LOA is a "religion" (Take 2)

[SmartAlx]

I know. I know. It's been discussed before, but I didn't see anyone discuss the definition of religion. Rather the opponents of the idea that the LoA is a religion compared LoA to their preconceived notions of what a religion is, and we all know what happens when we use our own preconceived notions in an argument.

So rather than do that, can we discuss the actual definition? If I might quote wikipedia:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.

I know that some people do not like the use of the world spirituality associated with the LoA. But you must admit that it does at least encompass your own spirit, your own sense of self, your sense of well-being, and if you believe in one, the condition of your soul.

As to the rest, I don't see any distinction to the Law of Attraction. Doesn't this make the LoA a religion? So, if you do believe in science, and you are an atheist/agnostic, but you believe in the LoA, you believe in a religion? Can you be a religious atheist?

Hahaha. Maybe that is why a lot of LoA proponents don't like their beliefs to be called a religion, because there is a lot of baggage attached to the word: religion. Baggage that they do not like.

But again, the baggage is a preconceived notion. Not all religious beliefs contain the negative baggage. So if you detach the baggage from the word religion, maybe it wouldn't be so bad to realize that the Law of Attraction is a religion.

If you disagree with the idea that the LoA is a religion, I would like to know what problem you have with the word: religion.

[floslib]

I agree with you that the idea of the LOA is a religious or spiritual one. By the definition you use for religion, this is definitely the case, where the LOA (or the universe) is the higher power.

I would say that it is indeed possible to be a religious atheist as well though. Religion doesn't always presuppose a belief in God. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god or gods, so one could be religious while also not believing in any god. Following the LOA is one such way, as they believe in a higher power, but that higher power isn't necessarily a deity of any kind.

Also, science, religion, and spirituality aren't all incompatible with each other. With the right approach, they can all be compatible. I think the reason they aren't seen this way more often is because of the way the debate has been framed between believers and non-believers.

As a disclaimer, I don't strictly believe in the LOA. I think the idea behind it is a good one, but I don't quite hold to the idea that it's always on and always working. Rather, I see it as another paradigm to work magic, and one that is pretty close to the one I use, though with some differences.

[cylon]

The word religion usually applies to a strict interpretation of a teaching, with negative consequences if not followed, and usually is the teaching of an all knowing, singular God that is outside of one's self, and this God is the one who meters out the punishment.

LOA doesn't have any of that crap. You're free to make your own decisions, plenty of LOA teachers contradict each other anyway (so there is no "one" teaching), there is no outside God keeping score, and if you decide to change course, you can drop it for good, or change your approach, all things that are forbidden in religion.

LOA also has none of the pomp and circumstance of organized religion, none of the props, rituals, holidays, etc. Those things are usually there to feel a connection to a God outside of yourself, but since there is no God outside according to LOA.... again not necessary.

You are free to come and go, and choose your path, and enjoy the fruits of your "manifestations" without guilt.

So that's my take on some of the distinctions between LOA, and religion.

Also it should be noted, LOA is basically observing and using what many consider to be a natural law, like gravity. People who don't jump off buildings don't worship gravity, they just know what the consequences will be if they do jump. Likewise with LOA, people don't worship LOA (at least I don't) but they have learned to notice how their thoughts can influence the world around them.

The word religion is just a label though. People like to use that label on LOA when the idea of LOA threatens them. If they can make it fit into a box of something they know they don't like or agree with (religion) it's much easier for them to justify dismissing it.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by cylon

The word religion is just a label though. People like to use that label on LOA when the idea of LOA threatens them. If they can make it fit into a box of something they know they don't like or agree with (religion) it's much easier for them to justify dismissing it.

I use that label on LOA because it's a belief structure that seems to have faith in some form of higher power. Also, as it hasn't been scientifically tested, I find it irritating that it's considered a law, in the same way I find it irritating that the Law of Three is sometimes called that, rather than just calling it karma.

