All fascinating stuff. But no definition of religion given seems to me to necessitate all the trappings that we see all around us- the mosques, churches, temple, hierarchies of priesthood etc. etc. People who practice these ‘religions’ all seem rather embassed by these expensive fripperies - as well they might.
My definition would be along the lines of ‘the process of finding your own path to the Eternal’ and I realise that definitions of Eternal and Path (at least) would be necessary. In this context, it seems to me ALL ‘religions’, these being ways of persuading you to someone else’s path, are anti-spiritual.
Maybe it’s just because I’m a (very) lapsed Catholic…
Back to the OP:
“Religion in fact is…”
Belief in an external force as an attempt to explain and understand the world, (life, the universe, etc.). Human Nature finds it abhorrent that life has no meaning or purpose, (other than making more life).
“There must be some reason we’re here.” - Viola! Religion
Sorry to arrive too late, but after reading this I think that definition only works in believers, not in atheists. What makes me unconfortable is why do we have to accept the existence of a God* to emit a genuine definition.
I was raised by catholics, but they never could made me a catholic. But don’t think that event turned me to embrace the islam or any other religion. Not even an atheist.
I result to develop my own personal religion, admiring Jesus, Muhammad, Buda and any admirable prophet and starter of all religions, because every one of them had a true message for people to follow and believe: the message, not the protocols. The core of their ideas, not their churches or legions of fanatics in what everything became to.
How could I follow any religion seeing all the atrocities committed through all history of mankind? I prefer believing in just a God, only a *God, a supernatural being beyond all materialism and not agreeing with stupid human conflicts and fanaticisms. And supported with the best common sense, and with no name given. Any name would be superfluous. Any prayer must be private and in quiet, any ritual would be unnecessary, because that Being doesn’t need that kind of stuff. With our inside feelings has to be enough.
Please, don’t bother to categorize me in any doctrine, this is myself’s, and if it sounds like any other out there, I will not embrace it. And please, believe me that I don’t want to offend any religion and any believer. Everyone of them has all my respect and affection.
It’s slower but more comfortable to raise a definition without having to write the definition. And this * is really an open-ended one.
Good for you Lilairen!! I wouldn’t have said it better. I’ve been sustaining that idea for years!!! (and all I’ve got is “blasphemy! atheist!”)
From a personal point of view I disagree with the definition:
A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably toward the believer.
According to many, this definition may be appropriate and therefore it is accurate to the degree that it represents their approach to the subject.
My own personal definition would be:
The pursuit of a greater understanding of the spiritual nature of oneself and this activity we call life.
I define religion in this way because I find it more useful. If you have a broken car you are at an advantage if you understand the workings of your car. This is because (a) you can fix it yourself and (b) if a mechanic tries to rip you off you are likely to know it. If you have a broken car and you can only “believe in” what you are told by someone who can fix it, you can be taken for a ride. You are safe if your mechanic is an honest guy, but you can be screwed if your mechanic tells you that god is angry and wants you to give the mechanic—priest a bunch of money.
This is my personal take on it and I thought I’d throw it into the fray because I didn’t see any posts that represented any similar points of view.
As I said at the start, religion is nothing but:
I come to this conclusion by observing the behavior of people who do practice religious actions, whatever they say about religion to be, as to their own idea.
From the poor ignorant unlettered and unread practitioner of any religious behavior to the most exquisite and exotic of so-called ascetics and mystics, and to the professionals who make a living of religion, all of them are after the favors of the unknown powers that be, by eliciting affections and actions intended to entice the positive regard from this or these unknown power(s).
Pope John Paul II, he’s after God’s good rewards; if he denies, he’s a heretic.
Billy Graham, he’s received his rewards on earth and still awaiting those in heaven.
Dalai Lama, he’s made a good living with his Buddhahood and still aspires to more perks from his Buddhahood when and if he gets back to Tibet.
Pat Robertson, he’s even asking God to make him President of the U.S.A.
All kinds of Christians, they are after heaven by way of salvation; in the meantime they first seek the kingdom of God while everything will be added to them.
The Hinduist, ask him whether he is not after favors from his deities, what with all his shrines at home to these personalities.
Well, you give me one religious person that is not after favors from the powers that be, and I will show you that he is indeed after favors.
Susma Rio Sep
A rare sighting of the amazing double-headed OP!
A handful of people then disagree, debate and correct your initial assumption. Nothing much happens for almost two months, until you decide to wrap it up.
How about all the religious people above?
