Religion, what is it?



What is religion?
1* Religion:
1. A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Taking from the point in item 3. the particular word practices, I wonder if it could be implied or defined as something repetitive like Ritual.
2* Ritual: (also taken from"..")

1. A. The prescribed order of a religious ceremony.
B. The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship.
2. A. The prescribed form of conducting a formal secular ceremony: the ritual of an inauguration.
B. The body of ceremonies used by a fraternal organization.

Taking in this information and moving on a route following up Ritual and now (semi controlled experimenting) follow up with Fraternal Organization.
3* Fraternal:
1. A. Of or relating to brothers: a close fraternal tie.
B. Showing comradeship; brotherly.
2. Of or constituting a fraternity: a fraternal association.
3. Biology. Of, relating to, or being a twin developed from two separately fertilized ova; dizygotic.

Fraternity gave a somewhat differant answer than where I am trying to go to so as to propose a question. In the final statement it terms a pairing. We are going to look into the depth of dizygotic for a moment..
4* dizygotic:
1. Derived from two separately fertilized eggs. Used especially of fraternal twins.

Making an (hypothetical) analysis:
1* Does this concept (religion) start out really well? I am of the opinion it does. On first glance (opinion) moving from the original definition (original simple concept) appears to me at first glance to be dispersion and seperation.

2* In the concepts of control, or betting.. an example might be in financial power, the haves (controlling) and the have nots (those controlled).. we inaugerated that rich guy.. my God is better than your.. etc.. ? Brotherlyness

3* Moving along and looking at fraternal, things begin to pair up. Could a concept of this idea be about brining in the sheep, building a church things of that nature? Perhaps my analysis is starting to get odd. Going somewhere with this..

4* The realization of the seperation. I recall something I believe Ark wrote (certianly not qouting) about the polarities of expansion and contraction (so to speak) of the plight of individual souls. Is it that Religion cannot be defined by markers cause simply some people are 'bad' and some are 'good' but this in itself is defined by the polarity of the observer? An example say I am completely in the psychopath frequency/alignment.. for me a psychopath would seem like good company.. a good guy. My alignment being purely unconditional to the STS or contraction (implosion) would of course allow me to see myself as 'good' as well and I would not question it, osit.
This could also pertain to the sleeping masses to a lesser degree I imagine (not to imply being awake).
Now in those terms how can religion itself be a word decypherable at all? I can't imagine I could say religion is good or bad then since both species seem to inhabit the (imagined) so-called sacred halls.

A question then to Ark and Laura. Ark: How evolved have you taken the polarity observations (broad kinda loaded..) Laura: How goes your own studies on religion and things of that Nature? (Opinion seeking) Is religion just another form of control completely? Or is it the worship of God(s) the sickening part for one pulling it* out of heaven itself* and pretending to be able to define 'it*.' *it=God, idea, archetype..

Does the term dizygotic explain anything in terms of the simple polarities? For instance two men go to the same church one is a wolf-(contraction) another a sheep-(expansion), as depicted in some of the information in 'the wave' is it that the sleepers (as mentioned) just look like people? I also had some thoughts about financial status, the haves and have nots, the robbers and the robbed. I can't seem to word a question of the concept I was thinking of. Hope I was able to ask the questions clearly enough that someone picks up on the train of thought, my apologies if my concepts are off mark.


The Force is Strong With This One
Regarding the question "Noise" asked :What is religion?",I think the answer to that will depend who you ask.I myself think that religion is a very complex topic because it touches several areas that are the basis of how people live their lifes,how people interact with others and how people view other people and themselves.
I think that people may have this idea that they need someone or somebody to guide them,to tell them how to live,think and act.
It may be because they feel lost and how their lives actually are and maybe because most religions promise something better in the "afterlife".
How religion affect our lives will depend to what you are exposed to.
If you happen to born into a family that think religion is a very impotant part of their lives,chances are that you would be ask to participate.
But at the end is up to us to believe or not to beleive in religion.
Religion in my own view has divided the world.
It created a wall between us ,divided families and not to mention that most wars were started by religion.
We humans have a very short memory and have a tendency NOT to learn from mistakes or we refuse to learn from history.
To me,religion doesn't allow people to think for themselves and you are require to follow rules without questionning them EVER.
Religion had become a VERY IMPORTANT tool in politics.
World leaders use religion to manipulate the masses into their own games to keep controling our lives .
So my conclusion is that religion is a beleif that is being used by STS to control the human mind and that will prevent us from moving forward to the 4th density.
I was never a religious person because I don't believe in that character called "GOD".
I believe in cause and effect ,I believe in karma and I believe and a cosmic "order".
We humans cling to much to the physical world and never think about the other side of our essence.
We never think about what made us who we are,about that voice and that energy inside of us that defines our own existence.
Until we understand who we are,what we are and where are we going,we will be prone to make the same mistakes and not learn and we won't move to the next level .
I'm looking forward to exchange ideas we all of you.GREAT PHORUM


