Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01240)

At 07:55 PM 4/26/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Where do I say that religion requires an object of worship?  Did I not
>draw the definition of religion from "religio" - "to bond" or bring
>together?

You don't Alan, and I have absolutely no problem with your definition of
Religion as "bonding" at all. Its the great majority of the public's
definition of religion and worse yet, their practice of religion, that I
find so repugnant (there's that word again). The trouble has always been
that rather than BRING TOGETHER, religion tends to BIND together. Synergy,
or bringing together is benign, binding or forcing together is malignant.
The whole conception of either Deity or Hierarchy is dangerous as it lends
itself so easily to abusive uses. Spiritual Hierarchy is an oxymoron. Is it not?

>>But given that context, I am in fact a Priest of Shaman ism, in fact due to
>>the spirits with which I cooperate, I am more of a Shamanic High Priest. And
>>that's what makes Shaman ism so different from Religion the spirits are
>>colleagues and not deities.
>
>Good! That's how I find it too, but from a very different direction
>(maybe).
>
>Alan
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Fondly

alexis, MTI., FTSA,
the eclectic theosophist
satyat - nasti-paro-dharma
Shaman, Healer, Psychic, Priest
Member: The Gang of Five