I take no issue with religion, though I do sometimes take issue with organized religion depending on circumstances. LOA is certainly not organized religion in any sense of the term. I just don't think things should be called laws without the proper research and scientific backing. In fact, I much prefer the term Intention Manifestation for just this reason, though I understand LOA is an easier abbreviation.

In short, I don't use the term religion to dismiss the LOA, but rather to classify it as a particular belief structure different from scientific belief structures, as well as a particular subset of spiritual belief structures. I'd consider an argument to treat LOA as simply a spiritual structure rather than a religious one, but not to treat it as a scientific one without appropriate evidence and testing.

[joelr]

I personally don't care what you call it but like Cylon mentioned it could be more of a possible law of Physics than anything else. It's an idea based on movements of energy that does not require a personal God. The alternative god concepts we find "East of Suez", an impersonal God concept, can also be taken as metaphors for the movements of these energy systems.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by floslib

Also, as it hasn't been scientifically tested, I find it irritating that it's considered a law.

I understand where you're coming from. But why does it irritate you? If a bunch of people think it's an actual law, (despite how they are misusing or appropriating that word in your eyes) why should this affect you for good or bad?

[Brutha]

LoA is a single belief that people with different religions can hold. In itself I don't think it fits the level of organization that characterizes a religion.

Something like the stock market is a lot more like a religion where everyone worships some numbers and thinks that some correlations have something to do with causation.

Also, as it hasn't been scientifically tested, I find it irritating that it's considered a
law.

New things that are scientifically tested usually aren't called laws.
It makes only sense to call them laws when you think that there is a God which created those laws with is kind of what Newton did back them.

All new laws in the 20st century are things like Murphies Law or Paretos law that don't apply in everycase.
The whole notion about something being a law is that it possible to break it when the authority behind the law isn't strong enough.

20st century molecular biology even has a dogma but no laws.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by cylon

The word religion usually applies to a strict interpretation of a teaching, with negative consequences if not followed, and usually is the teaching of an all knowing, singular God that is outside of one's self, and this God is the one who meters out the punishment.

LOA doesn't have any of that crap.

That's what I meant when I said that the word "Religion" has a lot of baggage attached to it. Get rid of your preconceived notions about that baggage and then reread the OP.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by cylon

I understand where you're coming from. But why does it irritate you? If a bunch of people think it's an actual law, (despite how they are misusing or appropriating that word in your eyes) why should this affect you for good or bad?

And I must ask you the corollary, "why does it irritate you to call it a Religion?" I suppose you answered this question, but you did attach your own preconceived notions to wikipedia's definition of religion. Shed those notions and then reevaluate your position on the LoA and religion.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by cylon

I understand where you're coming from. But why does it irritate you? If a bunch of people think it's an actual law, (despite how they are misusing or appropriating that word in your eyes) why should this affect you for good or bad?

It really doesn't effect me, and in the grand scheme of things, it honestly doesn't matter too much as far as I'm concerned. However, I do feel that it misrepresents the topic, and makes it sound stronger than it really is. Law sounds authoritative, rather than speculative or exploratory.

Basically, it's a minor irritant I usually just brush off, but since we're on the topic, it seemed like something to bring up.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I suppose you answered this question, but you did attach your own preconceived notions to wikipedia's definition of religion. Shed those notions and then reevaluate your position on the LoA and religion.

Yeah, sometimes I share my own opinions that are independent of wikipedia. Thanks for the directive on how to think.

BTW, next time you start a thread, be prepared for varying opinions.

Originally Posted by floslib

It really doesn't effect me, and in the grand scheme of things, it honestly doesn't matter too much as far as I'm concerned. However, I do feel that it misrepresents the topic, and makes it sound stronger than it really is. Law sounds authoritative, rather than speculative or exploratory.

Basically, it's a minor irritant I usually just brush off, but since we're on the topic, it seemed like something to bring up.

I suppose so. Some would say that just because it's not scientifically proven it isn't real, which I would call speculative. But that's neither here nor there.

