![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Designing Your Own God
I often hear a lot of negative attitudes from Christians and people practicing traditional spiritual forms about how bad it is to go around designing your own “do-it-yourself” religion. But rarely have I seen anybody give a really nice succint reason as to why it’s not going to get you anywhere.
Until now.
This comes from a very short item on designing your own religion:
[…] we only learn by submitting to something bigger than we are. The faith I was building out of my prejudices and preconceptions could never be bigger than I was. I was constructing a safe, tidy, unsurprising God who could never transform me, but would only confirm my residence in that familiar bog I called home.
This to me makes a whole lot of sense. At least moreso than anything else I’ve read in this vein. Perhaps though it is possible to build for yourself a god or a spirituality which is truly transformative and transcendent. But maybe it requires a truly collosal imagination, strength of character and dedication to something beyond yourself. In either case, I’m curious to hear other people’s reactions to this argument.
December 16th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Read instead of we, HE(I), i.e, his ego, only learns by submitting to something bigger (beta male submitting to alpha male). This sounds more like level 2 primate circitry with a smack of neuro linguistic programming than new research. anyone that is ignorant of Dr. Learys 8 circuit model of consciousness and talk about higher levels of being have nothing more to add to contemporary disscusions of these sorts of things, IMHO. *ducks*
December 16th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
yeah, what is with all this dominance and submission stuff anyhoo. i thought that went out with blue oyster cult.
December 16th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
but seriously though, the experience of transcendence is a neurological process that can be emulated in a number of ways.
in the early sixties a group of ministers were given lsd and told to give a detailed report when they came down (back?). the documents were evaluated by thoelogical phd types who said that the experiences contained elements of genuine religious experience. this documentary was broadcast on the bbc some years ago. i found part of it on imesh. the name of the documentary escapes me for the moment.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
How did we get so many “real” religions if people didn’t design their own? Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, all of the little breakaway Baptist and Protestant denominations, lots of Jewish categories, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. etc. This seems to me a silly argument designed to keep the power in the hands of whatever Church is arguing it.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Well, the point I took away from it is that its not necessarily productive to have a “safe” or comfortable religion or spirituality, which doesn’t challenge you. Many people who craft their own spirituality do so based around what appeals to them or what “feels right” for them, whereas the idea of God or divinity maybe should go beyond what simply sounds neat or makes you happy. Arguably, many people who didn’t create their own unique spiritual tradition have the same problems.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
i don’t know, i can think of a pretty good criticism of cut-n-paste religions, which is that they’re not part of a long-standing tradition. there’s something to be said for participating in a tradition going back thousands of years. even martin luther, joseph smith et al “designed” their religions as parts of a tradition, that of christianity.
and as for those who aren’t that keen on the idea of ’submitting to something bigger than one’s self,’ i understand where the author’s coming from. as limited beings with limited knowledge, it’s absolutely true that learning new things requires submitting to something that contains knowledge that we don’t already have (or at least have access to). but, then, most of the founders of various religions don’t claim to be starting them of their own volition– they’re usually doing so under the influence of god(s), external entities . . . .
December 16th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I’ve often wondered if I have the courage of my convictions; if I felt God telling me to do something that would take me out of my comfort zone (join the peace corps or something), would I do it?
I guess you don’t know until you’re in that situation. But then you’ll find out whether you’re really willing to submit to a “higher authority” or not.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
i`m an egotist (e). and i feel that what i have learned allows me to access some transcendant states outside of the dogmatic pressure of sit, kneel, pray type dogmatic cathoholic workout. it doesn`t mean that i`m resistant to new experiences, in fact if the heavens really did open and a booming voice spoke to me, i would post it here and carve a new path. meanwhile, i have an intuitive feeling that it`s all right inside waiting to be discovered and that we`re merely debating which metaphors are the right ones to access it all. i think that`s precisely what jesus was saying and that between nicea and king james it was taken out of the bible. what we are left with is a handbook of the bureaucracy. otherwise i`d be the minister my father wanted me to be.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
I’m reading Osho right now and I must say I am beginning to see God not as a noun but as a verb. Sometimes it exists other times it doesn’t.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
I don’t know a whole lot about it, but I think this is kind of like what the Church of the Subgenius does. They created their own “god” in a humourous light and it affected them positively as people.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:12 am
As many in this forum have noted, there is a difference between religion and spiritual experience. Astrologically, religion is denoted by Jupiter which rules shared ideals and theology, and the spiritual experience of a transcendant reality that reaches beyond the individual ego is denoted by Neptune. It appears to me that religions are created by humans, and who is to say that one human has any more ownership of the truth than any other? The various Christian religions and their dogmas and rituals have little to do with what Christ actually said, and that is the same for Muslims and Jews as far as I can tell. Or rather, the scriptures can be twisted by different people to mean different things. Ultimately for me I feel that the personal experience is the most powerful and has the most meaning, rather than what some theologian might tell me.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:58 am
…to allow yourself to sacrifice your personal perception of the world, and to embrace a greater vision. We are all trying to escape personal prejudices, and we’re all failing miserably, but our attempts in themselves are what we might call the “noble quality of intelligence.”
Fortunately, we can spend the rest of our lives arguing over the specifics.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:19 am
It has long seemed obvious to me that if there is a God, It doesn’t share my view of right and wrong. How many of us view God as being, at least in part, truly evil? What if Transcendence approves of oppression, injustice, ignorance, lies, murder and rape? I assume that’s why polytheistic religions needed evil gods.
