Religious Theory Feedback.

Thoughts on this theory?

I totally agree with it!	28.6%	[ 2 ]
I see the logic, but I only agree to an extent.	14.3%	[ 1 ]
I see the logic, but Im not really for or against it.	0.0%	[ 0 ]
I see the logic, but I dont really believe in it.	28.6%	[ 2 ]
I dont see the logic at all.	28.6%	[ 2 ]
Total Votes:			[ 7 ]

[Xiam]

Lieutenant Selver

Xiam

Lieutenant Selver

Xiam

Lieutenant Selver

Xiam

And that's your own decision. I only came into Pantheism recently, and it doesn't really matter in terms of the whole concept you're describing anyway. Pantheism is just another facet, really... another attempt at explaining the patterns underlying reality. Just as science does, and just as the various theistic cosmological models do.

You're right. And the point of this is to try and add some solidity to this theory.
I realize from a polytheistic standpoint, this theory has no measure of truth at all, but it was a concept that had been on my mind for some time and I wanted to find others' thoughts on it.

Eh, I wouldn't count it out just yet. Polytheistic deities provide personifications for forces of nature or human abstracts. Something even monotheistic religions do, either out of their god originating from an earlier polytheist form, or attributes being assigned to it otherwise, or attributes being placed off on minor beings like angels, or saints, or demons. The archetypes take many forms, so they're still very similar in structure.

It's been brought to my attention that my theory is very similar to Perennialism. I hadnt found Perennialism while I was searching for evidence of others with similar theories.

Also, on a different forum board, someone flipped my theory around. While my theory has a monotheistic founding and theorizes at the creation of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions, the flipped version begins with a polytheistic founding and theorizes at the creation of both. This was an interesting twist to ponder. However, I dont believe the Tower of Babel would provide any support for the polytheistic version.

I don't believe much of anything would provide any support for the Tower of Babel, either. talk2hand

Eh well. Theories are just that, theories. They get tested, debated and revised.
Kinda hard to test something you cant even see though, so we skip to the debate and revision.
All religions are just beliefs with no proof. So you're right, there's no real proof for the Tower of Babel, but there's no proof for any of the other religions as well.

I dunno, Buddhism has a pretty good grasp on it. I mean, maybe just the atheistic form (I think Theravada Buddhism) which focuses purely on a psychological approach of self-improvement, but still...

[Operator Selver]

Xiam

Lieutenant Selver

Xiam

Lieutenant Selver

Xiam

Eh, I wouldn't count it out just yet. Polytheistic deities provide personifications for forces of nature or human abstracts. Something even monotheistic religions do, either out of their god originating from an earlier polytheist form, or attributes being assigned to it otherwise, or attributes being placed off on minor beings like angels, or saints, or demons. The archetypes take many forms, so they're still very similar in structure.

It's been brought to my attention that my theory is very similar to Perennialism. I hadnt found Perennialism while I was searching for evidence of others with similar theories.

Also, on a different forum board, someone flipped my theory around. While my theory has a monotheistic founding and theorizes at the creation of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions, the flipped version begins with a polytheistic founding and theorizes at the creation of both. This was an interesting twist to ponder. However, I dont believe the Tower of Babel would provide any support for the polytheistic version.

I don't believe much of anything would provide any support for the Tower of Babel, either. talk2hand

Eh well. Theories are just that, theories. They get tested, debated and revised.
Kinda hard to test something you cant even see though, so we skip to the debate and revision.
All religions are just beliefs with no proof. So you're right, there's no real proof for the Tower of Babel, but there's no proof for any of the other religions as well.

I dunno, Buddhism has a pretty good grasp on it. I mean, maybe just the atheistic form (I think Theravada Buddhism) which focuses purely on a psychological approach of self-improvement, but still...

Personally, I view Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, as it has no god and actually has a little bit more tangible evidence than the others seem to.

[AvenirLegacy]

If all we know as Truths are derived from the act of Communication, then to immediate pounce that would queue it as original Sin. To further elaborate "Ignorance is Bliss"

It could be said that the pursuit of knowledge, given by natural instinct as an ability to protect ourselves, and to enlighten us into the ways of the world, could be the fault and the pride of our entire species. If communication is the sire of all that we know, then by this simple act of communicating in the modern age, we adhere to our relentless pursuit of Knowledge, and if I daresay "Wisdom".

[The Catfish Blues]

Lieutenant Selver

The Catfish Blues

You did no actual research into the history of religions.

The timeline over which religions and philosophies developed has nothing to do with the fundamental concept of my theory. The principle that they could all be facets still stand.

Except yahweh for example was a minor deity who rose to prominence. monotheism is a very new concept. Your theory has no basis in reality.

[Operator Selver]

The Catfish Blues

Lieutenant Selver

The Catfish Blues

You did no actual research into the history of religions.

