Spirituality
21 Sep 09
21 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayreligion
How do you define religion?
Kelly
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaOh it's been a long time we had not the pleasure to enjoy a decent conversation😵
Belief in a non-chaotic supernatural.
Methinks a religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites and temples and priests and all that jazz although I do not argue that this apparatus is not indeed the common superficial part of a religion; however a religion is merely a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority.
So in my opinion "religion" is just a product of our societies that causes specific effects on the lives of its believers that are driven by their respectful core religious beliefs.
😵
21 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleIsn't that a bit circular? After all, "religious beliefs" are part of your definition of religion.
Oh it's been a long time we had not the pleasure to enjoy a decent conversation😵
Methinks a religion does not necessarily imply symbols and rites and temples and priests and all that jazz although I do not argue that this apparatus is not indeed the common superficial part of a religion; however a religion is merely a body of collective beliefs and on the lives of its believers that are driven by their respectful core religious beliefs.
😵
And if beliefs are left unqualified, then the "body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority" could be used for a variety of things (politics springs to mind) that are not thought of as being "religious" in a colloquial use of the word...
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by rwingettMine is much better. 😏
religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices gen ...[text shortened]... devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNo it isn't circular, and I was sure that you would ask me this question Pal my pal!
Isn't that a bit circular? After all, "religious beliefs" are part of your definition of religion.
And if beliefs are left unqualified, then the "body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority" could be used for a variety of things (politics springs to mind) that are not thought of as being "religious" in a colloquial use of the word...
Since every religion is not divinely or supernaturally inspired and it is solely a human invention, I see it as just another social product that constitutes a body of collective archetypes which in turn they became the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority. In my opinion a “religion” is not necessarily just a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences, but also an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities.
On our way from the miscellaneous archetypes to the miscellaneous religions we notice that this concept is a source of solidarity and identification of the believers within a society, able (according to the believers) to provide a theory of reality, a meaning for a purposeful life, authority figures and “reinforcement” of the collective moral and social norms. This is the reason why the religion is a critical part of the social system.
Therefore I am sure that even atheism can suffer of radical “religious sects” -like Stalinism and Maoism amongst else- since in such an environment the aim of the leadership is the establishment by any means of a specific social control system that reassures “cohesion” and “purpose for the people”, which it forces the individual to obey, communicate, interact, behave and live under specific social norms that are supposedly designed for him but, alas, without him. So when I trade the orthodox religious concept of the sacred supernatural existence and of the supernatural realm of reality (that they have to be worshipped by the believers) with the radical collective Stalinist and Maoist etc ideals that they are fixed deep into the “revolutionary societies” as the essence of the “revolution”, I understand what exactly goes wrong: the radical body of the individuals -the “clan”, the fundamentalist believers, the fundamentalist revolutionaries- become extremely powerful and they mutate into disastrous sentient beings. Inquisitors, Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, radical Islamists, radical Christians etc. are all in my opinion religious to the hilt.
So I see “religions” -the radical sects of atheism etc included- as a product of our societies. It ‘s up to us to use our intelligence properly and to cease dogmatize upon the nature of things based on miscellaneous so called “absolute truths”. In fact, the miscellaneous theories of reality are merely theories and not “absolute truth”.
😵
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleBut if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?
No it isn't circular, and I was sure that you would ask me this question Pal my pal!
Since every religion is not divinely or supernaturally inspired and it is solely a human invention, I see it as just another social product that constitutes a body of collective archetypes which in turn they became the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and ...[text shortened]... n fact, the miscellaneous theories of reality are merely theories and not “absolute truth”.
😵
It also seems you equate all social dogmatists (dogma in the authoritarian sense) with religion. Although this is an interesting euphemism, it remains just that. I don't think religion is necessarily dogmatic (although it does require assertions, they need not be inflexible) and, conversely, labelling all social dogmas as religious is then a purely literary device.
22 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleI tend to agree with a lot of the things already brought up, that
And how do you KellyJay define religion?
😵
religion is a set of beliefs, values, practices, that form our judgment,
devotion, and light our paths in life, by which we justify and condemn
ourselves and others.
Kelly
22 Sep 09
Originally posted by rwingettIs this how you define it or a dictionary?
religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices gen ...[text shortened]... devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Kelly