Hi Atreides,
Your question "Why is the wolf contraction and the sheep expansion?" Is a good one. I was trying to make a reference to the souls expansion (growth) vs. Contraction (collapse). I may have been wrong to use the Wolf as the contracting spirit/person and the sheep as expanding and growing spirit of a person. I believe that the metaphore fits, though it is somewhat rather jumping to conclusions.
I might have been able to come up with a better metaphore. The idea was taken from 'the wave' when Laura went to church and had a vision of a Wolf pasted (poor choice of words perhaps) over the visual image of the preacher/priest as well as seeing sheep and people among the Audience/members. Taking in what little 'I think' I know, I used that on the basis of the idea of the soul(s) expansion/growth or contraction/collapse. It is possible and I would say even highly likely that I am not thoroughly understanding these concepts.
I had only intended to show my understanding of these concepts in a quest for feedback to try an increase my own understanding. What I am trying to put together is a better understanding of the two main polarities/forces that seem to at odds (perspective) yet maintain a Universal balance -again only a thought or perspective of what I believe I am learning.



FOTCM Member
Well, since you asked me, let me mention a few things that come to mind.

First of all, as you pointed out, it really depends on your polarity: to STS oriented beings, religion is trying to make everything one on the outside so as to get rid of the disturbing "creative messiness" that exists in the universe. Because to the STS orientation, creation is "wasteful" and scary and uncertain. Maybe "uncertain" is the key. STS can't tolerate uncertainty, openness, infinite possibility, and so it seeks to control and restrict and return everything to the pre-creative impulse state of singularity.

So, for such a being, religion is an external control system that he hopes will restore that singularity. And by God, if anybody resists, he WILL be assimilated! "Resistance is futile!"

From the STO point of view, there is also a recognition of a kind of unity, but it recognizes it as being an "inner thing," that the spark of being all comes from that same singularity, but that the uncertain, infinitely open, creative impulse is just that - wonderfully diverse and expresses the myriad glories of possibility.

Another way to say it is that STS can't bear the unknown, and STO learns to face the unknown not only without flinching, but with wonder and awe and even curiosity. Yes, there is that mixture of fear in there, but it is balanced by love for creation and creativity itself. It honors the creatie spark in everyone that enables them to all be different, each expressing a new and different aspect of infinite potential.

The C's said it best, combining all I have said above, and more, into a few short sentences:

"Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future.""



Thanks Laura,
The first sentence you qouted from the C's "Life is Religion," is certainly an inner belief I consider. There was in my own life a preacher who had taken in my family (under his wing) who I would see on occasion. He would always ask me what sunday I could be expected to come back on and pray with the congregation, I would often reply as soon as I finish praying from the last time I was there.
I enjoyed your reply, (sadly) after 40 minutes of replying I opened up a C's manuscript to get some information on a question and closed my reply down. I am regurgitating what I had originally written here. I did not realize firefox would not open in a new window but used the one I was typing in DOH!
My original (2 part) question I think I only partially asked properly. What I had intended to ask and should have been more clear on with this: "Laura: How goes your own studies on religion and things of that Nature?"
What I was hoping to ask was more along the lines of the following:
Is there still contact so far as the C's go? I imagine that you keep most current information out of reach to all or some for a reason so my questions will not be too specific.
Has the information still being obtained (?) been as intrigueing as before, say over the last 5 years? How is your personal reasearch moving so far as historic information, religious history..? I am asking in the context of your perception so far as hopeful, pretty good, confusing and the like but not trying to be too prying. If I am being prying, I'm kinda seeking personal things in regards to enthusiasm as well.
I guess I have alot of questions most of them I am confident I can learn to/and answer myself. Again 1,000 thanks for your time.
P.S. Heh, this is one of few times I think the second time I wrote it got worse! 8)-~


Hello, I've only just joined up here and apologise if I'm stepping on anyone's toes.

