It's my own and not necessarily accurate and true altogether. I'll debate with you about it, but I'm interested in your ideas or perceptions either way.
Religion isn't spiritual. Religion is a system of rites, rituals and ceremonies designed by man for the purpose of ingratiating himself to his god by his(man's) good works. Thereby appeasing god.
Religion, as practiced by man, presumes that a man can do something to please God. As if God needed to be pleased or lacked something that a man can do to satisfy God.
Comments? If you insult me I'll spit in your eye and stomp on your foot.
I think the only valid religon is your own. It is not necessary, but some people seem to do alright and gain confidence from their spirituality by putting into a little system for themselves, hence personal religon. I got my personal religon that I refer back to sometimes. It's similar to some hindu, buddhists thinking but it also has touches of chrsitianity and others.
I think any "group" religons are bound to fail sooner or later.
So "religon" , as most people understand it, ie. "group religon", is not very handy and most often misleading.
So , given this, I dont advocate my religon to others. Get your own . I can guide but there is no substitute for personal experience.
Whether you want to believe it or not, every mature person has made their own religon by choosing to believe some things and not others,etc. It may seem similar to the christian next door, but it's not. This fact has been demonstrated here may times.
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat's all fine karoly, but what has it got to do with the definition of religion I proposed?
I think the only valid religon is your own. It is not necessary, but some people seem to do alright and gain confidence from their spirituality by putting into a little system for themselves, hence personal religon. I got my personal religon that I refer back to sometimes. It's similar to some hindu, buddhists thinking but it also has touches of chrsiti ...[text shortened]... o the christian next door, but it's not. This fact has been demonstrated here may times.
Originally posted by josephwThat's not far off. Religion is a way of selecting and prioritizing information in order to make sense of the universe. Knowledge, contrary to popular belief, is not power. Knowledge, in and of itself, is just white noise in the background. What matters are systems for selecting and prioritizing the endless streams of information that bombard us daily. Religion, in this sense, is merely a system for arranging information.
It's my own and not necessarily accurate and true altogether. I'll debate with you about it, but I'm interested in your ideas or perceptions either way.
[b]Religion isn't spiritual. Religion is a system of rites, rituals and ceremonies designed by man for the purpose of ingratiating himself to his god by his(man's) good works. Thereby appeasing god.
...[text shortened]... o satisfy God.
Comments? If you insult me I'll spit in your eye and stomp on your foot.[/b]
Originally posted by karoly aczelHow does this differ in any significant say from solipsism?
I think the only valid religon is your own. It is not necessary, but some people seem to do alright and gain confidence from their spirituality by putting into a little system for themselves, hence personal religon. I got my personal religon that I refer back to sometimes. It's similar to some hindu, buddhists thinking but it also has touches of chrsiti ...[text shortened]... o the christian next door, but it's not. This fact has been demonstrated here may times.
Originally posted by josephwIt's a sound definition, I just wanted to point out the difference between organized religon and personal religon, because to me , the former is really more of a red herring than anything you can hang your hat on.
That's all fine karoly, but what has it got to do with the definition of religion I proposed?
Originally posted by rwingettReligion, in this sense, is merely a system for arranging information.
That's not far off. Religion is a way of selecting and prioritizing information in order to make sense of the universe. Knowledge, contrary to popular belief, is not power. Knowledge, in and of itself, is just white noise in the background. What matters are systems for selecting and prioritizing the endless streams of information that bombard us daily. Religion, in this sense, is merely a system for arranging information.
Okay. Not to take this out of its context, but to my way of thinking, religion has to do with a god or gods, and not about just knowledge. Religion is a practice of behaviours designed to facilitate a relationship with a god or gods.
Originally posted by josephwNo, or course you are mistaken. Not surprising, really. God, in this sense, is merely an instrument for providing an ultimate foundation for this 'knowledge' that religion selects from and arranges.
[b]Religion, in this sense, is merely a system for arranging information.
Okay. Not to take this out of its context, but to my way of thinking, religion has to do with a god or gods, and not about just knowledge. Religion is a practice of behaviours designed to facilitate a relationship with a god or gods.[/b]
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou see, I'm concerned here with religion and its purpose and how and why it is practiced, while you seem to be talking about something more metaphysical.
It's a sound definition, I just wanted to point out the difference between organized religon and personal religon, because to me , the former is really more of a red herring than anything you can hang your hat on.
Originally posted by josephwNo. I more or less agree with your definition. Again, i just wanted to point out that organized religon is largely useless for making any real inroads on the spiritual path.
You see, I'm concerned here with religion and its purpose and how and why it is practiced, while you seem to be talking about something more metaphysical.
Originally posted by rwingettI may be mistaken to a degree. I'm with you on your applications, but they are assumed based on the idea that god is a non-entity.
No, or course you are mistaken. Not surprising, really. God, in this sense, is merely an instrument for providing an ultimate foundation for this 'knowledge' that religion selects from and arranges.
Allow me to abbreviate my definition. Religion sucks. What else is it except a useful tool to control others? And legitimise hypocrisy?
Originally posted by rwingettI think the word "information" is too clumsy and blunt, rwingett. In the religionist context, this "information" is, in fact, speculation, hypotheses, hopes, fears, neuroses, imagination, tribalism, customs, folk tales etc. Religionists select, prioritize and package "information" ABOUT these abstract, confused, contentious, unprovable things and present them as if they constitute objective or quasi-empirical information about humans and their spiritual environment.
That's not far off. Religion is a way of selecting and prioritizing information in order to make sense of the universe.