SCEPCOP Forum

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk ... Page33.htm

My Theory - Religions are essentially ways of channeling energy

Although each religion claim to be different from others in their beliefs, views, and doctrines, when you delve into the mystical qualities of each one, you find that they become more and more alike, with the ultimate goal of achieving "oneness" with all, and absolving one's ego and sense of separateness.

Even the most widely followed faith, Christianity, has mystical traditions in the Gnostics, for instance, which teach karma, reincarnation, oneness with all, etc. just like the Eastern mystical traditions.

Basically, I've come to realize that, despite the outer surface differences in beliefs and doctrines between the religions, what religions basically are in their essence are ways of CHANNELING ENERGY to grow, add to, and benefit oneself, getting in touch with a divine source.

Just as each individual is different, so each person has their own style of channeling spiritual energy that suits them best. And since each religion has a different style of channeling energy to its adherents, different religions work better for different people. There's no "one size fits all", for whether a religion or spiritual practice works for someone depends on how compatible their way of channeling energy is with it. And probably, the different religions, I believe, are all channeling spiritual/divine energy from the SAME source.

For instance, some people channel energy through the Christian faith very well, benefiting themselves, their lives, and their souls, so they stick with it and recommend it to others. Their feel fulfilled and their prayers get answered, so obviously it works for them. But others whose may get nothing out of it if their style of channeling spiritual energy is incompatible with the Christian faith. And this can be true even if they make a sincere honest effort to follow the Christian faith, for if it just doesn't resonate with their spiritual style and level, then it's not going to work, no matter how earnest they are about it. Instead, they may work better energy-wise with Buddhism, Islam, or other spiritual systems, deriving more spiritual benefit from them. Others may resonate better with more offshoot faiths such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or even cult groups.

Still, some don't need any religion at all. They may simply channel good energy to them just by going out into nature or the wilderness setting. Or they may simply meditate and channel all the energy and spirituality they need.

This is why, I think, why some people hear a religious message or gospel, and instantly feel that they've discovered "the truth", or sense that God or the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, while others hear the same message and consider it rubbish, nonsensical, and could never take it seriously. Different religious/spiritual paths and ways of channeling energy click with some and not others.

It's like with anything in life - drugs, alcohol, roller coasters, skiing, etc.; they bring pleasure and stimulation to some, while to others they do nothing or cause only discomfort.

Also, as one evolves or changes their level of consciousness throughout life and their spiritual path, sometimes one may lose their resonance with the religion/spiritual path they channeled their life force energy through best, which leads them to seek out a different spiritual or religious path. There are plenty of religious devotees who at some point in life, grow out of their faith or spiritual practice, feel stinted by it, and transfer to another one. For instance, some Christians may lose resonance with their faith, feel it doesn't make sense anymore, and doesn't work for them anymore, becoming Buddhists or adopting Eastern paths. And vice versa, for there are Buddhists who become Christians and find more fulfillment there and closeness to God, as well.

I was one of those, for instance, who resonated with Evangelical Christianity early in life. It made sense to me, gave me a powerful feeling of purpose, made me happy, and I even got a lot of prayers answered through it. But when I outgrew it, I no longer felt any energy from it, didn't resonate with it, it no longer made sense to me mentally, and my prayers were no longer even being answered. I tried my best to re-establish my spiritual energy with it, for I thought it was the truth, but it was futile, like trying to jump start a dead horse. I didn't realize it at the time, but my journey and path to truth lied elsewhere, and eventually led me to the New Age/Eastern paths. Therefore, I began subconsciously looking for excuses to invalidate Christian teachings, so that I could find truth in other teachings, considering all but committing to none. I discovered that I am an eclectic who loves intellectual freedom too much to commit and limit my mind inside the box of any religion or belief system, though I may make use of, see truth in, or derive benefit from them.

The following three paras are from my entry at the “Organized religion the way it is” blog site

I recently read The First Word: The Origins of Language, and I am possibly coming to a new world-view.

I was once a Platonist, and believed in ideals, then I was a strict nominalist, then a Xian Platonist mystic with personal experience of der Teufal im Himmel, then we parted ways and I threw out Plato with the Baptist bath water, but now, I am again coming to the conclusion that information may be noumenally real.

