The Discussion of reli gio
Forms, Differences, Explanations, and the Unexplained
(The following passage was written under the heavy influence of Black Magick)
Personally, discussion is overwhelming. Further along, I will proceed to explain why. A few years ago I created my own one world religion to resolve human strife and provide a solution to save religion; to current against the social media trend that I perceived as “abolishing religion” to free mankind and promote world peace. The running theme which shocked me fed along the motto, “Religion is Slavery”. I felt that something had to be done to disprove this atrocity. I assume others have attempted to create their own religion and may have even abandoned religion in the last half decade. I’ve met many individuals who practice solely now in something they call their own religion or “belief system” (the same thing really) and have an array of names for the practice, i.e.: Agnosticism, Gnosticism, Paganism, Occultism, Spiritualism, Theism, and so forth. My intent is not to make a running list in this discussion. My short explanation to my difficulty in explaining different forms of religions, as we commonly know religion to be today, is that I believe Religion to be definitely undefinable.
The religion I formed allowed for an individual to accept, partially accept, or not accept anything, nothing, or everything within the religion’s terms (illustrated by the visual of a simple triangle). The three cornerstones of options can be understood as full acceptance, non-acceptance and partial acceptance. The whole triangle can exist or not exist as a full denial and lack of belief of any given term in the religion. This denial is a separate belief of itself yet still is itself as the religion. The third option of the whole is to simply adopt only the peak or the highest corner of the triangle as the God-head. I’m assuming the obvious when I state that there are religions based off faith, no faith, worship, no worship (as some may adopt Buddhism as a form of philosophy or sects of principles yet still many call it a religion), deities/daemons, God/gods, nothing, all, self, any many other factors and variables. Religion may very well be cognitively (I choose to not to write “reasoned as” or “logically explained”) deduced as Philosophy when perceived fundamentally, for what we humans agree to perpetuate (understand; make sense of) as reason and logic (basically invented constructs of reality) stems from philosophical thoughts accepted and agreed upon by certain individuals in a named society and further propagated with time. Unless math (the human invention of counting and organizing) can be proven as accurate (accurate as in the ability to determine and explain high physics), then one can argue that all things of Reality are undefinable and lack definitive form in and of itself. Conclusively, I’d say this question is virtually impossible to answer due to “form” and “religion” being inconclusively defined by what I call the controversy of math and philosophy. I do not believe it is possible for human’s invention of math and philosophy to exist and be true and for the Universe to live in the same dimension.
Plato to aid thought in deliberating forms (or figures): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
*Question: If a human today is a person, and a person today consists of current cells, and current cells die and replenish into new cells approximately every 90 days of time — is a human in time the same person after 90 days from current or today, or is the human a new person in the current known as 90 days after today?
Allowing an answer to this question serves as a reasoning to the office of fallacy. One may argue a person is the same person or a new person because reasoning (math or magicka) was invented by philosophy, philosophy is theoretical, theories are not proven (otherwise they would not be theories), and what is not proven remains indefinite. Indefinite answers are unstable and undefined. However! – much like the question of religion, that which is unstable, indefinite and undefined, does not necessarily cease to be as not existent (reality). At this point we come full circle to question thought: You either know how conjure or you don’t. Attempts to speak at me: “How can your God be real if you can’t prove he exists?” I cast back (as I know God), “How can your math be real if you can’t prove it exists? Your math, or your magicka is fake!!!” How so now, is it even possible for you to prove anything. Intelligence has told me that nothing exists. Nothing is Everything and Everything is Nothing is God.
In hindsight to the above referenced, I personally have been struggling with comprehending specific Greek philosophers as of late, especially due to the minor but imperative fallacies of Plato (harshly criticized due to his relevance) and the monumental collection of theories, truths, and reasons we (as in most of today’s civilization) have attributed to our current sense of reality from his teachings. However, I have been born and now hold the Philosopher’s stone. I find that former belief standards or fundamental notions of simple truths (“exists to be”) are very different then what I conjure as universal innate truths that exist to be today. I am perplexed as to how Aristotle is more than less identifiable to my current subset of philosophy, Plato less than more, and Socrates remains undefined; widely questionable and difficult to placate. When basic physics is even slightly erred, the expansion of formulas only further become dilute.
Back to the discussion at hand, the study of form as potentially being ever-shifting; perhaps perspective is understood to exist the same way (for perspective is not but a form itself; a form of view), and if truth be affirmed to a set of reason, one could confidently state that all thoughts are arguable, proven, or disproved, at any random given state of existence. My theory is that definitions (that which is understood as exists to be an explanation of), regardless of what is defined – if definitions remain stagnant in ratio to universal change of actuality, mankind may be growing further obscured from understanding the commonly agreed notion of what is organic reality, also known as base reality. For the sake of mankind, I conceived the option of accepting even this great potential misunderstanding also as organic reality, to ground and allow Reason to remain to be or exist. Water cannot be defined as water definitely if other particles exist in water’s perceived form, but we as humans must come to agreed terms by accepting vast generalizations in order to communicate as a species in a manner that has understanding and basic agreements.
Using what I know as linguistic definition today, the word religion is rooted as “Religio” Latin as “service” English >> “service” English as “officium” Latin >>”officium” Latin as “office” English (source: google translator), I would substantiate that religion is the office of service, a practicum of Darwinism, a mere node in the graph of a taxonomic hierarchy or ring. Service is directed to that which it is arch’d by, however the argument that linear chronographs (regardless of direction) is void of reality could also debase my answer (stopping here to maintain consistent thought). My answer stems from the current linear model (ie: timescale/quantifiable measure of what we call math today). Conclusively, all taxonomic graphs basically are religions and there are too many forms to discuss.
Reading all that I have learned from by my peers, I still find the definition of religion to be something broad, controversial, and indefinite. I now ponder on what religion actually is, the more I’ve read the further I lack confidence to explain the different forms of religion. The trouble lies in comprehending the definition of religion in itself. However, I will give this discussion my best shot.
Using what I know as linguistic definition today, the word religion as defined by a common google search results in data that depicts the word religion as being rooted from “religio” Latin as “service” in English >> “service” in English as “Officium” in Latin >>”officium” in Latin as “office or duty of truth” in English (conversion source: google translator), using conversions I substantiate that religion is the service or the duty of the office of truth, a practicum of Darwinism, a mere node in the graph of a taxonomic chart. Service and Duty is directed by that which it is over notched by, however the argument that linear chronographs (regardless of direction) are void of reality could also debase my answer (stopping here to maintain consistent thought). My discussion is soliloquized from a quantifiable model (ie: timescale of what we call math today) or measure.