A couple of questions for you.

[SeaCat]

Okay these questions are about religion, but were posed to me by one of my patients today. (One who is looking for her own answers.)

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Cat

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Okay these questions are about religion, but were posed to me by one of my patients today. (One who is looking for her own answers.)

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Cat

Can't answer the first one.

Second one though:
Start from scratch. What are the benifits of different religions to different people? What parts of those religions help make the lives of that religions followers better, as well as the lives of those around them?

Build the religion around what religion should be. A belief system to help guide people through their lives, and something to fall back on inside one's self in times of need.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[3113]

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

An Othodox person is someone who believes that the relgion they follow should be followed according to the certain strict texts or rules. So, for example, an Othodox Jew will not eat milk with meat--to the point where they will not have a cheese burger.

NOW, this is similar to Fanaticism in that Fanatic are people who are "fans" of something in the extreme. Extreme fans of a hobby, a band, a lifestyle. For someone to BE Othodox, to follow such rules without question, because it makes them happy, requires that they be, to a certain extent, a "fan" of that religion. It's not easy maintaining a kosher kitchen...you have to be very much into Judiasm. So much into it that you want to follow it's oldest and strictest laws and ways, you want to be part of it's most orthodox culture.

The problem with mixing the two up, however, is that a person can be a "fan" of a religion without being Othodox. A Reform Rabbi is no less a "fanatic" of Judiasm, but that doesn't mean he will demand that his congregation be separated along gender lines with the women upstairs and the men down stairs. He will have a bat mitzvah for a girl, whereas the Othodox Rabbi won't.

Fanatic means, to me, someone who is passionate about something. Passionate often to the point where everything else is secondary to them. That thing they are a fanatic about is first in their life--always. They surround themselves with it, they love it, they live for it, and, in extreme cases, they will die for it.

Othodox is just a religious preference--what form of the religion appeals to you and that you feel is right for you to follow. It is only because Othodoxy takes more work--like not answering the phones on Saturday--that it's usually identified with fanaticism.

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Existing? Hell no. Everytime someone comes up with a religion with basic tenets, the followers look for loopholes.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I think the first question has been answered quite well and is less a question of viewpoints then definitions, so I won't bother to add my definitions.

Question two could have a very in depth answer but I am tired so I will give a simple one and offer something I read last night. Yes, I think I would choose from current religions. I would basically choose the commonalities.

From How to Expand Love by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama...

"All religions teach a message of love, compassion, sincerity, and honesty. Each system seeks its own way to improve life for us all. Yet if we put too much emphasis on our own philosophy, religion, or theory, becoming too attached to it, and try to impose it on other people, the result will be trouble. Basically all the great teachers including Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammed and Moses, were motivated by a desire to help their fellow beings. They did not seek to gain anything for themselves, nor to create more trouble in the world.

Religion may have become synonymous with deep philosophical issues, but it is love and compassion that lie at the heart of religion."

I've been taken with a term some religions use for meetings, "fellowship." I think that is one good reason for being part of an organized religion. You derive the benefits for yourself of fellowship and offer those same benefits to the members of the group. This is still a good way to recognize people in need and help them.

 

[angela146]

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

"Orthodoxy" is a strict adherence to a "correct" belief (at least in the mind of the believer). "Fanatasicm" is more about the intensity of the belief, rather than strictness.

[I'm going to use feminine pronouns for convenience but the concepts apply equally to males and females.]

For the non-fanatic orthodox, there is clarity/strictness in the rules, but the rules might be set aside for some reasons that the fanatic might find unacceptable.

The non-orthodox fanatic, by contrast, might follow her own set of rules or might adhere to a general set of principles but "come Hell or high water" she is going to do what she thinks is right at all times without exception.

Examples: a non-fanatic orthodox Jew would follow the strict teachings of her tradition up to a point. For her, there are other things that are more important than, say, keeping kosher. When she is visiting the home of a Christian, she might eat non-kosher food in order to respect the customs of the house.

That doesn't mean that the dietary laws have changed. In her own home, she is going to strictly adhere to *all* of the rules. It just means that she has chosen not to follow the rules because there is something overriding importantance to her (in this case, hospitality).

Conversely, a non-orthodox but fanatic Jew might not follow all of the details, but what rules she did follow she would follow without exception. So, she might choose to avoid pork and seafood and avoid mixing meat with milk but not adhere to the rules of separate dishes, preparation methods etc.