Whether I am right or wrong I have no idea, but the way I view the world is that each living creature represents a point which can be pictured as the meeting point of 2 pyramids, one a funnel from the outside universe, the other a path to the infinite within.

Religion I see as the interface between us as people and the enormity of those infinte realms. It is not something that can be imposed, it provides no system for control by others. Organised religion is a different beast altogether - it's surely just a common set of rules to which people subscribe - either willingly or otherwise. Within that ruleset a common belief in a creator or all powerful being, or just the teachings of a wise man lends cohesion and harmony to the lives of those folks, it's what they signed up for. I suppose to some extent I do not like the first line of that definition since it implies reverence for some superbeing etc. etc.

As a pagan I do not 'worship' any one or any thing - to do so demeans us both. The Goddess that I honour and recognise is a way for me to deal with the enormity of creation at a *human* level. The thought that somehow I can do evil, despicable things and then go to some priest who will absolve me of my sins provided I say 10 Hail Mary's and abstain from the Internet for a week is beyond my comprehension. As a pagan I accept that I am responsible for my own actions - the simple concept "Harm None" is actually very scary, and very hard to keep in mind. There is no benevolent superbeing/fatherfigure in whose name we can go round killing, maiming and abusing.............
.........and yet religion brings much that is good to the world in many ways. The subscription to the common good under an umbrella organisation, there are many religious organisations of all beliefs that do amazing work for others, selflessly and willingly. Perhaps then it represents the fire in the cavemouth, something around which we can all gather and take what warmth we need, while interacting with our fellow human beings and other creatures - we just need to remember that fire can burn as well as warm.

in light


Al Today

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Most here on this Big Blue Marble only "know" what is seen have been told.
Some are driven to seek but even fewer do.
Many do not question the "written" word or rituals for fear of crowd retalitation.
After all, aren't we are social beings?
Doesn't one want to be liked and part of the "in" crowd?

One may have "whisperings" or dreams, but...
One is bombarded DAILY by programming.
Takes a driven, strong will to break out of the box.
And a stronger will to continue and persue...

Within my old monothesitic lifstyle, I was told to screen what my children may hear and see.
BUT, how else would one envision possibilites if they have NEVER see or hear another view.?.?.?

Most of us are born into families that we grow up in.
Most are born into families that only have a limited truth.
Therefore a child is exposed to that limited view, and NOT ALLOWED to question authority.
Oh, they may question doctrine, but I'm sure you've heard many of those subjective answers.
I was told that we are only mortals and to accept the mysteries of god.
Have faith and we will be taken care of.
Yeah, right.

enuff for now...


I was raised as a lifetime Roman Catholic (went through 12 years of parochial school) and never questioned the "party line". After high school I still maintained the faith nominally, but drifted away from active participation. All of that changed when I met my spouse, who was non-denominal Christian. Over the 13 years that we've known each other, we've both gone from having similar but different faiths, to developing our own entirely different faith together.

Rather than taking for granted what is told to us, we built our shared faith on our experiences and on knowledge gained (the Cassiopaea site had a not insignificant on me, prompting me to question what was really going on).

Personally, I think religion should be something that should be discovered, not forced upon oneself. I understand that there are both truths and falsehoods out there waiting to be discovered, but it's up to the individual to go with "what feels right" to them. The hard part, in my opinion, is determining if "what feels right" is really "what feels right", or just what you want to "feel right".


The hard part, in my opinion, is determining if "what feels right" is really "what feels right", or just what you want to "feel right".
Quite so. And in my view that observation is at the heart of the religion issue.

From the On-line Merriam Webster Dictionary:

"Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY."
From another site:

"The word ' religion' comes from Latin "religio" (that wich addicts), to indicate being under spell of demons. Latin "religare" means to connect. The word 'religion' gradually came to indicate all forms of ceremonial community worship (keeping minds addicted)."
If you think about it, and accroding to the above definitions, religion seems to be geared to be the link between a person and "what is right" (in the most reality-encompassing sense). But if you resolve the issue for yourself and become your own link you resolve the confusion between "what feels right" and "what you want to feel right" (which is wishful thinking). Truly, if we enter into a state of a living, absolute conviction and founded trust in ourselves regarding "what is right", would religion (as a form of reliance) be even an issue of discussion?

