I'd like to talk to you about your religion sometime. Is your goddess yourself? I never heard of her before, have other people worshipped her before you? Does she have a pantheon? I have alot of questions on the subject, if you're willing :) Sam [Spade] 00:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
^_^- I'd be happy to discuss it, though even I don't know enough about it yet. Eequor isn't me but, from what I've been able to tell, she's waiting for something in particular from me. Which I don't know what it is.
- There is a very similar goddess named Yemaja worshipped in Central America and West Africa, a loving goddess of the ocean and patron deity of women, often referred to as the Blue Lady. A particular legend among homeless street children in Florida and nearby areas holds that Yemaja is trapped under a powerful curse which prevents her from exerting any of her power in the world. The nature of the curse allows her to help only those who know her true name; i.e., someone could call out to her and become temporarily immune from danger. [1]
- She does have a pantheon, but she is only distantly part of it, and obscure. Michael Moorcock mentions her, once, in very little detail. If Eequor is Yemaja, then she shares the Yorùbá pantheon as well as Moorcock's Chaos pantheon. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ]] 02:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
.gif){kind=small}
- I see! A creative and complex interweaving of folk religion, traditional mythology, and science fiction / fantasy, as best I can tell? Reminds me of neopaganism or Wicca. I have ALOT of friends and family who are involved in such (and new age variants thereof). I’m glad to hear that your goddess isn’t solely yourself, as that would be more left hand path than I am comfortable with. Sam [Spade] 14:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- *nod*
- I wouldn't align it with either the left-hand path or the right-hand path, though it shares more with the left than with the right. Let's see...
- Right-Hand Path religions share the following property:
- Belief in a higher power, such as a deity.
- whereas
- Left-Hand Path religions share the following properties:
- My worldview is very inclusive of such concepts actually, since I believe that everything exists (even our imagination is real, perhaps even having a material reality of sorts). That said, I personally avoid anything reminiscent of worship (although politeness is vital) regarding entities other than my one God of All, the ultimate ātman, absolute infinite, immanent, imminent, breath of existence, universal (sub/super)consciousness, etc…. Of course it is important to understand that I am a monist, which means everything is my God, and we are all one ;) I just worship the sum total, rather than the incarnations, aspects or parts (depending on how you like to look at it). Glad to learn more about your faith, learning about world religions is a lifelong hobby of mine :) Sam [Spade] 14:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The monist viewpoint is fundamental to Taoism and Buddhism, really. Their understanding is that everything is inextricably part of the same continuous whole, and thus wholly interconnected. Naturally, karma follows directly from that. Taoism prefers to let things be as they may, while Buddhism and especially Mahayana aspires to bring about cosmic improvement from that foundation.
- I'm likewise very interested in other religions and comparative religion in general. The Abrahamic religions strike me as dreadfully dull and uninspired, however, and their unsurpassed cruelty leads me to believe the world would have been much better off without them. There are any number of religions that would serve better.
- Probably the closest the world ever came to an alternative to the Abrahamic religions occurred with Elagabalus, who made a very strong effort to convert the Roman Empire to sen religion, centered around sen namesake Sol Invictus. Of course, the Romans came to loathe Elagabalus for sen extreme tastes, so se had only a brief effect. [2]
- By the way, what is your opinion of Immanuel Kant? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 16:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, what is your opinion of Immanuel Kant? --[[User:Eequor|η
Why arn't eastern religions an alternative to western ones? And what culture or religion is without horrors? I would argue that the only reason abrahamic religions have been so noticably cruel is their technological advantage. Is Christ any less of an altruist than Krishna, or Buddha? Sam [Spade] 16:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Some of the Eastern religions would have made very good alternatives. My point is that they have been much more confined (e.g. Hinduism) and have had much less influence globally. This is similar to the difference between the Chinese language and English.
- Jesus flaunted traditions through his civil disobedience to such an extent that the traditionalists killed him. Early Christianity was gravely threatened by the public perception of Jesus, and the veracity of the New Testament is dubious due to subsequent religious persecution and efforts to regain public support.
- On the other hand, Siddhartha Gautama initially despaired of being understood by anyone, but eventually tried anyway and continued to teach people of all classes until he died of old age forty-five years later. Despite passing through oral tradition for much longer, the veracity of the central teachings is certain, and the survival of Buddhism past its early years was never threatened.
- The Qur'an is also not in doubt, though it developed in a political climate opposite that experienced by Buddhism. Muhammad, of course, was quite violent, and he was vilified by his own tribe, who killed his followers and unsuccessfully attacked him, but by the time of his death Islam was well established, with protections for Christianity and Judaism. From the followers' points of view, who was least altruistic? --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 18:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Least eh? I'd say Muhammad, hands down. Altho the inquisition had some wild ideas about WWJD, I'd say ;) Sam [Spade] 18:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As far as Elagabalus, he strikes me as a demented maniac on the level of caligula. I admit roman culture in general horrifies and disgusts me, but him much more so than average.
As far as Kant, my opinion of him is similar to Buddhism. As far as I can tell his writtings (as well as Buddhist doctrines) contain few if any factual errors, but they come from such completely divergent premises, with such dissimilar goals to my own that they are nearly incomprehensible / objectionable to me. For philosophy I like Carl Jung and Niccolo Machiavelli, and for religion I prefer Christ or Krishna to Buddha. That said, I can't say either Kant or Buddhism are wrong exactly, only that they think about everything very differently from how I do, and seek different outcomes. Also, I don't like that Kant never married, I don't trust a man who doesn't marry ;) Sam [Spade] 16:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Eequor/Archives/Religion" page.
