A Definition of Religion

Originally posted by josephw
That I agree with.

You agree with it and yet you are quite clearly a religionist.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No. 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.

Organized religion, as rwingett pointed out, does serve a purpose as a
starting point to channel ones thoughts in a particular direction. However,
there is no guarantee the direction will be correct.

Originally posted by josephw
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]

Religion offers a system of teachings (often in the form of rituals & ceremonies) that shows people how to find the true meaning and purpose for their own lives and the communities they live in -- generally in the context of some transcendent reality, usually expressed as some deity or deities. Compassion, justice, and peace should be important themes.

But many (probably all) religions eventually do end up becoming a set of meaningless rituals designed to appease and-or manipulate some deity, so that said deity might grudgingly decide to grant one's (often very selfish) requests.

Jesus spoke out very frequently against this latter form of religion - and it was this form of religion that sent Jesus to the cross -- i.e -- God came to earth and religion crucified him.

>> Allow me to abbreviate my definition. Religion sucks.

That's somewhat disheartening for a healthy debate when it comes from the originator. I'm doubtful now whether you really want to know-and-let-know or just around to vent. Therefore without going critical, I would like to point out that it is unjust to consider only the rites and rituals aspects of any religion - when it is easily common opinion that all religion have a say at morality and therefore ethics too. Not all religions are equal in every aspect and some define code of conduct for even economic, political etc. Christianity, for example, forbids usury and that has implications on economic systems.

On a different note, If religion is just rites and ritual/laws then there is no getting away from it - kill every believer and you would still have religion - though with a different jargon maybe: dress-codes, forum-etiquette, cheats etc. World without religion is not possible, man only has a choice to expel God!

Originally posted by alleey
>> Allow me to abbreviate my definition. Religion sucks.

That's somewhat disheartening for a healthy debate when it comes from the originator. I'm doubtful now whether you really want to know-and-let-know or just around to vent. Therefore without going critical, I would like to point out that it is unjust to consider only the rites and rituals aspects of a ...[text shortened]... uette, cheats etc. World without religion is not possible, man only has a choice to expel God!

By definition a usurer is one that lends money at an exorbitant rate.
This is one that refuses to do unto others as he would have them do
unto him. I am a Christian and I am not against the total ban on
lending money. But the borrower should be treated fairly and the
lender should not be expected to give money to someone for nothing.
As long as they follow the Golden Rule it is fine.

Originally posted by josephw
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]

I believe in James 1, sorry don't have my Bible handy at the moment, it says something to the effect that a pure religion is visiting the widow and orphan etc.

Funny how you never hear that preached.

Originally posted by whodey
I believe in James 1, sorry don't have my Bible handy at the moment, it says something to the effect that a pure religion is visiting the widow and orphan etc.

Funny how you never hear that preached.

I recently read an article about bullying in which the problem was that certain kids were being "othered" by the rest - usually someone who was in some way "different" or "weird" -- and once someone is "othered", they can then be teased, mocked, ignored, and ultimately brutalized by everyone else, even the so-called good kids.

I liked that term -- "othering" -- it perfectly describes a big thing thing Jesus and "pure religion" wants to put an end to. Jesus didn't just give the leper money - he healed him (i.e. he "de-otherized" him)

I agree, Whodey - we hear a lot of preaching about helping the poor and needy - good things to do - but how many of us are really interested in making these "lepers" our next-door neighbors - how many of us want to completely "de-other" them?

Originally posted by whodey
I believe in James 1, sorry don't have my Bible handy at the moment, it says something to the effect that a pure religion is visiting the widow and orphan etc.

Funny how you never hear that preached.

qrhskeiva: Transliterated; Threskeia, pronounced thrace-ki'-ah. Defined as, religious worship, external, that which consists of ceremonies and religious discipline.

Dug that out of Strong's.

If they started preaching about it they would have to give up their pensions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Organized religion, as rwingett pointed out, does serve a purpose as a
starting point to channel ones thoughts in a particular direction. However,
there is no guarantee the direction will be correct.

Yes, the only way to make sure that the direction is correct is to have a clear insight into your own dharma, or have a suitable/guru/guide to point you in the right direction.

Originally posted by whodey
I believe in James 1, sorry don't have my Bible handy at the moment, it says something to the effect that a pure religion is visiting the widow and orphan etc.

Funny how you never hear that preached.

Like Mother Teresa is suppose?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Like Mother Teresa is suppose?

You be the judge RJ The scripture in question is James 1:27, go read it for yourself.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I recently read an article about bullying in which the problem was that certain kids were being "othered" by the rest - usually someone who was in some way "different" or "weird" -- and once someone is "othered", they can then be teased, mocked, ignored, and ultimately brutalized by everyone else, even the so-called good kids.

I liked that term -- "ot ...[text shortened]... our next-door neighbors - how many of us want to completely "de-other" them?

The Bible is consistent in that it concerns itself with the oppressed. That means the poor, the stranger, or the widow. In fact, that is most of the focus of New and Old Testament.

You are correct that we do not hear alot of preaching on the subject, such is the state of men's fallen nature I suppose.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, the only way to make sure that the direction is correct is to have a clear insight into your own dharma, or have a suitable/guru/guide to point you in the right direction.

I don't think I would rely on a guru. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
You be the judge RJ The scripture in question is James 1:27, go read it for yourself.

Yeah, I think Mother Teresa fulfills that scripture.

The brother of our Lord goes on to say:

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture,
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well.
But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by
the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet
stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said,
“DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.”
Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have
become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who
are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless
to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has
no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without
clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them,
“Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them
what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it
has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:8-17 NASB)

The works he is talking about are those works that show love toward
others, for no amount of works can save ones soul without faith in
Christ.

P.S. The works do not refer to going door passing out Watchtower tracts.

Originally posted by whodey
I believe in James 1, sorry don't have my Bible handy at the moment, it says something to the effect that a pure religion is visiting the widow and orphan etc.

Funny how you never hear that preached.

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world. -- James 1:26-27, KJV