The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

I chose atheism, christianity and buddhism.

Atheism is the religion of today. Considered positively it is not just denying the teachings of all religions but also elevation of man´s intelligence, love and will. These are after all the ideals that every true religion sees practically as the most important. Like in case of all other religions, atheism becomes harmfull only when it becomes fanatical (does not accept any other views).

Christianity is my inherited religion, and after passing the rebellious phase in my teen age, it is natural to notice that I understand most well the symbolicism and spirit of christianity.

I don´t know that much about buddhism but if Schopenhauer´s philosophy is a kind of westernized version of buddhism, I think it is quite close to my views.

I chose Christianity, Buddhism and (neo-)Paganism - although I don't like the "neo" prefix at all. "The Past is Alive" and so on. I understand what is meant by it and the neo -prefix has a little bit a same kind of an aura than everything "new age" -related for good reason or not, but why should someone who is a pagan (or a heathen) at heart and has always been consider oneself "neo"-anything? (Christ was a Heathen, it has been said.)

I know that the super-structure, culture and some age-old values of paganism are gone and have changed alot - we really don't need animal, human and child sacrifices to Odin or any other gods anymore, for example - but the true spirit of the enlightened heathen sages and pagan teachers are as valid today as ever. The true question is between Tradition and non-Tradition - with which I mean the holistic worldview of "perennialism" - not between paganism or christianity (or any other traditional form), and there are also ways in which the pagan tradition can be envigorated, renewed and brought back in a more whole form. If I consider my "personal vehicle", I'm a heathen at the very deepest recesses of my heart; the forest and nature is my church, the snowflakes my christic monograms, the wintry lakes my temples etc., and this I see as an epitome of paganism per sae.

Teachings of the Buddha and other buddhist teachers are also very close to my heart, naturally. One could do with the simple wisdom of the Dhammapada a whole life and beyond, for example, without ever reading or studying anything else. ("Before enlightment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightment, chop wood and carry water.")

Hinduism also interests me alot, and its multifarious system of gods etc. is a real gift to mankind, but I do not know enough of or have a truly living relationship to the cultural context of it well enough to truly see it as my "religion" of choice.

Wyrmfang wrote:Atheism is the religion of today. Considered positively it is not just denying the teachings of all religions but also elevation of man´s intelligence, love and will. These are after all the ideals that every true religion sees practically as the most important. Like in case of all other religions, atheism becomes harmfull only when it becomes fanatical (does not accept any other views).

This is a good point. There are many atheists today - scientific or otherwise - who use the term only to deny the negative sides of religions and who have had enough of the pseudo-christian "we humans are nothing" attitude, but are in reality far more spiritual and open-minded towards new kind of approaches to religiosity and spiritualism than many "true believers" are.

Yet, I do know some "atheists" that are actually far worse in their attitude towards open-minded truth-seeking than any other people, and this kind of atheism is truly not only nothing but a shadow of fundamental religiosity, but a very nihilistic and close-minded attitude towards life, existence and meaning itself.

Wyrmfang wrote:Christianity is my inherited religion, and after passing the rebellious phase in my teen age, it is natural to notice that I understand most well the symbolicism and spirit of christianity.

If we are talking about "true christianity" - with which I mean the spirit of the teachings of Christ especially - instead of the fragmented and perverted image of "christianity", I can "annex my signature" to this one also very whole-heartedly.

Wyrmfang wrote:I don´t know that much about buddhism but if Schopenhauer´s philosophy is a kind of westernized version of buddhism, I think it is quite close to my views.

I think Schopenhauer understood alot about Buddhism, but was also wrong in many regards, seeing it as a nihilistic system of thought. There are of course many schools and lines of thought within Buddhism itself, the Mahayana vehicle and the Hinayana vehicle as two major examples, but personally I would not say that Schopenhauers western understanding of it could be said to be a part of the buddhist tradition itself.

Honestly I am interested in all those religions' teachings (especially Judaism, Orthodox&Catholic Christianity, Paganism) but If I was born again, I would want to be what I am now again. I was born as a Muslim and I would not want to be born as a Muslim for sure ever again.

Nefastos wrote:But it took some time to understand this, because the very fame of the Indian doctrines as some master key to spirituality sounded fake. After many years of studying European traditions and then turning to Hindu sources made clear, however, how much better the latter actually were - for me.

I guess it is quite safe to say that the European Tradition(s) are applications of the wider Indo-European and / or Aryan Tradition in general. (Indo --> India --> Hindu --> origin in the Indus valley etc.)

Wyrmfang wrote:Atheism is the religion of today. Considered positively it is not just denying the teachings of all religions but also elevation of man´s intelligence, love and will. These are after all the ideals that every true religion sees practically as the most important. Like in case of all other religions, atheism becomes harmfull only when it becomes fanatical (does not accept any other views).

I was just being recommended the following book about atheism by Adlibris, and I thought to mention a few things about it:

http://www.adlibris.com/fi/product.aspx ... newrelease

First of all, what is "stealing from religions" if not their utter prostitution and destruction? Secondly, why "steal" from religions anything at all if the first and foremost task of them is to connect man to God ans sacred? Thirdly, if there's no supernatural at all and the things that religions can still give to humanity, do they not change into meaningless humanistic rabble if the transcendent is denied and lacking?

Because of this the last sentence of your quote, fra Wyrmfang, with all due respect, is either utterly false or it is a manifestation of ignorance about the historical occult roots of atheism that veils itself in the guise of "critical enquiry", "harmless rationalism" or some other extremely harmful method of destroying the relationship of Man and God, and thus poisoning both man and natural sense of sanctity (which is completely devoid of moralism). (I am not saying that fanaticism of any sort would be better, just exposing the "respectful" methods of denying divinity, meaning and spirit itself.)

Hear hear, and avoid like cancer, o' men and women of divine liking.

I would go with Hinduism and especially some form of Shaivism. Most of my life I've had the interest towards Hinduism (and Buddhism too). Even at the point when I was a lot younger and still brainwashed by exoteric christian ideals I already had growing interest towards oriental religions and philosophy but I couldn't really follow the inner voice of intuition then because I was too afraid of burning in hell for that. With Hinduism I love the freedom of individual possibilities to form your own relationship with the divine and the fact that everything and everyone of us is Shiva and Shakti as well as God and Satan as one. The idea of opposites being one with each other is so crucial that I don't see many other possibiliets for my self at the moment. I don't think I could ever choose christianity (or other monotheism) although I do see the value of esoteric christianity.

If i had to adopt one religious practice, it would have to be a form of norhtern shamanism (Finnish, Siberian, Mongolian, Tibetan, etc.). I feel that a living religious practice needs to become part of the geography. I needs to be present in the very soil. It needs to be absolutely immanent.

The solitude of the vast northern landscape, where the presence of the sky is quite tangible & and the earth is firm, is for me the most accurate mirror of the Spirit.

So i voted for "other".