Some take the definition "that which connects" to imply divine connection. If so, then would not a state of inner clarity regarding "what is right" be in and of itself "that which connects"? When addressing religion, in whatever form the word comes together for us, we need to ask ourselves "to what is this connecting me?", "upon what is my reliance, here?".

Human beings are naturally social creatures, and of course when I have a vivid sense of "what is right", I want to share the implications in solidarity with others. Is this religion, or is it healthy and sincere community? Such community is a wonderful thing, but is religion necessary for it? What I mean is that if a group of people sincerely connect through a sense of harmonization of inner truth (which can be flexible enough to account for each and every unique individual expression), are formalized link's necessary?

Necessary or not, if a spontanous expression to an inwardly generated sense of meaning in like-minded individuals results in a group sense of meaning, it can come together as a group thoughtform that is like a collective work of art, both beautiful and inspiring.

Many, however, (myself included) are conditioned to think of the word "wrong" when the word "right" comes up. An association between right and morality comes up, where morality tends to be a list of do's and don'ts. I believe the sense of right transcends concepts of morality, which tend to disregard the unfathomable complexity of living freeling, fulfillingly and creatively.

Again, if I suggest throwing out "morality" I am either amoral or immoral, according to convention, which all comes down to making what is "right" into a list of do's and don'ts (not too far from the commandments concept), instead of taking my living sense of truth the touchstone for every unique situation.

Truth be told, what is right to me affirms and enhances my existence, it increases the life force, it brings reality into greater coherence and nourishes everything I am and everything I do. What is right for me affirms and enhances my being, and so can only be positive for everyone else as well, because none of us exists in isolation. Someone might still object and say: "Let's face it: If you just do what you want, then you cannot avoid doing wrong. If you do what you want, you are selfish". Let's look at this.

The second sentence of the above statement regarding selfishness, presupposes that what is good for me is not necessarily good for the rest of existence. That means that I am not connected, either in isolation from or in competition with the rest of existence. But that is not what my inner self tells me. When I am "selfish" in the conventional sense of the term, who is the "self" that is "-ish"?

It is certainly not the whole self, and if I promote only one part of myself then I am not being self-ish, I am discriminating against myself in favour of a fragmented portion or the whole. That is not being fair to myself, and hence not life-affirming in the encompassing unconditional sense.

Regarding, the issue of doing wrong if I do what I feel, I believe the issue rests on whether one agrees if the link to what is right can be a natural part of who we are, without the implicit need for external versions. If you do not believe it can, then you believe in the imperative of an external goad as the only "guide" to "right". I cannot argue with you in that case, because if you believe the inner link to truth and underlying nature of reality and what is right is invalid, then you will probably consider an external link or religion as a matter of psychic survival.

If you believe in the VALIDITY of the internal link, but may recognize that it seems to be malfunctioning in most people, then that is another story. In its most benign case, an external link or religion would be like a parent supporting and keeping safe a child as yet immature to take care of itself. Yet, the child grows up and at some point must strike out on its own. If the parent refuses to let it go, something is wrong. If the parent encourages it toward independence, and offers assistence and guidance, then it is right.

What if, however, my analogy is incorrect or inaccurate? What if the child is already grown and forcibly kept in diapers, or abused by perverts posing as parents?

If we consider that the true link is already with us, then obviously that link is our salvation, and the problem may just boil down to the resolution of the dilemma "what do I trust to be my sense of right and truth?". Perhaps we can even boil that down further into: "Can I trust my inner truth?".

In principle, the answer should be a resounding YES. However, even YES is just a word and STS challenges any such affirmation. In my view, the point is not only to affirm, but to discover and cultivate the energy upon which that affirmation is based. In my view, maturity and freedom is gained from forging that YES, not as a word but as a power of unshakeable, self-proven and founded conviction.

