Or not so personal and very worshipful. Millions of martyrs will attest to that.

aha..

so would millions of lemmings.
yep, there are always exceptions.


adam, when you said "a chemist who worships soma" ...what does that mean?

I think the problem you guys are having is that you're not defining 'worship' so may be talking at cross purposes.

For a lot of people 'worship' has a connotation of subservience and status (anyone raised in an Episcopalian or Catholic tradition might remember: "Oh lord, we are not worthy to gather the crumbs from under thy table ), and to a largely libertarian community like The Nexus, that notion is anathema.

If we take worship to simply mean "treat with significant importance," I think a lot more people do do worship. As a culture, we here on the Nexus certainly worship DMT: we talk about it like it's a sacrament, build rituals around it and find spiritual fulfillment with it.

My 2c
Blessings
~ND

You believe that you exist in some sense, that you are present? Religion is just the recognition of existing, in fact in being truly religious and not just practicing religion for the fear of being guilty otherwise, is to not worship any idols, not to deify anything without just reason. At least thats what I derived from teachers like Jesus and Buddha, so I might say Jbark and Benzyme you are two illuminated religious practitioners. You may not like that term, but a horse doesn't need to to like to be called a horse to be a horse from someones perspective.

I am simply trying to say that its all about perspective and semantics we are all likely talking about the same thing but from different perspectives.

Benzyme you recognize the pure origin thats what I am talking about. And Jbark you must believe in reason if you have reasoned out that there is nothing worth believing in?

Not worshipping anything may paradoxically be the greatest form of worship, since you aren't worshipping false idols, your at least a step above most worshippers.

We all pay homage to the fact the we exist in some way, this can be seen as religion from someone perspective. Now whether you believe we need the sacred or not is opinion, it won't kill us if we don't believe in it. So no we probably dont need religion. I think this is where wars have started just this issue with semantics.

Anyways I am certain if we sat down and indulged in some spice together this matter would be resolved instantly.

Ironically I am starting to dislike religion because of this thread. It seems to divide people

I guess my question is do you guys believe anything is sacred? Or that the sacred can exist?

Honoring the sacred doesn't need to be religion?

this can blow up into a semantics discussion really quickly..
define sacred.

if we reduce the 'preservation of life' clause down to a 'life is sacred' premise, then we can further reduce it, like a flow chart. a wasp's life isn't sacred to me, therefore, I would kill it without any remorse.

wikipedia:

"Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. The word is derived from the Old English weorþscipe, meaning worship, honour shown to an object,[1] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"—to give, at its simplest, worth to something.[2]
Evelyn Underhill (1946) defines worship thus: "The absolute acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character."[3] Worship asserts the reality of its object and defines its meaning by reference to it.[4]
An act of worship may be performed individually, in an informal or formal group, or by a designated leader."

All of the above involve a subject of worship: a deity. Even Underhill's "absolute acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us" is qualified immediately afterwards with "it is the response that conscious gods make to their creator". By sheer definition worship involves a deity, or creator.

I treat my 4 and a half year old son with far more than "significant importance", though I fall quite short of worshipping him. And you say "we" worship DMT here at the nexus. I consider the experience personally "sacred" (insofar as that word means spiritual, or divine), but have never referred to the substance itself as a "sacrament".

These words are all very charged, and I use some of them for want of more appropriate ones: I take issue with the word "spirituality", for example, because it assumes the existence of a deity or deities. But I employ it, because it would be pompous to invent a new word merely a shade away, and it would just confuse people. And I am spiritual, I believe.

But to worship is to subjugate oneself before a deity. I personally see no positive aspects to this.

JBArk

No I don't think all life is sacred either, but I guess sacredness would be equivalent in my mind to transcendental experience. Which I now realize is kind of a dead end, how do you talk about the transcendent?

In my mind the sacred is what more immediately surrounds the transcendental. Which I am pretty certain that religion devolved from direct experience of the transcendental and the sacred that surrounds it into quivering over the sacred and how to approach and define the transcendental instead of just experiencing it. As a result people don't even know the possibility of a transcendent experience exists.

I feel like this thread is falling into the pattern that mirrors the present state of affairs that surround the transcendent experience.

So I guess what is religious and sacred to me is merely the recognition of a transcendent possibility existing. And religion is to what degree this informs your life. True religion anyways, at least in my definition..

What if you are the deity that you worship?

I certainly don't advocate any religion that disempowers the self, but I see yoga as a great religion, and even Zen although I am certain they would dislike that categorization. For example Zen is kind of a worship of the transcendental experience in my eyes, and the rituals that surround its practice are sacred.

Also I don' think worship needs to mean bowing on your knees, it can be simple as respect to me.

You can call us illuminated religious practitioners and I can call you a drug addled zealot. Fair arguments there for both (or even vice versa! ), but they are not very useful or true statements. An "illuminated practitioner of the discovery of the divine" is unwieldy, but more accurate in my case, though not exclusive.

