I don't think the word ‘religious’ applies to one who created his own spiritual patchwork, cut from the cloth of various faiths and philosophies. There is truth and untruth in all of them. — emancipate

That is where the term ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ applies. There are many people in that category nowadays.

I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA up my family tree, and this genetic history is a source of influence which was built in to my brain before I was even born. — Jake

I know just what you mean, but I wonder if it’s ‘genetic’ or actually ‘mimetic’, i.e. propogated through culture and language rather than, or in addition to, genes. After all, h. sapiens is subject to a very long period of extra-somatic conditioning in the 18 years from birth to adult-hood.

But I also accept archetypal psychology - that religious and spiritual beings and symbols are representations of, or instantiations of, archetypal realities that exist on the level of the collective psyche. Outside the writing of Jung and his followers, however, there is little recognition of these factors.

It's kind of funny, because my mum was Christened, and her parents kind of pushed Catholicism on her through her childhood, though she rejected it. So I have Catholic links in my family. And also, much of my family has ginger hair: mum, uncle, gran, grandad, cousins. But do I identify as Catholic or ginger haired? No, because that would be dumb. Do I believe in God? Do I go to church? No. Does my natural hair look a sort of orange colour? No. It looks brown. If you're Jewish, and you're talking about ethnicity - curly hair and the like - then fine. But that's clearly not what this discussion was supposed to be about. That's about as relevant as my brown hair and green eyes.

You belong to a religion if you believe what you're supposed to believe and do what you're supposed to do in accordance with that religion, otherwise it's just sentimental nonsense.

One in every 200 men alive today is a relative of Genghis Khan. How many identify as Mongols? How many go raiding on horseback with a bow and arrow?

I am not sure a belief is a creed. The first word is the translation of the other so that is a problem.
The identification of faith by items declared to be accepted by the believer always seemed odd to me. If such and such is the case, why would anyone care if I swore to it being so?
The announcement seems too large. Uninteresting even.

I also accept archetypal psychology - that religious and spiritual beings and symbols are representations of, or instantiations of, archetypal realities that exist on the level of the collective psyche. Outside the writing of Jung and his followers, however, there is little recognition of these factors. — wayfarer

Rather they’re recognized in different frameworks, such as social psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

Social beings need meaning, and religions are like fast food franchises: neat little mindless prepackaged nuggets of meaning that are efficiency spoon fed to the masses.

Heaven forbid anyone seek or think for themselves.

But I also accept archetypal psychology - that religious and spiritual beings and symbols are representations of, or instantiations of, archetypal realities that exist on the level of the collective psyche. — Wayfarer

Sorry, can you say that again in English?

It's OK, I'll translate.

Religions all disagree with each other, and with science, that doesn't look too good for the modern theist, so let's make up some shit about 'archetypes' to make it all sound a bit more united. Oh... and we'd better make it on some 'special level' to prevent anyone actually checking whether it's real or not.

It's OK, I'll translate.

Religions all disagree with each other, and with science, that doesn't look too good for the modern theist, so let's make up some shit about 'archetypes' to make it all sound a bit more united. Oh... and we'd better make it on some 'special level' to prevent anyone actually checking whether it's real or not. — Isaac

:lol: :up:

No Hindus here? That surprises me given the activity of the site.

Strictly atheist theologically, but I find the teachigs/texts of most religions to be insightful literature about philosophy and human psychology.

Things to consider and inform, but not necessarily follow as dogma.

You sound like a "Jordan Peterson" kind of Christian. I think that's a very respectable view, if that's the case. :smile: