It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.


We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire.
— Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow. — Outlander

Your post contains so many thoughts I can not absorb them all at one time so I have attempted to file your post where it will be easy for me to find it and digest more slowly. I am not sure but I think you are associating our physical form with evil and that we need a God to liberate us from that? Please correct me if I am wrong. As I said I see a lot in your post and can not digest it all at once. For me, this is a huge field full of flowers and I want to smell all of them.

You triggered my notion of the gods being concepts and saying incantations, is the way to activate their power. Oh, oh, this is so much fun! :grin: Without a word for a concept, we can not be aware of it. Our consciousness being very dependent on words. Demeter is the goddess of motherhood and a troubled mother may call on her for help in being a better mother. We know this works, but does that mean the goddess is real? If we have the concept, how can that not be real? And in the beginning, was the word.

Also, you triggered my memory of a Hindu explanation of our physical needs being excessive and that we need to learn to control ourselves. I liked the Hindu explanation far better than the Christian one. I think the concept of evil is problematic, and for sure focusing on evil makes it powerful. So if we need to loose weight, our focus needs to be on what we want, not on what we do not want.

For your use of the word "institution". An institution is something that I understand to be external to me. I may want to be part of an institution for learning that expands my consciousness but not an institution such as a prison, that is about restricting my freedom. I think you said institutions are about restricting our freedom. An institution may require a sacrifice of liberty the benefit the institution adds to our life? The institution and sacrifice is a concept we might expand further. I think such institutions are associated with technology and advancing human potential, but we may have to sacrifice some liberty for the benefit.

Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.

And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.

In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (1 Cor. 6:19) — Apollodorus

We have a spirit that is never separate from us. That spirit may be happy or sad, but it is not external like a God we can reject or who can reject us. Perhaps you are saying the Holy Ghost is equal to our spirit but then why associate it with a God who is external to our being? I think we are quibbling over the meaning of words, as the Christians who killed each other over the argument of if Jesus was the son of God or God himself, was a problem of language. Some holding the trinity of God was making 3 gods out of one with others thinking all three are different aspects of the same thing.

This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh?

This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh? — Athena

According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34)

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (John 1:12)

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48)

Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. This comes very close to the Platonic teaching to the effect that man must strive to become as godlike as possible, and it implies that on a higher level we are, in fact, godlike.

But I am not sure this is something that Ancient Celts would have recognized as part of their tradition. My guess would be that when moderns speak of “Celtic spirituality”, they really mean “Neo-Celtic” or simply some kind of New-Age concoction. In which case I think it would be more honest to not label it “Celtic”.

The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion. — Jack Cummins

The fact of the institutionalization and totalitarianism of structured religions are its socio-political foundations of the period; religions in which the leaders did not seek to reach a conclusion that would free Man from the shackles of the secular world, but that would enslave him to a false hope of salvation in the afterlife selected by the institution of such a religion, in all aspects of the population's life.

Meanwhile, the "tribal" "shamanistic" religions of a society established not by a state but by an organization based on the traditions of a common people, usually base themselves on the aspect of freedom and "good principles" objectively, by the fact of the necessity of such concepts for such a society to be maintained.

In any case, both are concepts created for the greater ease of structuring society; the only difference is that one needs its values to be forced on society - dogma - so that the power of those belonging to the state remains indefinitely, while the other needs its principles to be practiced by free will for the general good of society itself.

"Dogmatic religions need their society, while unstructured religions need their values for their society."

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous. — Jack Cummins

This is an optimistic perception which in most cases does not occur, because - as Nietzsche would say - a population, whose values and principles were called into question, to effectively want to restructure itself with the same pillars to be questioned, needs a willpower only found in an "Übermensch", which, as we can see from studying history, and contemporary society itself, does not exist.

What happens with a society without metaphysical support, is that it, through its anguish caused by the need for "meaning", ends up being taken by the extremes of the worst aspects of the principles of other religions, ideologies, cultures, etc...

In my search for the total theorization of Egoism as a path to the "Übermensch", it became clear that humanity is not yet ready for the total annihilation of the belief in beings other than itself.

And the symptoms of this "re-culturation for lack of principles" can already be seen in the Western world. I'm sure that, in the next 200, 300 years, Islam will be the new foundation for the Western world.

Will this be harmful in the short term? Totally. Get ready for the new "Dark Ages" where the world won't make any sense.

But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again.

As Hegel would say:

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis.

"No eternal reward
will forgive us Now
for wasting the dawn"

I hear Jim Morrison talking here. "Mr Mojo Risin"... — Thunderballs

:up:

Down Heraclitus' river and over the falls into Epicurus' atomic void: I'm an ecstatic materialist ... *apotheosis or extinction!* — 180 Proof

... take the red pill.