[Wax Frog]

I may be wrong, but to me an essential aspect of any religion is a code of conduct or system of ethical and moral guidance which one strives to conform to. Some interpretations of LoA may stray into that territory, but thus far I've not been made aware of any Official Rulebook...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Rather the opponents of the idea that the LoA is a religion compared LoA to their preconceived notions of what a religion is, and we all know what happens when we use our own preconceived notions in an argument.

Aha ... Time for a spot check. Perhaps you have some preconceived notions of what the LOA is.

[munish]

Law of attraction is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The universe doesn't respond to me. I respond to the universe.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
Tao Te Ching

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I know. I know. It's been discussed before, but I didn't see anyone discuss the definition of religion. Rather the opponents of the idea that the LoA is a religion compared LoA to their preconceived notions of what a religion is, and we all know what happens when we use our own preconceived notions in an argument.

So rather than do that, can we discuss the actual definition? If I might quote wikipedia:



I know that some people do not like the use of the world spirituality associated with the LoA. But you must admit that it does at least encompass your own spirit, your own sense of self, your sense of well-being, and if you believe in one, the condition of your soul.

As to the rest, I don't see any distinction to the Law of Attraction. Doesn't this make the LoA a religion? So, if you do believe in science, and you are an atheist/agnostic, but you believe in the LoA, you believe in a religion? Can you be a religious atheist?

Hahaha. Maybe that is why a lot of LoA proponents don't like their beliefs to be called a religion, because there is a lot of baggage attached to the word: religion. Baggage that they do not like.

But again, the baggage is a preconceived notion. Not all religious beliefs contain the negative baggage. So if you detach the baggage from the word religion, maybe it wouldn't be so bad to realize that the Law of Attraction is a religion.

If you disagree with the idea that the LoA is a religion, I would like to know what problem you have with the word: religion.

[viking4525]

Originally Posted by munish

Law of attraction is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The universe doesn't respond to me. I respond to the universe.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
Tao Te Ching

Interesting perception .... you might be correct to a point, if you use LoA on its own, then yeah sure, its hit and miss (to the individual perspective). When used in conjunction with the other "laws", and so becomes (in my words) The Process then its not hit and miss (to the individual perspective). In my view there is NO DUALITY, YOU and the UNIVERSE ARE ONE, there is no separation. The Process only works on the basis of NON DUALITY.

LoA is not a religion per se, well The Process is definitely NOT a religion, HOWEVER from reading various threads on this forum I believe that people are TRYING to create a religion out of it, people are trying to create a "dogmatic" approach ... i.e. IF you follow MY "method" it will work ... do this, do that, x=synch+(visualisation/60 minutes) etc etc.

Just my view, there is no right or wrong

[cylon]

Originally Posted by munish

Law of attraction is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The universe doesn't respond to me. I respond to the universe.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
Tao Te Ching

Yeah but if you actually think about what the Tao is saying, it is saying that all is one. You ARE the universe. It's not outside of you. It is you and you are it.

I'm not sure how one can read the Tao and then come to the conclusion that they are separate from the Universe (another word for Tao). The whole point of the Tao is that all is one.

[themaster]

I have always considered LOA or at least "new age" a religion.. by my definition I consider it that cause I think a religion answers unknown questions and life after death questions.. however by my own definition I also consider that each person has a personal religion and that the idea of organized religion is a oxymoron..

However, I am willing to adapt my definition to consider not classifying it at such.. I do see you are right it does seem to be a negative or non-inclusive viewpoint to want to keep it out of that bandwagon; that idea bereaved by others appears to be subjectively NEGATIVE in origin..

[joelr]

Originally Posted by viking4525

LoA is not a religion per se, well The Process is definitely NOT a religion, HOWEVER from reading various threads on this forum I believe that people are TRYING to create a religion out of it, people are trying to create a "dogmatic" approach ... i.e. IF you follow MY "method" it will work ... do this, do that, x=synch+(visualisation/60 minutes) etc etc.

It's in no way dogmatic to have experience with LOA and to relay information about what worked and what didn't work. No one has to consider it gospel.