In her case, in the same situation, she would skip the pork and eat only the vegetables. It doesn't matter that the vegetables were prepared in a non-kosher kitchen because she doesn't follow the preparation rules anyway. But she isn't going to make an exception for the pork in this (or any) situation because that is a rule she *does* follow.

Of course, there are degrees of fanaticism and orthodoxy and there are lots of different traditions that one can adhere to or not, so your mileage may vary.

In fact, it is possible for a fanatic orthodox Jew (of a particular tradition) to eat non-kosher food in the home of a gentile because *in her particular tradition* one is expected to eat what is put in front of them. However, you can bet that there are very strict rules that determine how such things are to be handled and what situations they are to be applied to.

I chose these examples because I have a large number of Jewish friends - of varying traditions and varying levels of fanaticism - and have encountered these situations on a frequent basis.

Vegetarians and vegans have some of the same kinds of characteristics. Catholics also can be strict/lax adherants and/or fanatic or non-fanatic. *However* Roman Catholics don't use the word "Orthodox" in this context because that word has a lot of baggage associated with it.

The concepts of orthodoxy and fanaticism can be applied to just about any belief system, although sometimes the words are different.

Does that help?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I could never choose between the existing religions. None of them worship me

 

[jomar]

I could never choose between the existing religions. None of them worship me

I do.

 

[QSWordsmith]

Okay these questions are about religion, but were posed to me by one of my patients today. (One who is looking for her own answers.)

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Cat

Question one has been answered better than I could have done.

Question two: Starting a religion isn't that hard really, All one needs is a willingness to do a little research (so quoting out of context is simpler), a smooth line of patter for general consumption, and the ability to find a core group of gullible fools to follow you. (New Agers are particularly susceptible to this, they'll believe almost anything and often become rather zealous about proselytizing their new faith)
One good thing about dealing with New Agers is that they swallow damn near anything that isn't traditional Judeo-Christian in origin. Thus starting a religion based upon a mish-mash of older mythologies should be a relatively simple exercise.
Personally I would favor starting a revival of one of the older religions. ( particularly one that features temple prostitutes. Male and female of course)

 

[rgraham666]

Okay these questions are about religion, but were posed to me by one of my patients today. (One who is looking for her own answers.)

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Cat

Orthodoxy is about leading your own life by your own tenets. You adhere closely to them.

Fanaticism is about making sure everybody else lives by your tenets. If they know what's good for them.

I wouldn't create a religion. I know my ideas would be perverted by power mongers too soon after I shuffled off this mortal coil.

And since the central tenet of my personal religion is "There's enough pain in the universe with out me adding to it", this means I would be acting against my own beliefs.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Okay these questions are about religion, but were posed to me by one of my patients today. (One who is looking for her own answers.)

1) What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Fanatasiscm?

2) If you could create a new world religion what would it's basic tenets be? Would you ick and chose from existing religeons or not?

Cat

I'm not going to try definitions other than to say orthadox or not has no bearing on fanaticism.

Let me take a stab at the second one instead. First let me buffer this with the fact that a new religion today stands far less a chance for success than a new resteraunt. No, I would not pick and choose from other religions. There are too many lies there already.

Instead I would base it on facts that can be proven scientifically, not "Well, this book says it's true". I would want people to be able to look at it and say, "That makes perfect sense." I don't want people following it on blind faith and the fear that if they don't there will be dire consequences. It would teach full understanding of things before judgements are made. Not, "I don't understand it so it must be an evil thing." All things must be studied from all directions, every angle, because only then can you really say you understand.

A friend of mine has a framed quote on the wall beside his desk that reads, "If you are to truly understand you will need contrast. Not adherence to a single idea. The real truth lies in the contrast." There is no credit given to author, though I suspect it's one of his own. I think that sums it all up for me. Unless you can honestly say you fully understand it, leave it alone or prove yourelf ignorant.

 

[SimpleGifts]

On the first question, I'm totally with rgraham. Orthodoxy is the belief that you need to live your life through strict adherence to a specific belief system. Fanaticism is the belief that everyone else does, too.

On the second question...I'm not a big fan of any organized religion, but if I were to create one from scratch, I would just ensure that it is one which gives its followers a reason to believe in themselves when it seems that none exists.

SG