What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? Does it mean that we are allowed to use unnecessary entities in our interpretations(because I spotted some) or to be poetic about facts of reality? Is there an other practical value of this notion(to avoid a possible false dichotomy)

I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism. — Apollodorus

That is a true statement. We can know about 600 people. That means in a city with 6000 people most of them are going to be strangers. Things get more bureaucratic and less personal when there are more people. Before we reach the limit of our ability to know each other, things are handled personally. You do something I don't like, and I hit you, or maybe I tell others what you did and they will stop being friendly with you. If the conflict gets bad enough one of us leaves with his friends and establish and camp far away. At this point, there was a creator and maybe animals that were talked about in stories. There is a sense of equality with animals and likely everything has its own spirit. Nothing is separate from the life force. We can know these things through the sciences that study humans, and archeology, anthropology.

Then in Sumer and elsewhere, we see many gods. Large populations now require bureaucracies to manage the lives of people who live together as strangers. It becomes obvious one god can not do everything so there is a bureaucracy of gods. Every time a new concept is discovered, there is a new god and this becomes a big problem because the population of gods gets too big and unmanageable. This brings on the study of the gods and a search for the one true god. Eventually, we get to secular laws and people forget the gods. What is concerning to me, is the externalization of God and the move from nature to supernatural beings, and our separation from our own spiritual consciousness and authority. Relying on what a religious leader tells us is so, instead of our own spirituality, cuts us off from the spirit that is in all things and these sad people can live in fear of a revengeful, punishing, and fearsome God, and suffer a sense of being cut off from Him. The degree to which bureaucracies, including bureaucratic religions, control our lives threatens our liberty and our spiritual experience.

According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements: — Apollodorus

Only if everything else is also of the spirit. If anything is not of the spirit, there is separation. We live disconnected from mother earth and our brothers and sisters who are different from us. That god in heaven is very different from the spirit of our planet, a living organism, and life.

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

Are you using that to argue we are not separate from God? I do not follow that logic. If we are spiritual beings having a human experience, there is nothing to receive, except maybe knowledge of "the word", logos, the controlling force of the universe. We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning.

Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. — Apollodorus

Is this true of all animals? Then let us erect our totem poles, because I really do not believe a God made us different from the rest of the animal realm, except we have the power of language. What does it mean to be God-like? Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. That is painful. So the pain of separation becomes a justification for our need of God and then we must turn to a religious authority to tell us of God and explain sin to us, even though Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. That looks like really bad logic to me.

↪Athena What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? Does it mean that we are allowed to use unnecessary entities in our interpretations(because I spotted some) or to be poetic about facts of reality? Is there an other practical value of this notion(to avoid a possible false dichotomy) — Nickolasgaspar

That is an excellent question. For me, it is a feeling of being one with the universe. It is having deep respect for all life and seeing our planet and a living organism that needs to be protected. It is an appreciation for the gifts of nature, and not taking them for granted. But I can only speak for myself. I do not have the authority to speak for anyone else.

I would say the practical value is not destroying our planet and not going to war. Self-defense is probably a good idea, but we might want to start that with consideration for others and reasoning with them. Sending drones to kill unknown people is not okay. Dropping nuclear bombs is not okay. Destroying the environment of indigenous people so I can extract the mineral resources in their ground is not okay.

Yes. The Celts, Native Americans, and others will rapidly kick out an impostor.
Their spirituality might seem "more true", "more natural", but they will never accept you as an equal member unless you were born and raised by them. And even then there's no guarantee. — baker

There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us.

But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again. — Gus Lamarch

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have.

We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning. — Athena

Exactly. Learning who we really are. Self-knowledge is the central aim of philosophy.

Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. — Athena

Being godlike is not the same as being God. Nothing to do with "controlling" anything.

If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. — Athena

1. "Perfect" as far as humanly possible. On the other hand, if we don't want to improve ourselves, what does this say about us?

2. If we must be spiritual, then we live in fear of never being spiritual (or good) enough and we feel cut off from all that is spiritual ....

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have. — Athena

It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.

Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO.

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have. — Athena

I don't believe that in our lifetime an event as big as a "war" of the proportions you refer to - religious wars - will happen.

It is very likely that we will see the total distortion and degradation of our Western society by the end of the century - principally in Europe and in on the USA -.

It only remains for us to archive the knowledge that will eventually be lost again, and warn the blighted masses of their wrongdoings so that in the end, we can become the saints of a new era.

By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun — Apollodorus

Indeed...

I don't believe that in our lifetime an event as big as a "war" of the proportions you refer to - religious wars - will happen. — Gus Lamarch

If it does happen, it will be in places like Africa, Mid East, India, Indonesia.

In the West Islam is far more likely to spread as it has done for decades - through immigration, high birth-rates, and conversions. Too gradual and peaceful for non-Muslims to feel motivated to put up resistance ....

It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.

Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO. — Apollodorus

Kind of like in the US don't you think? Some states still have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. The Bible does say the man is to be head of household. Like Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism. Just like Mormons and Jehova Witnesses and Southern Baptist are the same religion but from slightly different perspectives. My X husband and my friend's husbands were as controlling as the males in Afghanistan and Women's Liberation has made a big difference. I think we know what those women are fighting against because we had to fight the fight.

Okay, Christianity is no better than Judaism or Islam and I am done with this thread if you all want to turn this thread against Muslims as though it were not the same patriarchy as the other two. I will not tolerate that because it is not just an intellectual debate but the words of religious war. No forum should tolerate those words of war. It is too serious and the enemy of all women and children.

Ancient Celtic Religion - Wikipedia

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

They're dead and gone, so they're fair game for anyone who wants to romanticize them.
Rather rude, in my opinion.

In the West Islam is far more likely to spread as it has done for decades - through immigration, high birth-rates, and conversions. — Apollodorus

And Turkish soap operas! They are promoting Islam lite, offering a point of contact between Western culture (soap operas depicting romance, personal and family tribulations) and Muslim culture (those tribulations are effectively addressed within the Muslim religious context, wjhich can nevertheless be made to appear secular enough).

What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? — Nickolasgaspar

To suck up to whatever New Age guru currently holds our fancy.

There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us. — Athena

When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).

Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).

The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.

It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs.

Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? — Athena

How is "getting in touch with your feelings" going to help with anything?

And "getting in touch with your feelings" according to whose idea of "getting in touch with your feelings"?

Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications.

That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others.

How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?

Eh?

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory? — Athena

Why should this be the relevant dichotomy?

When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).

Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).

The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.

It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs. — baker

I truly like what you said. Let us work with "Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that)".

We have one planet. Science has caught up with the notion that of Gia, and the planet being a living organism, and knowing we are killing the organs of this organism we call earth. What is more sacred than living in harmony with the planet that gives us life?

Next point- logos, reason is the controlling force of the universe.

The 10 tribes that agreed to become one nation were the Sioux, Mississippian, Apache, Navajo, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw, Cherokee and the Iroquois. The Shoshone and Anishinaabe joined the federation two years later. These people carry the belief that a man gave them the way of peace, that is our human capacity for reason. Democracy is rule by reason if people understand that or not. It was understood by Greeks and the Native Americans. It is democracy that gave us peace, not religion!

Can we put that together with what you said binds us as a community? We take from the earth and we carry an obligation to our earth and all life on the earth. We achieve agreements and have peace through reason.

That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others. — baker

That is our sacred duty as indigenous people have understood it since the beginning of time.

No idea was ever shared by many until it was communicated to others. The tribes did not live in peace, until a man gave them with the idea that peace is possible through reason. Ideas are like safety pins. When people understand the benefit of one, everyone wants it. When there is a problem, that is a lack of good reasoning. Our sacred duty at this time is not only to our earth and all life, but also to learn all we can from the geologists, archeologists, and related sciences and to rethink what we believe is true so that we might know truth. We are at a crossroads. Either we enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny, or we self-destruct. We need philosophy to make that transition.

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?
— Athena

Why should this be the relevant dichotomy? — baker

Because it is the difference between the police state we have become or having the democracy we think we have. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. Until 1958 the priority purpose of education in the US was education for good moral judgment and good citizenship. The 1950 National Defense Education Act ended that and replaced it with education for the Military-Industrial complex which is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. Now a guard stands at the door of our hospital and we can not enter without the covid protocol and the question "are you carrying a weapon" with a security guard standing there in case you are stupid enough to say you are carrying a weapon. This came about when we called in the National Gaurd to help our overwhelmed hospital. Years ago, our Social Security office gained a permanent armed security guard. Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture.

Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture. — Athena

What is the psychology or reasoning that leads people to think a culture based around the security/subversion conflict is even appealing? Obviously if we lack robust security measures, civilization will become almost apocalyptic, and if we are unwilling to maintain freedoms that make subversion of even conscientious types possible, social and probably technological progress will almost come to a standstill, but why does this dynamic even exist in the first place? As an individual I have no need for security measures nor subversion, so why does this clash dominate social planning? Is it perpetuated by the fact that no one senses the license to discuss it in honest ways? It seems like something about human history or herd instinct perhaps is weighing down the enlightened, empowered present with paranoia and neuroses that have no basis in any realistic picture of cause and consequence.

They are promoting Islam lite, offering a point of contact between Western culture (soap operas depicting romance, personal and family tribulations) and Muslim culture (those tribulations are effectively addressed within the Muslim religious context, wjhich can nevertheless be made to appear secular enough). — baker

I think "secular" is the key word. Islam has always been the sweetheart of the Left who see Islam as a form of atheism (invisible god, no religious images, etc.) that will rid the world of Christianity for them. Hence their constant appeasement of Islam.

It reminds one of Churchill's comment about appeasing the enemy:

Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.

I think the downfall of Western civilization will be due to its craving for drama, for emotionalism, for hedonic pursuits. Islam lite is a stepping stone in this process.