I've been in the mind to start my own religion. How should

>>17998359
Believe in it.

>>17998378
I absolutely do. Except that I haven't quite managed to weasel out an excuse as to why such a belief system would allow smoking, drugs and alcohol, but I want to practice what I preach.

What next?

26.7 m/s

>>17998395
What.

>>17998404
A wrong answer to a grade school physics problem.

>>17998408
>>17998404
oh shit is it 10.6 m/s?

>>17998404
He answered the image's question.

>>17998385
>I absolutely do. Except that I haven't quite managed to weasel out an excuse as to why such a belief system would allow smoking, drugs and alcohol, but I want to practice what I preach.
What? You want your followers to do drugs?

There are people who believe that ALL drugs should be legalized. Like me despite the fact that I refuse to smoke or drink, and I dislike "weed culture". I don't even abstaine from it for health reasons since I drink a lot of soda.

>>17998408
Oh, right. The image's problem.

>>17998414
I wouldn't say that I'd WANT my followers to do drugs. I say I'd be a hypocrite to preach healthy living while personally downing copious amounts of whiskey and menthols.

>>17998385
https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI
https://youtu.be/IeLGP2dsjME

Religion is less to do with belief than it is about doctrine. The core value of your religion should be vague and ambiguous, open to interpretation so that it can be interpreted poorly and corrected by the religions official (s). To have a successful doctrine, you need to prey on the sufferings and misunderstandings of your contemporary fellow man, and convince them that life is better served under your word. This is where myths and stories of the divine and it's interaction with man come into play, as your religion will find its strength in the gray mists of superstition. The less facts, proofs and evidence the better. Promise of afterlife/otherworld is a fantastic measure as you can control the actions of people to purposes beyond their individual lives and deaths. Finally you need to saturate the unindoctrinated public with propaganda that paints lines leading directly back to you - you must convince them, being subtly mindful of other faiths, that your way is the one true way, and all others lead to damnation.

>>17998443
The cornerstone of my faith is some offhand interpretation of something in the bible.

Like, the bible says that God created man in his own image.

Therefore, any act of violence towards a human being is a sin and abomination, as it desecrates an image of god.

So human life is sacred, all violent action is a sin.

Is this sufficiently vague?

>>17998453
that's a principle based on one person's interpretation of a bible verse/verses

not a religion

>>17998466
Well, yeah. And I want to develop a religion around it.

>>17998472
you can't start a religion off of a bible verse/verses, but I think that your interpretation and your principle are both very valid.

Hinduism and Buddhism are pretty passive. Some Christian sects are pretty passive.

>>17998477
Yeah, I thought I'd just pretty much bum everything else from Buddhism, but put a hedonist and scandinavian spin to it.

>>17998472
basically, creating a new religion requires a need for a new religion. believing humans are part of something holy and shouldn't be harmed is not a new or rare concept

>>17998481
so you want to create a philosophical doctrine, and you hope people interpret it and adopt it as a religion?

>>17998503
Oh, it's a supply-and-demand -thing?

Well, fuck.

>>17998504
That was more or less the case.

Also I want to be a high priest. That would be cool.