Definition of religion

Inspired by disagreement with Fabian across the forums a while back.

What are you views on a religion definition?

It seems to me that religion has a very strong social context, meaning that it is a belief system adopted by a significant portion of people. However, does it have to hold a lot of the mainstream prerequisites? Mythology/deities, moral code, justification/meaning of life/universe etc.

I think, essentially, what I'd like to see is where the line is drawn between a set of perspectives and a religion. I do believe it's a matter of opinion and perhaps we could get a general consensus of how we view this things through social contexts and eyes.

I have often said that I am spiritual, but not religious/dogmatic perhaps entailing that religion contains more than just a spiritual identification. Can you think of examples of religion that do NOT include some reference to spirituality?

Are deities or mythological aspects inherent in a religious definition? A lot of eastern schools of thought ignore (or rather, don't reference directly, the connection can be and is made later on in some more developed ideals on the vedas and some buddhist branches) a theistical reference. Should these be contained under the religious umbrella? Or just kept as a belief system?

Morality seems to be a rigid backbone of religions. In general, there a few "universal" morals (the golden rule pops up pretty much everywhere) that are widely recognized. Tends to be an emphasis on self reflection on actions and thoughts and a reward/punishment system (or at least some system that keeps the cycle in some sort of check). If these moral codes aren't presented through some sort of story or justification (i.e. god made standards and he'll reward you for doing good things), can it be considered religious?

Meaning of life, the universe and everything (42) etc... I don't think it needs to be stated that religion will tend to justify existence (because God did it/ or some permeating force (supernatural or otherwise)) Do stand alone reasonings for such things need other religious portions to stand up as a religion- meaning can I just pose a justification for the universe and deem it a religion? Or do I need to throw in some other aspects (gods, maybe a moral code and a story)?

Please feel free to bring up other parts of religion you see and what parts you deem unnecessary/essential

I think you got it wrong.

Originally posted by lausey
I think you got it wrong.

Good, I hope there never is a concrete definition of it. Language is such a manipulative and changing thing that it's often hard to find universal meanings for, well, anything especially considering the relative position of everything against each other.

What is one thing for me, may not be for you. That is the purpose of the thread

The word religion is a bit vague and can mean different things to different people.
Ultimately, any definition given to any word is arbitrary and in that sense there is no objectively “correct” meaning to a word even in the unlikely case of there being literally universal and unanimous agreement of what a word “should” mean let alone a moderately vague one such as “religion”. For this reason we may just have to learn to live with ambiguity in the definition such as shown by:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

-which give several different definitions to the word religion.
I think I cannot do much better than that But if I was forced to give a single and simple definition then I would say it is a belief that there exists supernatural and that includes at least one god. I presume you can have a religion without religious worship?

Ususally people mean "organized religon".
I just got my own, after all its just a mental abberation and as blackbeetle would say:no religon😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The word religion is a bit vague and can mean different things to different people.
Ultimately, any definition given to any word is arbitrary and in that sense there is no objectively “correct” meaning to a word even in the unlikely case of there being literally universal and unanimous agreement of what a word “should” mean let alone a moderately v ...[text shortened]... and that includes at least one god. I presume you can have a religion without religious worship?

"I think I cannot do much better than that But if I was forced to give a single and simple definition then I would say it is a belief that there exists supernatural and that includes at least one god."

So you would not include Therevada Buddhism a religion? As far as I know they do not have a "god" ?

My definition is clear-cut:

Science is the domain of the natural laws of physics.
Religion is the domain that is about the super-natura phenomena.

This makes religion to include the well-known religions, but also the belief of luck, like in gambling, casino etc; belief of destiny, like in the future time of my death is already decided, astrology, and such; belief of an existance of afterlife; of spirits; of deamons, and of soul, and many other supernatural entities and phenomena.
But excludes dress-codes, morals, how to behave against women (and men), other people, animals, resaon of wars, chosen people and such, etc.

Religious authorities often claims that This is a sin, because god says so. This is good because god likes that. and such. Everyone can claim to the interpretation of some mysterious god, but the claim itself has nothing to do with religion, of the sole reason that they claim that. The necessity of ritualia, and ceremonies, offering gifts to a church (cult) etc.