I'm sure there are many ways to engage LOA for one's benefit, not just one method. But there are similarities in the methods of highly successful IM individuals, I hope those people will share their experiences without feeling like they are being "dogmatic".
If I find someone who has manifested all of their desires I want to know their methodology immediately so I can consider using their methods. I don't even care if they say "this is the only way".

Considering how many LOA users are still very frustrated it seems like having some methodology (I don't think that's dogma) would be a good idea.

[viking4525]

Originally Posted by joelr

It's in no way dogmatic to have experience with LOA and to relay information about what worked and what didn't work. No one has to consider it gospel.

I'm sure there are many ways to engage LOA for one's benefit, not just one method. But there are similarities in the methods of highly successful IM individuals, I hope those people will share their experiences without feeling like they are being "dogmatic".
If I find someone who has manifested all of their desires I want to know their methodology immediately so I can consider using their methods. I don't even care if they say "this is the only way".

Considering how many LOA users are still very frustrated it seems like having some methodology (I don't think that's dogma) would be a good idea.

The people that "preach" LoA are trying to create a dogmatic approach, as is all the "teachers" that charge 000's for the "teaching" of LoA. People are missing the point that it all comes from INSIDE and nothing outside. There are a few rare "teachers" out there that acknowledge the fact that they are giving "pointers" to people, and not a "methodology", yet people hang on the literally words as "sermons" from a preacher.

The joke is The Process is WAY MORE than just LoA. And you hit the nail on the head, there is no "one size fits all". The Process is unique for EVERY individual and if you are personally "waiting" for a method that works so you can consider it ... you will have a long wait. The reason is EVERYONE has already created the manifestation of their lives, however as to whether its "successful" as you term it, its difficult to gauge as that is an egoic term. What is success?

Until the ego of individuals is cracked, then the individual will never acknowledge the "success" of their manifestations, because the ego will continue its "need" to identify with "winning" at something. And by that very definition the individual acknowledges they are coming from "lack" and so will "successfully" manifest more lack!!!

Thats why LoA is starting to become dogmatic as people's egos want it to be, and ignore the rest of The Process and fundementally miss the point of that the manifestations are actually "secondary" to the primary change of the individual consciousness.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by viking4525

The people that "preach" LoA are trying to create a dogmatic approach, as is all the "teachers" that charge 000's for the "teaching" of LoA. People are missing the point that it all comes from INSIDE and nothing outside. There are a few rare "teachers" out there that acknowledge the fact that they are giving "pointers" to people, and not a "methodology", yet people hang on the literally words as "sermons" from a preacher.

Yep, and some teachers do say the truth.. and another way of saying this is.. "you teach yourself" for after all, all incorporations of idea(s) is choice..

Originally Posted by viking4525

Thats why LoA is starting to become dogmatic as people's egos want it to be, and ignore the rest of The Process and fundementally miss the point of that the manifestations are actually "secondary" to the primary change of the individual consciousness.

This is the sect based area of the religion.. and a good door opener for some as "the secret" apparently is.. it's okay to have a sect.. but bare in mind that individuals such as the christians among us.. then have to sort out there christian views with their LOA and depending on the person growing spirituality views..

[munish]

Originally Posted by cylon

Yeah but if you actually think about what the Tao is saying, it is saying that all is one. You ARE the universe. It's not outside of you. It is you and you are it.

I'm not sure how one can read the Tao and then come to the conclusion that they are separate from the Universe (another word for Tao). The whole point of the Tao is that all is one.

The way to stop meddling with the world is to become part of it.

About LOA: I think it is just escapism

[joelr]

Originally Posted by viking4525

The joke is The Process is WAY MORE than just LoA. And you hit the nail on the head, there is no "one size fits all". The Process is unique for EVERY individual and if you are personally "waiting" for a method that works so you can consider it ... you will have a long wait. The reason is EVERYONE has already created the manifestation of their lives, however as to whether its "successful" as you term it, its difficult to gauge as that is an egoic term. What is success?