December 17th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
evil gods to explain the evil shit that occurs. couldn`t possibly be the actions of people making evil shit happen………that would mean taking responsivility for one`s actions. that would mean growing up. as flip wilson used to say, ” the devil made me do it” and everyone would laugh.
the cathoholics have this really cool thing they do which basically says, ” go and be a fucker all week long, crap on people, steal, lie, cheat, fuck your wife`s friend, ruin opportunities for others, whatever your shit little heart desires, then on sunday sit in a box and tell the priest you`re really sorry and he`ll tell you the price to pay in prayer and you`re good to go for another week of low tone destruction.
if i was a shitty little person that`s precisely what i would want to be part of.
permission to never have to change. except the creeping guilt thing to pass on to the next generation. but that`s what alcohol is for. oblivion.
my religion has clear cut goals.
run a bit faster, score goals, be a good team-mate. watch my diet, train hard, build up good relations with the other teams in the league. pass as well as shoot, be a reasonable manager. build something of value.
it`s not impossible but it stretches me to find new ways of doing things and when problems arise i work with others with an optimistic idea that a solution is possible.
religion could be that, if it was soccer.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Alistair, when you talk about Catholics, it makes me wonder what happened to your whole “be happy for no reason” thing. Why not apply the same principle to other areas?
December 17th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
well, i`m a human too.
further to that, i always question faith. there has to be some doability to life, at least that`s my hope. this passive, it`ll be o.k. on the other side thing is really silly. what about the now thing. the everyday, wake up and smile a go out into the world. we are knee, well actually neck deep in the christmas orgy of spending now and it`s all tied into the church an sunday, mythology of religion. the celebration of the birth of christ pornographically played out in the mall. there`s little humanity in that. it`s just consumerism.
the be happy for no reason thing still works. i didn`t say you have to still put your head in the lion`s mouth. that wouldn`t be the action of a happy person.
the be happy mechanism is an application that functions beautifully. it allows me a level of cynicism that is entertaining. i`m not so bothered by the trivial things anymore. religion for instance. it is merely a favourite of mine when pointing out some of the stranger things that people in groups put up with. confession is just weird. unless you`re catholic. same with the unbelieveable fuss made over condoms.
politics is another odd thing that people continue to do. watching nfl football. soap operas. the list goes on. collecting plaster elvis statues. vinyl records. singing fish plaques.
i`m not saying don`t go to church mind you. i believe that we need to defend people`s rights to do whatever dumbass thing they want to, as long as, a) they don`t ask me to join in or, b) tell me i have to join in, or c) tell me i`m wrong if i don`t join in.
and finally, after bringing up the topic of religion in a public forum and exhibiting reasonable tolerance for a wide variety of view points one shouldn`t be too suprised that someone, eventually, is going to inventory some of the strange behaviour of the catholic church in specific and organised religion in general. and i haven`t even mentioned the creepy “celebate” men in dresses yet.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Actually, yes you have mentioned the men in dresses thing. I guess I’m just curious why you don’t drop what seems to me like a perfectly useless hang-up when you know you have the ability to do so.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:16 am
to me it`s not a hang-up. i`m pointing a finger at a system has emerged on a history of terrorism. to me thier position is akin to that of a parasite, sucking the souls out of people. maybe this isn`t the forum for such observations but i`m interested in why you feel the need to defend them. you take an iconoclastic role in many facets of cultural debate and as a gnostic i would have thought you would share in some of the ire that some feel toward the modern church. not just the silly fish hat cult either. i use them because they are almost a parody themselves.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Where did I defend them? I thought I was asking you questions. Since we were on the topic of designing your own belief systems in the healthiest way possible, I thought it was an appropriate opportunity to ask.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
yes, absolutely. and i did state clearly how i felt a belief system could be designed outside of the normal or culturally accepted idea of religion. i think,personally, that religion is a poor way to contain and develop a belief system. we have seen and discussed that learning is most comfortable when absorbed unconsciously through ritual, play, conflict, transcendance, etc. i think the strength of the internet is that it gives one the ability to sail by the dogma and maintain a search for a peek behind the curtain.
the thing last the fly needs is to be forced to ask the spider for insight.
i pecieved your desire for me to drop my hang-up as a sort of defense of cath. you may have wanted to councel me regarding my cynicism, and i respect that. i do tend to get a touch amped about, y`know……c.
i will try to modulate my responses in the future.
having said that, i feel that a personal understanding of building belief systems through semantics, neurology, and cognitive practice is powerful way to getting a grip on this thing called life.
i am reading gregg braden now after hearing him on an old art bell interview and he uses the gospels of isiah as a way of tying modern physics, spirituality and the nlp bundle together to give the actions of prayer a scientific justification, if not outright proof, for working.
i used the model of soccer as a way of utilising these practices in a useful and mundane way. much like most of life is mundane yet must be mastered if we are to really “know god” or “be happy for no reason”. there is nothing else.
for the literalists out there, “being happy for no reason”, is a trance or hallucination phrase. it is the “reason” that gets people pissy, arguementitive and divisive. being happy is a prior act for everything else in life.
why does improv work?
because the players agreed beforehand that anything thrown out by the first person would be accepted, unconditionally, and reacted to.
doesn`t work otherwise.
December 18th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
I think this answers the original post. “Feels right” does not mean “comfortable”. The lack of tradition may cause problems, but there’s always the Unitarians. ^_^
December 19th, 2005 at 1:14 am
It would seem to me that you either “create” your own god or accept a god created by someone else. And that god is full of their personal limitations and prejudices. Either way, same result. At least if you create your own god you’re taking a little personal responsibility for him. Or her. It. Whatever.
December 19th, 2005 at 1:34 am
But you’ve excluded the possibility that there is an actual God which is not merely some person’s imaginative creation.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Possibly. But I’m in the agnostic camp… there may be an actual god, but I think any conceptualization of that god is going to be skewed by whatever an individual brings to the equation. Not denying objective truth, just denying the concept that anyone can accurately define that objective truth from within their own individual/social/cultural matrix.