Specifically, there are two domains of life on this planet, the organic, based on genes, and the informational, based on memes. Humans are symbiotes, chimpanzees with a meme based consciousness. Our mimetic consciousness is one cell in a language species, which is subdivided in ways we do not yet understand into institutions. As an agnostic I believe we cannot know whether these are noumenal, or merely phenomenal relations.. And I am not by any means claiming this is “truth” , much less “proven” but I think it is plausible, and it feels right to my right-brain and autonomic nervous system, or, colloquially, it feels right in my heart.


Your hypothesis is about something different than organized religion. Would you agree you are talking about the mystical sense?

If so, perhaps the energy you are talking about is the “noumenal aspect of memes”.

This chain of thought is not being thought by the skeptical, two minded Twain aspect of my personality. This is right-brain shakespeare thought, mythopoetic, epiphenomenal, and unfalsifiable, I admit, but I love the contemplation of the extraordinary as much as I enjoy its investigation.

Please respond. I don't seem to be able to post you a personal message.

TS... just a suggestion... you may try speaking a more basic mode of English if you want to be better understood. While I believe most of us here have reasonable intellectual skill and even higher education I've not seen it flaunted... we tend to be far more down to earth in how we express things and not strive to "appear" intelligent in the exaggerated sense

Scepcop, I believe the correct summary to your post has been around a very long time; There are many paths that lead to the same destiny (or a variant there of)

What we see today as the out-growth of the 3 chief Abrahamic religions in the world are but shadows of their truer form and in many ways, bastardizations far from what the original prophets, saviors, and sages of the time were seeking to teach. But then when you couple allegory with ignorance and ignorance with carnal lusts, you end up with what we have today when it comes to organized expressions of dogma; a thing that has just enough of the original idea set within it so as to sustain the claim of being this or that, but at the same time the ministers of the present are totally ignorant as to what the deeper meanings and essence of those teachings mean or more importantly "Meant" in those ancient times; our perspectives and thus, understanding are completely different in today's world than what was known even 100 years ago let alone a couple thousand.

One wonderful example of how things became bastardized is how Jesus himself taught the more personal side of "faith"... how one could ONLY find God by going within and even secluding ones self in a closet because such things were not intended for the public... those that boasted and made displays of their "faith" in bold public gestures were seen, in his mind, as being hypocrites and braggarts, who only knew the surface meaning behind what the prophets spoke.

Kind of makes you wonder how he'd view today's money grabbing, politically motivated church, does it not?

Organized Religion does not permit personal freedom, nor will it ever encourage independent discovery of the divine. It can only survive when the laity is dependent upon it for guidance, which is why elements, such as the above and JC's statements against professional clergy, and reincarnation were either struck from the texts or greatly underplayed, as has been the teaching of personal divinity... a view that mirrors Buddhism to which JC placed a Jewish connection when it came to his teachings simply because that's what orators and storytellers of his day, did; they personalized the tales so that their audience could relate to it.

When it comes to "the journey"... yes, it is always the same and has nothing to do with gifts of virgins or living in a city of gold & silver, etc. "Heaven" or "Nirvana" or whatever you wish to label it, exists in the here and now based upon how YOU as an individual, view life, the universe and your part within it and of it. There's not other pay off, no other "reward"... but in order to see and understand that, we must first stop believing the sales pitch given us constantly by the self-appointed marketing pros that think they represent god.

Craig: Yeah, thanx for the suggestion. It has served me well in the months since I read it. That, I believe was practically my first entry to the Blogospere at all, after I had run to Winston to thank him for existing, and I was manic and testing limits of understanding. I say my worse vices are epistemology and voting, but actually it is letting my verbal self run. In my first few entries, I was talking not just to views I knew varied as widely as Winston's and Indigo's, but making a statement I have referred other people too. I have referred people to many different blogs on the Scecop Fora. In your case, friend Craig ( I would like to consider everyone here such, but you are a fav.) I at least accomplished my minimal first goal. If the content did not impress, you noticed I had fired a cannon on the broadside. Again, Thanx for the urging to use a pistol, or even just aslingshot, in the future