Originally, I had posted this as a response to the ongoing discussion about Jamie stating on his webpage that he is Atheist. I did not want to bog down that thread, so I deleted this message in that thread, and placed it here on the Sign of Fire board which is more appropriate. Please feel free to discuss and criticize this, as I know it will be a controversial post here.
Everyone believes in one of four ways:
1. Theism. A God that is singular and the authority over man, nature, and the universe. Christians worship Yahweh/Jehovah and believe that His Son Jesus was also God and there is a "three-in-one" Godhead, so this is not polytheism. Judaism believes in the same God Yahweh/Jehovah, but not in Jesus as son nor the trinity. Muslims believe in Allah.
2. Humanism. Man is without a god, and has evolved and still evolving to something better, so it is up to man to ensure he betters himself and society. In this pursuit man essentially believes in himself. Atheists do believe in something, and a true Atheist falls in this category, and often the term "secular humanist" is used to describe someone who believes that man is completely without god.
3. Existentialism (and various forms of it). Nothing may actually exist, and we're not really here. Karma and such pervade through man and all things, and typically beliefs in astral projection and reincarnation are included in this belief.
4. Polytheism. Many gods, many beliefs. In its essence, polytheism can involve any mixing of the above religious practices. Some may believe in Man and God as a humanist who is not hard-core secular, that God is simply not part of the process of man's evolving and such, so if you believe in yourself as god-like and another God as an additional being = poly. Now there are other simpler ways to be polytheist, like believing in the sun god and the moon god. Basically if you believe in at least 2 different things as being the god in your life, you're polytheist, and some old religions incorporate many hundreds of sub-deities together and such.
Having said all this, each belief comes with different goals and a completely different mindset on proselytizing (pressuring/asking/conversing) about one's beliefs. For an Existentialist, trying to convince anyone of your belief does no good -- that person doesn't really exist to you anyway but you should maintain Karma and not just do something bad to them either. Theists are the most involved in proselytizing because the belief structure is such that the one God will punish and reward based on these actions. For those who aren't Theists, give the Theists a break when they do proselytize, because they are simply participating in their system. If you are truly tolerant, you need to be tolerant of that system. For a polytheist, there's no need to proselytize because you think adding another god to the list may not matter. Plus, for polytheists and existentialists, the thought for both is that "many paths lead to the same thing." What are the beliefs that are dangerous in proselytizing? The extreme Humanists and Theists. Here's why:
1. Extreme humanists include Marxist and Mauists. They don't believe in a god separate from man, but they believe in man. Their faith in man can be so extreme that one must join the system in order to contribute, and that all other beliefs are ignorant of this fact and are a waste of time. Religion must be crushed, other beliefs ignored if passive, or destroyed if overt. This leads to extreme purges of those from not just outside, but especially inside such a structure.
2. Extreme Theists include much of Islam, which pursues either conversion or the Zakat (fee) for all those under the Sharia umbrella. You either convert or pay, and if you do convert to Islam, you cannot convert out to something else or you must be killed (yes, that's in the Koran and in Sharia law). If you don't convert, you pay the fees as a nonbeliever and there is much revenue made this way in the Islamic Republics around the world. There are also "Christians" who have killed, like the Crusades, but many protestants and anabaptists would argue that those men were not truly of faith who did that. In fact, there may have been more Humanism on the march in the Crusades than Chrisitanity, as the goals were selfish and focused on wealth and power, not on helping others learn about Christ.
There could be a mix of the aforementioned faiths, and those who aren't exactly "faithful" and not seriously a part of any religous group, but even a lack of participation can indicate faith in something else - either themselves, or in nothing (existentialist). "New Age" is not new, it is a mix/blend of mostly old eastern religions, along with some new ones. Much of New Age runs the spectrum from Existentialism to Polytheism, because a god can exist but is not necessarily singular, and god pervades other or all things.
While I may not have nailed this subject 100%, much of this stems from a freshman college class, and it was one of those college classes you don't forget.
BM
Reply With Quote