The timeline over which religions and philosophies developed has nothing to do with the fundamental concept of my theory. The principle that they could all be facets still stand.

Except yahweh for example was a minor deity who rose to prominence. monotheism is a very new concept. Your theory has no basis in reality.

It does, actually. And theories are always being revised. The point of this topic was not to come out and say that I had a perfect theory.
You can take your destructive criticism elsewhere.

[Doctrix]

I suggest avoiding calling unitarianism your theory and naming it "facetism," since the idea is not a unique one at all. In fact, it is the basis of entire religions (e.g. Baha'i), entire spiritual movements (e.g. Share International on the Reappearance of Meitreya) and many authors' writing careers (e.g. Dione Fortune for the polytheist/panentheist perspective). Though I don't subscribe to it, myself, there is a large body of scholarly research and spiritual leadership to which you can turn to learn instead of reinventing the wheel.

[Operator Selver]

Doctrix

I suggest avoiding calling unitarianism your theory and naming it "facetism," since the idea is not a unique one at all. In fact, it is the basis of entire religions (e.g. Baha'i), entire spiritual movements (e.g. Share International on the Reappearance of Meitreya) and many authors' writing careers (e.g. Dione Fortune for the polytheist/panentheist perspective). Though I don't subscribe to it, myself, there is a large body of scholarly research and spiritual leadership to which you can turn to learn instead of reinventing the wheel.

This is not Unitarianism at all. This theory does not revolve around the Holy Trinity in any way.
In fact, the one true god could just simply be a spiritual essence.
It's been brought to my attention on other forum boards that this theory is actually very similar to Perennialism more so than Pantheism.

EDIT: Dont get me wrong, I have no intention to plagiarise anything that already exists. Part of posting this topic out here was to find out what theories and philosophies like it already existed.

[Samadhi23]

I consider this to be a highly accurate theory in principle (although I am not necessarily agreeing with the type of examples used). It is generally referred to as Perennialism. I am not familiar with your terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

I find using gnostic methods in combination with an open outlook to consider the base truths behind all religion to be one of the fastest and most accurate ways to not only achieve enlightenment but to retain more linguistic flexibility to bring it back here with.

[Operator Selver]

Samadhi23

I consider this to be a highly accurate theory in principle (although I am not necessarily agreeing with the type of examples used). It is generally referred to as Perennialism. I am not familiar with your terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

I find using gnostic methods in combination with an open outlook to consider the base truths behind all religion to be one of the fastest and most accurate ways to not only achieve enlightenment but to retain more linguistic flexibility to bring it back here with.

Yes, I had been informed of Perennialism yesterday. I think the majority of the problem with this theory is that people write off the "proof" i.e. the Tower of Babel theory due to simple disbelief or already established beliefs. But the fundamental concept of the theory is something I believe to be sound. I'll have to do more in depth reading on Perennialism.

[Doctrix]

Lieutenant Selver

Doctrix

I suggest avoiding calling unitarianism your theory and naming it "facetism," since the idea is not a unique one at all. In fact, it is the basis of entire religions (e.g. Baha'i), entire spiritual movements (e.g. Share International on the Reappearance of Meitreya) and many authors' writing careers (e.g. Dione Fortune for the polytheist/panentheist perspective). Though I don't subscribe to it, myself, there is a large body of scholarly research and spiritual leadership to which you can turn to learn instead of reinventing the wheel.

This is not Unitarianism at all. This theory does not revolve around the Holy Trinity in any way.

I'm sorry to have confused you. I was referring to unitarianism as the pluralistic liberal religious movement, not Unitarian Christian theology, and none of my above examples are from Christianity. My apologies, as I relied on my context to give clarity, where obviously it did not. If I have used the wrong term for you, it is from my own personal ignorance of Christianity, but the monotheists I mentioned may be able to educate you further. Good luck!

[Operator Selver]

Doctrix

Lieutenant Selver

Doctrix

I suggest avoiding calling unitarianism your theory and naming it "facetism," since the idea is not a unique one at all. In fact, it is the basis of entire religions (e.g. Baha'i), entire spiritual movements (e.g. Share International on the Reappearance of Meitreya) and many authors' writing careers (e.g. Dione Fortune for the polytheist/panentheist perspective). Though I don't subscribe to it, myself, there is a large body of scholarly research and spiritual leadership to which you can turn to learn instead of reinventing the wheel.

This is not Unitarianism at all. This theory does not revolve around the Holy Trinity in any way.

I'm sorry to have confused you. I was referring to unitarianism as the pluralistic liberal religious movement, not Unitarian Christian theology, and none of my above examples are from Christianity. My apologies, as I relied on my context to give clarity, where obviously it did not. If I have used the wrong term for you, it is from my own personal ignorance of Christianity, but the monotheists I mentioned may be able to educate you further. Good luck!

I see, I'll have to look more into your statement then