Until the ego of individuals is cracked, then the individual will never acknowledge the "success" of their manifestations, because the ego will continue its "need" to identify with "winning" at something. And by that very definition the individual acknowledges they are coming from "lack" and so will "successfully" manifest more lack!!!

Thats why LoA is starting to become dogmatic as people's egos want it to be, and ignore the rest of The Process and fundementally miss the point of that the manifestations are actually "secondary" to the primary change of the individual consciousness.

I agree that process is a good thing. Deepak Chopra calls it the 7 Spiritual Laws.

That actually is more religion/dogma than plain LOA. The process, being born again, being saved, enlightened, it's called different things in different groups but that's what each sect strives for. As soon as one says "no you have to do the whole process" that is more like a religion.
I think it's a great process and all.
But it's not a joke on anyone looking to use LOA. You don't have to be working on the path to enlightenment to just manifest some wealth or whatever. No one "has" to to any particular thing.

Enlightenment takes time. In the meantime there do seem to viable ways that are better than others at manifesting something that one would not normally be inclined to manifest without the effort. I have a bias viewpoint I guess because certain things have worked well for me.

One time in Boston I had been doing some visualization about extra spending money. One morning I heard on the radio about a contest going on for a week or so, I went online and signed up. People were using all these clues to hunt down some hidden sticker. I left my apartment and pretty much just walked straight to it and won $10,000. Was a great synch.

But one girl didn't think it was possible to do that. She complained to a blog and then the story got posted and blogshared and some are still up.
Oh well.

[Acting Like Godot]

Is LOA a religion?

This question is structurally similar to the question - "Is greulonism a bloopydu?"

And the answer is - it depends on what you mean by greulonism, and it depends on what you mean by bloopydu.

Similarly, whether LOA is a religion depends on what you mean by the LOA, and what you mean by religion.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by munish

About LOA: I think it is just escapism

You could be right.

It really depends on whether greulonism is a bloopydu.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You could be right.

It really depends on whether greulonism is a bloopydu.

This may not add anything to the discussion, but for the record, I happen to be a devoted follower of the teachings of Greulo.

[viking4525]

Originally Posted by joelr

I agree that process is a good thing. Deepak Chopra calls it the 7 Spiritual Laws.

That actually is more religion/dogma than plain LOA. The process, being born again, being saved, enlightened, it's called different things in different groups but that's what each sect strives for. As soon as one says "no you have to do the whole process" that is more like a religion.
I think it's a great process and all.
But it's not a joke on anyone looking to use LOA. You don't have to be working on the path to enlightenment to just manifest some wealth or whatever. No one "has" to to any particular thing.

Enlightenment takes time. In the meantime there do seem to viable ways that are better than others at manifesting something that one would not normally be inclined to manifest without the effort. I have a bias viewpoint I guess because certain things have worked well for me.

One time in Boston I had been doing some visualization about extra spending money. One morning I heard on the radio about a contest going on for a week or so, I went online and signed up. People were using all these clues to hunt down some hidden sticker. I left my apartment and pretty much just walked straight to it and won $10,000. Was a great synch.

But one girl didn't think it was possible to do that. She complained to a blog and then the story got posted and blogshared and some are still up.
Oh well.

Again you are hitting the target ... there are 7 aspects to The Process (didn't realise Deepak has created the group together but fantastic ), the LoA is just 1 of the 7. The basic math (for those egos out there who need figures to supplicate to the ego) is that if anyone is just concentrating on LoA they have a "success" rate of 1/7 (0.1428) - again there is no such thing as "success".

I didn't mean its a joke for people looking to LoA ... what I am saying is that there is MORE to it, people are concentrating on just the 1 area and really need to expand to the other areas, and THEN their enlightenment can continue.

Again you are correct in my view, no one has to do anything, but people do. Most people are getting bashed in life, life is trying to crack the shell of the ego, people are looking at "lack" in their lives to something, and find LoA as part of their journey, then get sucked into 1 of 7 steps. People look and without regard to their level of consciousness dive in, have a mixed "success" rate, start questioning and then looking for more "forumlaic" approaches to LoA.

Fantastic to hear about the 10k win, thats a perfect example of you either consciously OR subconsciously using ALL 7 parts of The Process and being totally aligned with your internal and external situations. My point is that whatever your process that "worked" for YOU and YOUR operation of all 7 parts of The Process will ALWAYS "work" for you for everything you desire. It will not work for everyone because of the level of your consciousness and the experiences in your life to date that has shaped any self limitations you have, and how dense your egoic logical mind is.

[ChrisDP]

Originally Posted by viking4525

Again you are hitting the target ... there are 7 aspects to The Process (didn't realise Deepak has created the group together but fantastic ), the LoA is just 1 of the 7. The basic math (for those egos out there who need figures to supplicate to the ego) is that if anyone is just concentrating on LoA they have a "success" rate of 1/7 (0.1428) - again there is no such thing as "success".

I didn't mean its a joke for people looking to LoA ... what I am saying is that there is MORE to it, people are concentrating on just the 1 area and really need to expand to the other areas, and THEN their enlightenment can continue.

Again you are correct in my view, no one has to do anything, but people do. Most people are getting bashed in life, life is trying to crack the shell of the ego, people are looking at "lack" in their lives to something, and find LoA as part of their journey, then get sucked into 1 of 7 steps. People look and without regard to their level of consciousness dive in, have a mixed "success" rate, start questioning and then looking for more "forumlaic" approaches to LoA.

Fantastic to hear about the 10k win, thats a perfect example of you either consciously OR subconsciously using ALL 7 parts of The Process and being totally aligned with your internal and external situations. My point is that whatever your process that "worked" for YOU and YOUR operation of all 7 parts of The Process will ALWAYS "work" for you for everything you desire. It will not work for everyone because of the level of your consciousness and the experiences in your life to date that has shaped any self limitations you have, and how dense your egoic logical mind is.

I recall you mentioning bits of this in another thread and this post really put it more clearer to me.
Iv only just started looking into this but i never saw it as
"oh well that person is becoming aware of their ego and limiting beliefs and then looking out for synchs that give them messages on how things will turn out. That’s what i must do to have success from this"
I think there are people who "religiously follow" how it works for other people. Sounds like follow the leader to me.

When i started trying it out i was looking to see how it works out of fascination rather than doing it as a solution to "the level of your consciousness and the experiences in your life to date that has shaped any self limitations you have, and how dense your egoic logical mind is".

I also had never heard of Deepak Chopra till now. After researching these 7 Spiritual Laws i found they were all things i was already aware of to some degree. I can see them as "Skills" that you can apply to your own life to experience a different outcome to what you were used to before.

So really people are "trying out" Intention Manifestation and LOA
Some people see it as an extra "Skill" among many others to varying success
Other’s see this success and see they must do it the same way these people did which is a “Religious” point of view of it. Which is how some fans of the secret seam to see this.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by munish

The way to stop meddling with the world is to become part of it.

How do you become part of something you were never separate from? Reread your Tao. You're missing the point of the entire thing.

As far as LOA being escapism, could be. What would you call posting in a thread about something you disagree with, just for the hell of it?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by joelr

I left my apartment and pretty much just walked straight to it and won $10,000. Was a great synch.

Lol, great story. To me it shows you were not attached to it, you figured if you were going to get some extra cash, might as well be through the contest. Whereas the other people are looking for clues, they may be having fun (which is just as good) but they are also sending out other ideas, that it's difficult to just get large sums of cash, you have to work very hard, and there's a good chance you won't even come close to winning.

Meditate on this, I will.

Originally Posted by joelr

But one girl didn't think it was possible to do that. She complained to a blog and then the story got posted and blogshared and some are still up.
Oh well.

Sounds like some of our healthy skeptics on the IM forum. ♥♥♥♥♥, moan, complain, call you a liar.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Similarly, whether LOA is a religion depends on what you mean by the LOA, and what you mean by religion.

Well, I did give the (granted, wikipedia) definition of religion.