To me "spirituality" resides in the tingle of awe and wonder and questioning I feel when I contemplate the universe, "pure origin", the infinite or eternal, my own consciousness or the very mystery of our being here witnessing the advancement of time and light and matter. That is not religion (nor spirituality, really - see my post above).

[quote]Benzyme you recognize the pure origin thats what I am talking about. And Jbark you must believe in reason if you have reasoned out that there is nothing worth believing in?
/quote]

I have not reasoned thus. In fact I am sad I have nothing to truly believe in, as stated above. There are many things to believe in, I am just missing the faculty or inclination to do so, preferring as Benzyme stated, to continue questioning, no matter how lonesome that may be. Belief and its parent, faith, are dead ends.

[quote]Not worshipping anything may paradoxically be the greatest form of worship, since you aren't worshipping false idols, your at least a step above most worshippers./quote]

Indeed. I guess you missed the irony when I wrote this :

"The saddest thing about me, arguably, is the steadfast belief that I believe in nothing. Could I believe otherwise, believe me I would."

It is truly impossible not to believe in anything, for that is in itself, of course, a belief.

Cheers,

JBArk

Yes. Been there. That is the closest I get to believing anything, for it is the only truly rational "spiritual" belief. But, whoa!! Solipsism is the deadliest of ethical quagmires!

JBArk

Solipsism implies that you are your ego I think, I identify myself with a self that is selfless when speaking of religion and the transcendent.

Anyways this argument is tiresome, I just wish to express my concern over the inadequacy of language in this realm.

I guess my so called religious zealotry comes from my inability to express my experience of connectedness and the profoundness that comes with it. When I use dmt I just get this deep feeling of gratitude for life and it may be my fault for confusing this instinct with a religious predisposition that has been ingrained in me.

The challenge is getting past the differences and finding the truth, any religion that eschews that I disdain, I also disdain science that can be equally dogmatic and rigid.

So to answer the OP no people dont need religion if thats what you want to call it but, it seems we have a longing for truth regardless of the road you take and the name of that road I believe we are all heading the same place, even though we don't know where it is or what it looks like I think we need to discover it together and get past dogma and the rigid belief systems that keep us from getting their.

I'm sorry you find it tiresome - I love these debates as long as they remain friendly, and they have! They are a great exchange of ideas and don't need to be confrontational. I hope you took my calling you a zealot (and myself and Benzyme!) in the spirit in which it was meant - it was tongue in cheek and to prove a point. I thought that came across, i apologize if it didn't. Rest assured, despite my (dis)beliefs, I have the utmost respect for you and yours! You'd be surprised how close they are actually. We were mostly quibbling definition and semantics, which annoys some, but amuses me to no end! Besides, these conversations often devolve into those as a means of clarification - if everyone has a different definition of say, "sacred", then no progress will ever be made with respect to understanding one another when the term itself is misunderstood.

Anyway, thanks for letting me stretch out the ole grey organ a bit.


JBArk

I took no offense

And yes working towards a universal truth is a very noble quest I just wonder if ultimately it is possible. The nearest I have gotten to a universal truth is sharing the spice with others, although its not a truth you can speak of, which presents many problems to sharing its knowledge. But seems like we as community here are laying the groundwork for this experience, which some may regard as religious

I honestly can't remember if I came up with this term, or if I read it (house's term possibly?), but it stuck with me as an alternative to spirituality:

Withinity

(to me an elision of the words divinity, infinity, unity and within)

But, alas, pompous.

JBArk

better than "praise jesus".

the act of prayer is, of course, a form of meditation. its purpose is to make the person doing the praying feel at peace, which is why it irks me when someone says "I'm going to pray for you", or "our prayers go out to..". I'm assuming this means "best wishes".
May as well throw salt over your shoulder, or toss pennies in a fountain and make wishes. The likelihood of them coming true are about the same.

Maybe, but try using "withinity" in a sentence. Then try it out on someone!

In a way i can definatly see how primitive (?we could be considered primitive) cultures would benefit and have benefited from relegion...

Of course, when humans were evolving and isolated from seperate cultures (for the most part), it would make sense that roughly each isolated culture of humans would develop there own unique (not in some ways) relegion.

I can see how relegion can give one health benefits described, but i would think a love filled spiritual life/path could do more.
After all, some people that conform to a specific relegion are conforming there lifes' to it ignorantly, they just want the effects and rewards that are promised

Relegion has definatly helped us to be where we are today, however i beleive it will soon become somewhat obsolete to individual spirituality that doesnt hinder one to explore other ideas and also will hopefully break down seperatory barriers to help unite humanity in love

Good golly, my how this thread has covered most of the parameters of spiritual-existential philosophy... and as is quite typical of these discussions on the Nexus, we've gotten to the point of semanticizing every term and ideological concept, to the point of near meaninglessness.

Words, words, words... But that's totally cool because we are not just buying the Gospel without questioning or contemplating it's truth or value in the human experience in general or the mind of the individual, in particular. What's in a name? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." And a pile to poop just as stinky?

I've waited until I could add something worthwhile to this discussion but because of the nature of human linguistics and personal semantics, this presents quite a challenge. I honestly can't offer much more on this subject, except share my own personal spin on the meaning of these ideas.