Did you re-read the thread, decide to ignore their points and think to yourself “I’ll just go ahead and post my conclusion based on nothing else but my original OP. It might even look like I was right in the first place.”?
Why are you even in Great Debates if you’re going to use that kind of underhanded debating techniques?
Religion is a set of rituals and observances which merely distracts people from spiritual matters. That’s why Jesus hates religion. Just ask Jack Chick.
Petter, in justice to Susma, s/he did not start this in GD, but as a response to a Staff Report, and the thread was moved to GD because, well, it’s where theology discussions go.
That said, though, you are right in that s/he is just insisting on the OP and disregarding any argument to the contrary. Because, of course, s/he is not interested in debating. The “correct me if I’m wrong” in the OP was disingenuous and insincere. S/he is interested in making a proclamation about that of which s/he is already convinced.
Then there are the spiritualists. Basically they believe God is unconditional love. That it is their task to be like Him as much as they can. They actually attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus. “Love one another, love your enemies, non judgemental attitude, forgiving others,” and such. Most do not claim Christianity because they don’t want to be grouped with those that do judge and condemn.
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, {21} nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Words of Jesus Christ in Luke 17:20-21
Spirituallity is looking within for God, and there He can be known.
Love
Leroy
Dear Petter (and other dismayed parties):
I must admit I really deserve that scolding from you. Thanks. I have lapsed again into the habit of acting like a book on ‘How to Make Enemies and Antagonize People’. And it is people like you that bring me back to good behavior. Forgive me. And all you good people who put in the time and trouble and thinking to react to my initial posting.
For a possible attenuating circumstance of my fault in not attending to this thread, see postscript below.
Let me try to explain what I mean with my definition of religion:
by paraphrasing some important terms:
Human behavior - we are not talking about any other behavior but that of humans; humans are the only ones doing religion so far as humans are concerned. Should anyone come across any other organisms doing religion, it should be brought up here for our consideration.
Belief - as in belief in Santa Claus, but not as in belief in Bush; as in belief in Satan, but not as in belief in Saddam; as in belief in Jesus Christ, but not as in belief in Bill Gates; as in belief in heaven and hell, but not as in belief in Hollywood and Appalachia; as in belief in prayer, but not as in belief in motion for reconsideration. The target of belief here is imperceptible to our sensible awareness and examination in present time context.
Unknown power - unknown as when we don’t know Bigfoot, whether he is, when he is going to appear next, if at all, how, and where, and why, and what he can do; though we feel he’s packed with capacity to do things, even just physical endeavors.
Affection and action - example of affection: sorrow, gladness, fear, hope; example of action: kneeling, reciting words, building temples, abstaining from food, sex, other enjoyable activities.
To react favorably - to actualize so much as the wishes of another; for example to give your vote to a politician, to give freely money to a friend or even a stranger, to exercise your healing expertise on behalf of indigents.
My invitation is for us here to consider religion from the part of the concrete practitioners, humans who are living in the 7/24 day and occupied with all the engrossments in having a life.
The first question we want to ask religion practitioners is “Why do you do this or that religious action, or why do you assume this or that mode of religious custom?”
‘Why’ is a question that is aimed essentially at a quest for the end reasons of acting or behaving in the case of a free intelligent agent.
So, we ask Pope John Paul II: “Why do you enact this pope’s mode of religious existence? Why do you do those routines you do in the course of your Pope’s day, and week, and month, and year, and your lifetime of being a Pope?”
The same similarly with other religious personalities and also very important the ordinary ignorant, unlettered, unread, and unthinking members of the religious masses.
Can we come to the suspicion at least that all of them are after something from somewhere that is favorable to themselves?
Susma Rio Sep
Postscript: I was giving a lot of time to discussions on married priests and allied topics.
Hi Susma, I think perhaps you do the thing you accuse others of - confusing the external with the internal.
Yes, many people (most?) who follow religion do so out of fear - fear of damnation in whatever way prescribed. Certainly, they look for a reward for their efforts.
Others, the spiritual ones, act out of love - love of their God & consequential love of their fellow man. They may achieve satisfaction (and salvation), but that is not their motivation. They wish only to serve.
These people are few, so maybe as yet you have not met one. But they exist.
It looks to me to be a fine way to live.
Peace. Mike
Dear V8:
Would you like to entertain the idea that there is nothing of discredit to humans to look to favors from God?
On the other hand, would it not be somewhat over pretentious to want to serve God without reward or any so much as recognition from Him? Which however is impossible. Let me explain.