At the same time, we all need to start somewhere, and often it is not with big YES's to our questions of trust and self-acceptance, but little faint, barely heard or felt ones. Power is an attribute of truth, but a deeper attribute is purity, and purity is founded on sincerity. Guilt plays no part in this. Understanding that we are moving to establish a real inner sense of right that does not pressure or cajole or threaten in what amounts to an environment full of contradictions places empathy along its primary vector: facing within.

In other words, if we are empathic with ourselves, we can grow to be understanding of what forces are really us and what forces are conditioned in us and make real choices, based on that understanding. I believe that inner empathy can lead to a harmony of feeling and thought so that we can learn to identify and remove all those "theives in the night" that undermine the integrity of our inner link with what is right, without denying ourselves.

Then we are exercising our ability to feel and understand what is right, because really nobody else can claim that ability for us. I believe this ability is "hardwired" into us as a natural inner sense and is anything but a judge.

You might say "God can claim that ability", and I would agree as long as "God" does not come from the outside and tell me what is right for me. I would agree as long as "God" is unconditionally within so that I can learn to be unconditional in my sense of truth. It all amounts to being response-able to yourself, in my view.

Be that as it may, determining if "what feels right" is "what is right", may not just be the hard part regarding religion, and anything else for that matter, but the very crux of the issue. It certainly is a worthwhile goal to which to aspire.



If you talk with the man on the street and ask him what religion is, he will probably mention some of the major religions in existence today. So one angle to approach this question is to look at the common understanding of what religion is.

To most people religious or non-religious, they would probably say religion consists of going to church or some other ritual practice. I think all major religions have the concept of heaven. In fact, I think when it all boils down to the heart of the matter, that is the lure that attracts people to practicing religion. If there is not a reward or the promise of escaping what often feels like a hell on earth, the religions of today would not exist.

I would say that anyone that practices religion for the reward is not really religious.

There are some people, probably the minority, that actually live their lives as a religion. Some are practicing a formal religion, but some are not. To me the concept of Service To Others embodies religion.

If the idea is to evolve towards the higher, then anything that furthers that goal could be called religion, I prefer to think of it as art. I like to think of myself as an artist, and my life is the masterpiece I am trying to paint. I can’t imagine what the world would be like if everyone tried to paint a masterpiece.


I believe the world would be very much like it is now. Hitler considered himself an artist and the architectural style of the 3rd Reich was based on his drawings. We all have our own canvas to paint, and we are also creating upon a common canvas like a giant mural.

Apparently there are "artists" who try to elbow out the others and fill the mural with their catastrophic visions. Although we are all unique, we may distinguish between artistic visions based on empathy, solidarity and continuity or circulation with creative grown and meaning, and visions of a meaningless existence, or hell.

In the sense of viewing religion as art, the question to me would be what is the essence of the inspiration behind the artistic vision, and how does creative meaning triumph as the basis for the masterpiece?


Yes, I agree the inspiration colors the art, but I think it is intention that makes it art. If there is no intention to create, then there is no art.

It is usually assumed that God has some attributes such as goodness and wisdom and by implication, that he does not have attributes like evil and stupidity. Yet all these things are part of the creation.

It seems the STO way is to learn and observe and to guide our direction towards what we see as making ourselves harmonious with creation. Hitler worked the STS path, though not the path I would chose, it is what creates the balance with STO. Or so I think.


I guess by inspiration I mean the energy that empowers intention. If you consider that inspiration comes from within then the two meanings can actually coincide. Although I must admit that there seems to be intention behind the "destructive art" in humanity.

This is my personal believe: that God is Absolute, and at the same time Evolving, that Perfection is dynamic with Frontiers at every turn. For reality to be Absolute it needs to be never-ending, meaning growth is a constant. Instead of viewing it as a one way growth, we can understand this as a coming into Infinite Focus.

Of course, it is human reason and conceptualization that generates paradoxes in this understanding, because explaining it necessarily tries to fit God into a box, no matter how big we try to make the box (it will always be smaller than our own concieved capacity). So perhaps STS may be the manifestation of a divine Gap, and STO the closing of it.

Perhaps in conceptual terms one can "view" the Being of God as an Absolute Becoming or Ongoing Transcendence, where each frontier makes the whole Divine Masterpiece more meaningful. If so, we are certainly at a fundamental point of transition, IMO, of course.
Top Bottom