Omnist Igtheism

[Anonomous]

Igtheism, or Ignosticism, is usually defined as the need for an unambiguous falsifiable characterization of a deity before legitimate discussion thereof or apatheism be said characterization unfalsifiable. What I find useful in igtheism is that it allows fruitful dialogue with the religious about concepts that mean a lot to them without mandating identification with a single religious tradition. Furthermore, it allows participation in the aspects of multiple religions that one finds legitimate without requiring exclusive belief in one thereof. As these implications of Igtheism are not specified in its definition, I would like to call the religiosity that exhibits such implications Omnist Igtheism. I consider myself an Omnist Igtheist in that I relate to and participate in the religiosity of people of multiple traditions without exclusively ascribing myself to any thereof. I also think Omnist Igtheism should be differentiated from Omnism, which does not imply belief in those aspects of religions with which one agrees. I prefer it over atheism because atheism outright denies the legitimacy of all deities, which constitute a very meaningful part of many cultures. Not appreciating them limits one's ability to relate to the lives of a great many people. Although I do agree with atheism in some respects, it prevents me from formally relating to the natural spirituality of others and myself. What do peeps think of this religiosity?

 

[wil]

It doesn't seem like a religion to me yet, but a mode of discussion and contemplation of various religions..

What I find useful in igtheism is that it allows fruitful dialogue with the religious about concepts that mean a lot to them without mandating identification with a single religious tradition.

That sounds like a high bar, something we would like here buy tough to attain

However when you add the caveat below...it is exactly what we do here..

Furthermore, it allows participation in the aspects of multiple religions that one finds legitimate...

 

[Anonomous]

It doesn't seem like a religion to me yet, but a mode of discussion and contemplation of various religions..

I meant it as such

That sounds like a high bar, something we would like here buy tough to attain

What do you mean?
Also could someone help coin a symbol for Omnist Igtheism? I think its pretty legit.

 

[wil]

Grasping a little more...misread some the first time but... It seems like it doesn't really lead to discussion with theists...

. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

. And now I see where you are adding the omnism

. Omnism is the recognition and respect for all religions

but your caveat of getting select which of the all you respect weakens it.

But it is what we do here...so the symbol IO Igtheistic Omnism....interfaith.org is just the symbol you are looking for...lol

 

[Ruh Ishq]

If you are open minded enough, you will naturally understand the reality of religion.

Know well that these figures have not spoken needlessly.

All who have found That understand it to be nothing less than the purpose of his existence.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

your caveat of getting (to) select which of the all you respect weakens it.

When you experience That, it is natural to see what is attuned to it and what is ego.

Anything that creates division is wrong, without exception.

Ego basically functions as a sustainer of separation.

 

[Anonomous]

Specify what you mean by the following

reality

these figures

That

purpose of his existence.

 

[Anonomous]

When you experience That, it is natural to see what is attuned to it and what is ego.

Anything that creates division is wrong, without exception.

Ego basically functions as a sustainer of separation.

I think division and ego are realities that aren't objectively good or bad. They are realities one should except in order to embrace existence. That doesn't necessarily mean they're beneficial.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Specify what you mean by the following

Reality I am defining as that which is actually so...

These figures are the religious founders and other enlightened souls.

That is Wholeness, that which is beyond the opposites.

Purpose of existence is to experience being.

Without this play of energy, experience cannot arise.

God cannot know himself without other, not such a disagreement with omnipotent because everything is functioning as proof of it.

Yet, the enlightened ones go on telling us there is not two, other is not so.

Looking closely, neither have independent reality.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

I think division and ego are realities that aren't objectively good or bad. They are realities one should except in order to embrace existence. That doesn't necessarily mean they're beneficial.

They are not good or bad, they are objects for the true subject... getting lost in them, we experience misery and the like that is all.

 

[wil]

Reality I am defining as that which is actually so...

According to your perception...

 

[Anonomous]

Reality I am defining as that which is actually so...
These figures are the religious founders and other enlightened souls.
That is Wholeness, that which is beyond the opposites.
Purpose of existence is to experience being.

Although speaking in the abstract can be useful where ambiguity is meaningful, but as an igtheist, I don't favor it when trying to facilitate communication. One tenet of igtheism is the use of unambiguous characterizations of religious concepts. I asked you to specify your meaning because I think one of religion's problems is that most of its exponents take their own tradition to define the objective reality. I think religion is useful as a medium for the expression of archetypes and themes that make our experience of the world meaningful. We shouldn't take our own perception and make it literally true. That is what inspires religious wars in which people that speak in a different religious language are accused of ignorance.

I also think that what oneself makes of the world should be the center of attention in religious undertakings, not what another person made of it along time ago. One's only prophet is oneself. Humans should not be the subjects of cults as we are all equal in out ability to experience the world and make of it what we will.

I don't think there is a purpose of existence. There may inherent purposes in other things like life (genetic continuity), tools (utility), etc. One might come up with many meaningful things that are a prominent part of the human condition. One just has to always be aware that we are all just animals on a speck of dust in the universe.

According to your perception...

Exactly

 

[Anonomous]

As the founder of this thread, I'd like to redirect the conversation to how one might successfully achieve genuine igtheist omnism without loosing sight of one's religious identity.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

According to your perception...

I would rather acknowledge that perception itself is known and arising temporarily.

Thus another object.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Although speaking in the abstract can be useful where ambiguity is meaningful, but as an igtheist, I don't favor it when trying to facilitate communication. One tenet of igtheism is the use of unambiguous characterizations of religious concepts. I asked you to specify your meaning because I think one of religion's problems is that most of its exponents take their own tradition to define the objective reality. I think religion is useful as a medium for the expression of archetypes and themes that make our experience of the world meaningful. We shouldn't take our own perception and make it literally true. That is what inspires religious wars in which people that speak in a different religious language are accused of ignorance.

I also think that what oneself makes of the world should be the center of attention in religious undertakings, not what another person made of it along time ago. One's only prophet is oneself. Humans should not be the subjects of cults as we are all equal in out ability to experience the world and make of it what we will.

I don't think there is a purpose of existence. There may inherent purposes in other things like life (genetic continuity), tools (utility), etc. One might come up with many meaningful things that are a prominent part of the human condition. One just has to always be aware that we are all just animals on a speck of dust in the universe

I think it is important to notice that what you're reading or being told orally is an expression of an inner experience...

I agree that many issues arise when we believe in a given expression rather than understanding what each is actually trying to convey.

 

[Anonomous]

expression of an inner experience...

Elaborate.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Elaborate.

I cannot, except to say that until it happens, do not pretend to understand.

 

[Anonomous]

Communicate lucidly in the first place.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Communicate lucidly in the first place.

For me, this is the whole flaw in your approach, you want something that makes sense to the mind.

It means you are looking for a reality that complies with words, but words are only loosely about reality... noises we have decided to apply meaning to.

When you try to convey something that isn't part of the normal experience, it simply becomes impossible.

 

[Ruh Ishq]

Hence, all that can be said is keep looking until you find.

When it happens to you, you will not miss it... but until it happens, no amount of information about it will help you understand.

Perhaps we will engage in a dialog more apt to create that experience in the future.

It is difficult though, because there is less chance of energetic engagement via a forum like this.