the Wafflers getting along with the Pancakers I am not so sure. I mean we still haven't been able to get the Quicheists and the Crepesists to agree to be in the same room with each other.

SciFiFisher wrote:Ceremonies of atonement would possibly be considered positive. To atone for the wrongs one has done to others is a very positive thing. I suppose it would depend on how one atoned and what the ceremony consisted of. Hanging people from large hooks inserted through their pectoral muscles and suspending them in the air for hours at a time might be considered to be somewhat negative for example.

As for the Wafflers getting along with the Pancakers I am not so sure. I mean we still haven't been able to get the Quicheists and the Crepesists to agree to be in the same room with each other.

Some people like to be hung from hooks, usually in their backs though. I've seen videos of this from India, and private clubs in the US. There's also self-flagellation in some religions, including sects of Christianity and Islam.

There are always subcultures and sects with strange and different interpretations of the same idea. Round or square waffles seem quaint, and even the Belgian Order isn't that radical. Maple vs. Boysenberry can get heated, but Chicken? That's almost as weird as the Eggo Cult that worship at the Altar of Toast.

Yet they all agree on one thing - they all need a good forking.

Tarragon

I have to admit I'm not sure how serious a discussion you wanted. If you wished a serious discussion, I'm sorry for making a lot of light of it. So, here is a serious response...

It depends on what you mean by your question. In particular, are you talking about the supernatural parts of religion, or just the human parts?

I am agnostic, very strongly leaning toward atheist. I keep an open mind, but I never seen any evidence that the supernatural parts of most religions: divine being(s), life after death or reincarnation, eternal rewards and punishments, efficacy of prayer, have any basis in reality. A lot of them would be lovely; I'd love it if my soul or some similar part of me existed after I die. I'd love it if those who are evil are punished or even given a chance to do better, after their deaths. If we are designing a universe, we should add those features.

If we are just talking about the human parts of religion, I think there are useful things we could incorporate: a moral code, a sense of community and a support network, a vehicle for promoting music and other arts. But we don't have to invent a new religion to do these things, even if we wish to leave out all the potential negative aspects of religion. I was raised as a member of the Ethical Culture Society. Unitarian/Universalism is very similar.

Ethical Culture is premised on the idea that honoring and living in accordance with ethical principles is central to what it takes to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, and to creating a world that is good for all. Practitioners of Ethical Culture focus on supporting one another in becoming better people, and on doing good in the world.

Human Worth and Uniqueness – All people are taken to have inherent worth, not dependent on the value of what they do. They are deserving of respect and dignity, and their unique gifts are to be encouraged and celebrated.

Eliciting the Best – "Always act so as to Elicit the best in others, and thereby yourself" is as close as Ethical Culture comes to having a Golden Rule.

Interrelatedness – Adler used the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to his conception of the universe as made up of myriad unique and indispensable moral agents (individual human beings), each of whom has an inestimable influence on all the others. In other words, we are all interrelated, with each person playing a role in the whole and the whole affecting each person. Our interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics.

I always preferred bacon/ham worship.
Bacon, the bringer of peace.
I've never seen two people fighting while eating bacon.
Yesterday I made a baked ham cris crossed with deep cuts, a clove inserted in each intersection covered with a honey, brandy, ginger and turmeric based glaze. It was so good I swear it would stop wars if both sides were asked to share the meal.

I contemplated opening a Kosher and Halal ham based restaurant on the premise that both sides can find common ground in the fact that this was the best ham they've never tasted!

Of course, we would save room for the lesser Gods of waffles and such.

Sure Swift, now that I try to be funny, you go all serious.
Make up your minds people, I can't keep up!

vendic wrote:Sure Swift, now that I try to be funny, you go all serious.
Make up your minds people, I can't keep up!

Are you sober?

Sober yes. Sane is more questionable. lol

vendic wrote:Sober yes. Sane is more questionable. lol

SO true.... LOL

vendic wrote:Sober yes. Sane is more questionable. lol

I didn't know that was still a question. I thought the issue had been settled long ago.

Sorry for being serious, it will never happen again.

Swift wrote:Tarragon

I have to admit I'm not sure how serious a discussion you wanted. If you wished a serious discussion, I'm sorry for making a lot of light of it. So, here is a serious response...

I'm up for either, or both. A lot of religion is humorous, whether intentionally or not. I was thinking of religion as a human institution and symbolic rituals, whereas supernatural cosmology might be a related but different discussion... or not. I think a lot of people would like some sort of afterlife, regardless of proof it exists. I mean, who wouldn't want to die thinking they're going to that Great Brunch Buffet in the Sky?

The making of a meal is a ritual that can be rooted in tradition and symbolism. The criss-cross cutting of a ham might represent the intersection of two sides of an argument coming to eat in peace. Or might others avoid pork because a long time ago, in a land far, far away, cannibals ate long pig and the family of the victim swore never to eat pig in remembrance of their fallen family member.

I just finished watching "The People vs. George Lucas" and it made me think of religion. The way so many fans both love his work, and make their own versions of it reminds me of how mythical stories in other religions might have gone through a similar process. There are a lot of competing Greek myths and it's like how the Star Wars Extended Universe went from the status of canon to "Legends". Of course, there are films people don't like. So, we might end up with Star Wars Commandments; Three are the Films thy Got, Thou shalt have no episode before IV. Thou shalt not make unto thee any Trekkie image. Remember the sabbath, May the Fourth be with ye. Honor that Han Solo shot first. You get the idea.

I associated myself with a Wiccan coven for a few years and found their moral and social tenets (particularly the Wiccan Rede) to be as close to a non-objectionable religion as I've found, without looking real hard. Maybe Zen Buddhism is good, too. I don't know.

The main tenet of the Rede should be part of every moral code, religious or not.: "An ye do no harm, do as ye will" (they like old style English). For myself, I take that rede quite expansively. For example, I think failing to support and contribute to social safety nets for people who need assistance is 'doing harm' to society. Failing to support quality and all-inclusive education and health care is 'doing harm' to society. Failing to vote for responsible leaders is 'doing harm' to society.

The other aspects of Wicca were a mixed bag for me. I really like the ceremonies, the symbolism but can't accept the notion of other planes of existence, their concept of energy and other things without evidence, of which I see none that is credible. I can't believe in the more literal interpretations of the goddess and god figures.

But in answer to the OP question (what would I want), I want a religion where I'm the universally accepted figure of authority, so I make the rules and everyone else follows them without question. It would be so great. So great. It would have the best words. Believe me.

What sort of holidays would you like in your religion?

If the sun is an important religious symbol, then tropical events, such as solstices, equinoxes and cross-quarter days would be options. What your religious symbolism prefers might affect what date you want as New Years. Some cultures want to set this at the low-point in the cycle, so both day and year start at the middle of the dark time - midnight and the winter solstice. Some prefer the rising sun, so the day and year start at morning and the vernal equinox. Others prefer the day to end when the sun sets, so they start the new day at nightfall and the autumnal equinox.

The moon, planets and stars might have symbolism too, especially if you embrace constellations. Is Gemini a sign of working together or splitting apart?