Do people need Religion? Not exactly and certainly not like they need clean air to breathe, food, water and shelter from the elements. I believe organized religion serves a two-fold purpose. On the positive side, it offers hope and/or some modicum of purpose to those without much (or any at all). Few can deny it helps many to cope with overwhelming loss, moral helplessness and severe heartache.

On the negative side, as a hierarchical structure, it controls and extorts from gullible folks who have not had any direct spiritual experiences of their own, and so they worship en mass, to stave-off the overwhelming fear of death and total oblivion of the self, after that. So, it's obviously a double-edged sword. IMO, either extreme is only halfway reasonable and conclusive.

Like Science and the Arts, Religion needs to be constantly modified and augmented, as society outgrows archaic, superstitious systems of belief. But I don't feel that it can come from a group or an organization, it has to come from deep within the individuals themselves. So, I would have to vote "no" about the need or necessity for religion as a cult phenomenon (in it's current state of evolution).

I wouldn't go so far as denying need and necessity for other people. To each their own, right? So, I create my own religious context with every breath I inhale and then exhale, with every thought I think and feeling I experience. For myself, a true Religion would be a one-on-one interplay between to perceiver of a Divine frequency of conscious-awareness and the Omniversal force of said Divinity. No organizational theology can do this for an individual.

I can only speak for myself and that's about as far as anyone can go. I have become more and more attuned to what I still prefer to call "God" or "Godhead", despite the lack of popularity of such terms in this community. Although Tao, Grid or Unified Field of Being, would probably be more accurate?

And I only know that I personally need spiritual experiences to feel completely alive and deeply interconnected to the totality of this universal phenomenon, existence itself. And for myself, if one aspect of the consciousness is Sacred, all other aspects are symbiotically, one and the same. Tat Tvam Asi.

So, in a way I guess I would say that a wasp actually is "Sacred or Holy" to me, for it is part of the whole and all the pieces fit together to make the totality total. The same must be said for sunlight, the ocean or the immense cosmos overhead... as are the molecules that we imbibe within what I openly refer to as, "Sacred Medicines"... and the empty space between said molecules. Perhaps we each create our own definitions of these words and apply them uniquely within our own paradigmatic dreamscapes of reality as we understand it?

For me, what is most Sacred, Divine or Spiritual... is that which is inherent within all things, as a fundamental aspect and quintessential energy/idea/emanation from inside, yet it never looses it's ineffability from the interconnection. And yes, this too is inarguably circular logic and my own spin on these semantics we are describing. But I do definitively believe I need these kinds of "Cosmic consciousness" experiences in my life... or at least I have come to believe that I need them, which perpetuates a continuum.

Who can truly say with any objective certainty? I only know that I do want them to keep occurring within my immediacy of perception. Do I worship the Sacred? Yes but worship has many guises and I don't need any dictionary to define my beliefs about worship or tell me how to practice my own rituals.

But I honor and respect everyone here who has expressed their own views and opinions. You guys & gals totally rock!!!

Just a few thoughts...without getting into a debate about belief or religion and opening up that dead-end can of worms

I think the roots of many religions were more genuine, positive, experiential, and based on practices that access altered states of consciousness than people think...But over time they degraded into dogma, belief systems, and fear-driven hierarchical power structures of control

You might say this root was a form of shamanism, although I think it also goes further back than that. I think spiritual, altered, mystical, religious (pick your term) experiences are something innate to human consciousness but which we've somewhat lost our connection to...shamanism is just an attempt to get back to that more functional state of being. A perpetual state of awe, wonder, and reverie at our very existence in this cosmos might have once been close to the norm. In fact virtually all ancients indicate just that, and wale about our disconnection from it. You can see these states most dramatically when you take a psychedelic, or even just stimulate the right hemisphere with the Dr. Persinger's "God Helmet". I think there is loads of data to suggest such a scenario, but instead of trying to summarize a complicated thesis i'll just link you to it.

I can understand why people with it tend to be healthier than people without it; since fear and anxiety have a massive impact on the immune system, and with almighty god or allah watching over you and an eternity of white euphoric clouds waiting beyond the pearly gates, and everything has all been figured out, well, there isn't much to worry about (although all the good drugs will be nowhere to be found). Although seeing some comparisons of health between atheists, agnostics, christians, buddhists,(insert endless list of categories here)or just spiritual people in general would be interesting.

I don't know if the question "do people need religion?" makes any sense since theres no context provided and many ways to interpret those words....But is all this proliferation of religions, spiritual practices, etc and yearnings for some sort of liberation an indication of some innate sense in humans that there is a profound state of being that is accessible within us? I tend to think so.

As a side note; I understand all the hate on religion...I used to be a militant atheist and get in arguments all the time with christians...But I encourage people to realize that growing up in that environment, often since birth, is literally a form of heavy-duty brainwashing and molds a persons reality-tunnel in such a concrete way that they can hardly help it, unless they are either very bright or have some experience that shocks them out of it... So go easy on em! ;]

luckily, we've got these metta-programming plant tools