Hello there. I would like to use Shinto to create a new religion. I would like to mix Shinto with another 'resource' religion with a secret title that I may disclose later on.

I understand that there are some reasonably intelligent people on these forums, and my mental resources are often spent. So I ask myself, what should I say?

I know what I should say.

Shinto requires that no doctrine exists, as it is a religion that rejects doctrine in favour of practice. This creates a challenge. For I am an English man (British English British, excuse the humour). I like to challenge the fact that there is no doctrine, so I created the Shinto doctrine which is 140 pages long. It could reach 150, but 140 seems cosy to me.

I realize that Shinto is a suppressed yet powerful and peaceful religion all at the same time, and it allows the merging of more than one religion. It allows a Shinto follower to practice another religion of his choice. This makes it powerfully expansive. But, as religion is all about power, it need not be powerful, but only to allow for access: for one to gain access to things.

I realize that the unattainable is attainable, but only as a flat line. And like a mountain of practice that I have never participated in, next to the flat line, I understand that I have reached the unattainable attainable line. That is to the left of the mountain. To the right of the mountain, is the foundations. The new doctrine. The easily translatable small set of rules.

These rules will be tested for existential flaws. Is this not part of the scientific process of determining the nature of a religion: to test the very rules that one puts forth? There is the hard labour of the original doctrine, mixed with the ease and the clear mind of the new doctrine.

I hope this gives you food for thought. I am not illiterate, but I am a flawed jigsaw puzzle. I'm sorry, enough of self. Have fun with this gibberish. /bad selling point.

What I understand, is that it's best not to worry about what other people are thinking and putting; or even the power that other people gain. This is about myself and my ambitions. It is about understanding that some people will always be in power no matter what.

I want to convert Shinto people to my religion, so that it is a joint religion that proclaims the scientific method in creating it. Of course, this is nothing really related to Scientology, and the aim is peace in the expansion of an already relegated religion: Shinto.

Maybe someone or something can offer some advice. Preferably not a robot.
Thanks.

I see. So you are aspiring to become a con-artist.

Good question. But where does con come into it? If I'm innocent to the con, and unaware of it, how is it a con?

L.Ron Hubbard? Is that you? Have you come back?

I can't possibly speculate on what L Ron Hubbard's aims are. All I know is that perhaps one of his interests was proclaiming the scientific method's use in his religion. The trouble is, you can't risk turning me into a scapegoat or a 'reincarnation of.' Obviously I don't think that this is a tangible risk, because who is really going to take it seriously. But yes, most historical figures deserve some attention if not respect for their works. As I don't know much about L Ron Hubbard's life, I can say that upon first glance, he may have had an overly active imagination and wanted some way to exert it. Often, the results of religion can be far from what the original creator had in mind, so it's no good having an effigy of people that history may well have distorted.

Dudeism, Pastafarianism, and Scientology are good places to start.

Thankyou. I look forward to further queries.

Why don't you work out your own personal philosophy and live by it. Why do you feel the need to invent a religion? What will you gain from it?

L Ron Hubbard's motivation really, truly seems to have been money and money alone. Just don't do that.

Yeah, don't do that. If you do you'll have Jesuits showing up and saying things like "nice little religion you got here, be a shame if something happened to it".

I'm having a really hard time distinguishing between starting a new religion and telling a new lie.

Ah, well, if the number 3 was removed from maths, how would mathematicians cope? If truth is removed, does that create a lie in its place? My doctrine has so much to tell, but it can't tell everything. Maybe there is something missing...

Anyway. I believe I am doing the right thing, that is the truth. That is why I want to go down this path. To add strength to a religion.

A laudable if not entirely futile goal if the idea is for something good to come of it. Many have tried and many have died. Has there ever been any religion invented that has not eventually been twisted and warped, distorted out of all decency and benefit by the petty human penchant for greed and power? Even if such exists now, it's only a matter of time. Give it up and save us all yet another trip down that worn-out road, paved as it may be with good intentions.

Ah, well, if the number 3 was removed from maths, how would mathematicians cope? If truth is removed, does that create a lie in its place? My doctrine has so much to tell, but it can't tell everything. Maybe there is something missing...

That... doesn't mean anything at all.

ourview wrote:Ah, well, if the number 3 was removed from maths, how would mathematicians cope?

They'd be between a quarter and a half more confident they were being conned.

Many have tried and many have died.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but is it possible that this all comes down to hierarchy and collateral? I mean, mentally ill people have trouble fitting in to either. That would be my primary concern.

Incidentally, Freemasons only allow mentally fit people to join? Is this correct?

I'm guessing here, but would not the psychopathically greedy be accepted to be members of the Freemasons? You know, the sort of people would join Right Wing political parties.

I think it's best not to make assumptions about any political stance. Life experience shows us that people from all walks of life join many different political organizations. The divide between far left and far right can always be up for debate as well. But you raise an interesting point.

People from all walks of life join a religion (some don't have to - they're born into it). Life experience (and history) has shown us that religions are most adept at political manipulation. Politics and religion goes hand-in-hand.

ourview wrote:

Many have tried and many have died.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but is it possible that this all comes down to hierarchy and collateral? I mean, mentally ill people have trouble fitting in to either. That would be my primary concern.

Offering religion to the mentally ill, is like offering a drinks to alcoholics. Especially if they are suffering from delusional disorders.

At best it is masking their underlying issues, at worst you are inflaming them.