Let’s take God as He is defined by the best Christian and Muslim and Jewish philosophers or theologians. He’s the omni of everything in the nth degree for all time before the beginning of time and after.
Now this God is a person; so He is thus defined by his proponents, the philosophers and theologians above.
If you react to a stone – if that were possible, he would not bother with you; and that question is of absolutely no relevance. But when you react or try to relate to a personal entity which is omni everything, then it would be irrational for yourself to not expect a look back from Him. And that is the favor in the ultimate sense of His reacting favorably to you.
What do you expect Him to react to you? with a frown? Then try again to elicit a favorable glance.
So there are all kinds of favors.
When the soldiers of Napoleon where being slaughtered in Moscow, and he was looking from a great height, all of them were looking to him for any so much as a glance from him, in order to die however painfully but ecstatically in the knowledge that he knew they were dying for him.
So also with this God of Christians, and Muslims, and Jews. They are looking for His favorable glance at least; even though they claim not to be in search of anything material or earthly – but that favorable glance from Him, that’s their ultimate expectation of what I consider favorable reaction to their affection and action intended by them for precisely that purpose.
So in religion however transcendent, it’s ultimately selfish, but not necessarily as we are conditioned to denigrate selfishness.
Susma Rio Sep
What do you make of those who do not look for favors or rewards from the gods but instead look to avoid divine attention?
Some belive that the gods are very much like us and the safest thing to do is be humble and keep a low profile.
This is interesting to read.
I’ll pick one out of it because it is something in particular interesting for me:
Should anyone come across any other organisms doing religion, it should be brought up here for our consideration.
In Al Qur’an is stated that every part of creation worships God in its own way. That is not limited to what we perceive as “life forms”.
Aldebaran.
This might be a little off topic. allow me to digress. at one point a scripture was quoted and an interpretation given.
QUOTE:
But if you look around among very active religious people in your personal circle, you will notice, I think, that they are into expectations of good things from God.
Recall the insight of Jesus HImself:
“First seek the Kingdom of God, and everything else will be added to you.”
I seem to see here an observation from the Master similar to mine.
He sees that religion is all about asking help and favors from God, and He uses such an attitude, to direct peoples to an even bigger good, the Kingdom of God.
i’d like to clarify some points on this particular scripture if i may.
it’s found in Matthew 6 verse 33.
it’s actual wording is :
“But seek ye first the kingomd of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”
He’s talking abotu specific things, not just things in general. this chapter itself is the continuation of the sermon on the mount. It starts out with Christ admonishing those gathered to not pray as the hypocrites using vain repititions thinking that they will be heard for much speaking. he answers this saying “…you Father knoweth what things you have need of, before ye ask Him.”
He then goes on to offer a formula for prayer, this being the Lord’s prayer. The bulk of this prayer is giving thanks, praise and asking for guidance and forgiveness. This is how Jesus wanted us to pray to our Father.
In verse 21 he says “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” he is talking about how one cannot serve two masters. If your treasures are on earth, if you are seeking wealth and fame any worldy thing then your heart is with those things and can’t also be with God, if your heart is not with God then you can’t follow Him and be like Him and you can’t be awarded eternal life.
then in verse 27 he says “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?”
he tells them that worrying about what they will eat or drink or wear is wasted since God already knows you need those things. he then asks them to consider the lillies in the valley and illustrates: “That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”
He then admonishes them for their lack of faith and says: “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Seekign the kingdom of God refers to obedience to commandements and following the example Christ gave on how to do that. the "these things’ which are referred to are the daily basic needs we have not the things we may want.
people practicing religion may being expecting good things from God because of their actions but if they do they’re missing the point. Consider Job, a righteous, beloved man of God who was horribly tried. it is true that blessings are predicated upon obedience but we are not rewarded with blessings, they are connected to that law that God himself is bound to. conversely our disobedience is not so much punished as we are held to suffer our own consequences. Our ‘reward’ is eternal life which is granted to us by ‘grace, after all we can do.’
i think in terms of your definition of religion, it is unfair to define a religion by observing those who claim to practice it…there are simlpy too many interpretations and sects many of which roaming further and further than the Author and Finsher of our Faith intended. saying that the power is unknown is an incorrect assumption seeing as how in order to be obedient to God we are first commanded to know Him. He therefore is knowable should diligence, patience, and faith be exercised. I think religion is a lifetime pursuit to know the Creator, to reflect and imitate His qualities in our life and eventually return to be with Him. I think all souls have a yearning in them to return home to be with God, and we act that out and struggle to understand it in many ways. how the world defines religion is irrelevant when your goal should be a personal relationship with heavely father, Jesus was trying to say that when tellign us to seek first the kingdom of God.
something i would like to try to add is that we can’t elicite reactions from God in fact I would think it’s much the other way around. He creates us, blesses us and then gives us information on the best way to live to be happy, safe, and on course. WE choose whehter to accept that or not and life unfolds. God isn’t reacting to us, we are reacting to him. He is always present doing what is in His will to do. WE choose to be aware of that or not. but either way His actions don’t change simply because ours do. As our awareness of Him grows and our ability to understand increases (which happens through our diligence and obedience) we begin to see things differently but this is absolutley not God reacting to us. IF any christian should seek one favorable thing it’s the phrase ‘well done thou good and faithful servant’ which we won’t hear untill we’re done on Earth, which means expecting any particular reward between now and then is futile anyway…you can say that religious people are looking to God for Favor, this they certainly are, that’s what we are asked to do with our lives, live in a way pleasing to God. Religious people can look to God for any reward they please, it has never ever meant they would get it. Don’t you think people would have figured out by now that doing what God wants doesn’t equal getting what you want and moved on if that’s all they were in it for. AS you seek to do God’s will the desires of your heart change and become righteous and then you do have all you need or want but what those things are are disapointingly uninteresting to those without righteous intentions.
listen: all of creation is involved in the worship of God. All of creation is invloved in obedience to His laws (science didn’t invent the laws of nature). WE often choose to live outside that and seek our own definitions and explanations for things, we have been given the freedom to do so, but that doesn’t make it true or right or useful.
Thanks for your notice of my posts, everyone here. And God bless you.
Aldebaran, glad to meet you here also. We seem to be both and the others here rather religious people, however we view religion to be.
In my case, I just happen after all these years of religion to come to the conclusion that it’s all about myself whatever the masters of religion teach about being “unself” in the practice or in the cultivation of religion.
I don’t think anyone here who is into religion can cease to be a selfand become a non-self, in which case there is no relation to speak of with the entity defined as God.
Can a self be a non-self and still be a subject in a communication with the entity that is God? How then can he even speak if he were a non-self. Consider a sentence, it has got to have a subject however implied; else there is no sentence, no subject, no self communicating with another self.
The self talking to another self, the second being God, and expecting a linkage back, that’s the ultimate of favors. Of course there are other favors that will flow from that most basic one.
Susma Rio Sep
Thank you.
Well I don’t share that view I guess. I don’t see my religion as something about myself. I worship the Creator of All for everything that is created.
God is in my religion not seen as an entity, but as the Uncreated Transcedent Creator. Theer is also no necessity to be a non-self (if I get the correct meaning of what you mean with that) to establish contact with the non-entity. Seen the fact that God is no entitity, uncreated and transcendent, the contact with His creation is there all the time because without this contact creation would end to be created and to exist.
Since God is no self and creation only exists by His will = by his constant being in contact to ensure the ongoing creation and the existence of it, there is no need to expect a linkage back, since it is there all the time.
All I have to add to that when I pray - and which is the goal of that prayer - is establish a very personal contact with the Creator = narrow that ever existing contact because I am part of the creation into a more direct and personal one. This gives me the opportunity to make my worship a unique and personal one. Yet I can worship God also without establishing this unique contact. I worship God when I witness undergo and admire Creation and am greatfull for it. There are no words needed for that, and even no directed thoughts. Only “being aware”.
Salaam.
Aldebaran.
Dear Zoo:
People who lie low to avoid attention from the gods are in that very posture precisely eliciting affection and action to influence them, the gods, to react harmlessly toward them, not to bother with them.They are doing religion as I describe it:
Susma Rio Sep
Dear Ald:
You still around, not yet banned, from all forums? Answer this post and I will know you are still alive and well. God bless you. I like your posts on Iraq war issues.
I was asking for incidence of religion being practiced by animals, observed by humans. We humans are the ones talking about religion here. If we encounter such a phenomenon among hon-human organisms, then we might be able to understand religion even better and maybe my definition could be better validated.
You allude to the Koran saying that all creatures worship God. What I want is something real, not poetic utterances from the Koran; because when people don’t accept the authority of the Koran or the Bible, then citations from these primitive writings, they don’t count for much.
Did Mohammed really observe animals worshipping God, and Moses and Jesus?
Aren’t they just talking for animals, in their practice of religion: by assuring God that everything is crazy about Him, thinking to make God very happy and self-satisfied, thereby? And exactly verifying my description of what religion is.
Susma Rio Sep