Religion just deals with supernaturals, and this cannot, and shouldn't, be explained by science. Science deals with the normal (non-super-)natural phenomena. Nothing more. In reality religion and science cannot mix. Because there is a border between super-natural and non-supernatiral phenomena. One in each domain, and never the two meet.

Therefore there should not be a conflict between the two. There are no hinder to be christian as a scientist, and not hinder to believe in scientific methods for a priest.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]"I think I cannot do much better than that But if I was forced to give a single and simple definition then I would say it is a belief that there exists supernatural and that includes at least one god."

So you would not include Therevada Buddhism a religion? As far as I know they do not have a "god" ?[/b]

Ok, I would call that a religion. My definition is too simplistic.

Originally posted by ua41
Inspired by disagreement with Fabian across the forums a while back.

What are you views on a religion definition?

It seems to me that religion has a very strong social context, meaning that it is a belief system adopted by a significant portion of people. However, does it have to hold a lot of the mainstream prerequisites? Mythology/deities, moral code, j ...[text shortened]... o bring up other parts of religion you see and what parts you deem unnecessary/essential

When the individual has low awareness and conducts a false evaluation of the mind, the result is the birth of a religion

Mind gives birth to the idea of “God”, but the mind is not created by a “God”. The fish comes from the water, but the water comes not from the fish. If you want to see the fish you see at first the water. And when you see the fish you forget the water. So when you see “God” you merely discard your mind -but without your mind there is no “God” and without “God” there is no mind

Each religion and each “God” are the result of the evolution of the fixed expression of the devastation of the Human before Death together with the fixed expression of the admiration of the Human before Life, mixed with low awareness regarding the Science, the Knowledge and the understanding of the Human nature

Created by human beings, each religion in order to expand has different but anyway human-inspired doctrines aiming to conquer the attention of the society of their era. Through the social process and due time all these man-made religions became as twisted and turned as their advocates and their delegates

However, seeking for transformation apart from your own mind is futile; seeking for a “saviour” apart from your own self is futile; the so called “transformation and enlightenment” is a projection of your mind

So, No religion😵

And, Nothing Holy! For holiness is merely a human invention. I refuse to affirm religious notions like holiness because through these notions one oversteps the evaluation of the mind and buries her/ his ignorance under countless layers of delusional thoughts. This happens because whenever you think, you pick your own abstract idea out of the vast emptiness. Then you try to express your idea with words, and these words are creating the form of your thoughts: you use your words according to the abilities of your mind, and these words are becoming notional figures -they have nothing special because they are just your own footprints, and they are as valuable as your footprints on the sand. What is the meaning of these “footprints”? How can they be “holy”?



It 's only us😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Ok, I would call that a religion. My definition is too simplistic.

Not necessarily. Perhaps your definition is more useful and non-theist 'religions' are more properly defined as philosophies.

There is also a problem with using the term supernatural .... surely to a Christian (for example) Christ's miracles were a 'natural' act based on his divinity.

I have no better definition than the one you proposed - just putting forward some ideas.
😕

its the pracite of ones faith,

Originally posted by black beetle
When the individual has low awareness and conducts a false evaluation of the mind, the result is the birth of a religion

Mind gives birth to the idea of “God”, but the mind is not created by a “God”. The fish comes from the water, but the water comes not from the fish. If you want to see the fish you see at first the water. And when you see the fish ...[text shortened]... and. What is the meaning of these “footprints”? How can they be “holy”?



It 's only us😵

The fish comes from the water, but the water comes not from the fish. If you want to see the fish you see at first the water. And when you see the fish you forget the water.
This treatise sheds a great deal of light on interpreting a phrase I used to hear a lot from my dad. He used to say, "Get the lead out." The irony of his work as a pencil pusher was (then) lost on me. I can never erase his impact on me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The fish comes from the water, but the water comes not from the fish. If you want to see the fish you see at first the water. And when you see the fish you forget the water.
This treatise sheds a great deal of light on interpreting a phrase I used to hear a lot from my dad. He used to say, "Get the lead out." The irony of his work as a pencil pusher was (then) lost on me. I can never erase his impact on me.[/b]

Your sixth cannot grasp it, so I will rephrase it for you and hopefully you will get rid of your lead:

Without mind there is no idea. Without idea there is no mind. But although the idea comes from the mind the mind does not come from the idea, just as the fish comes from the water but the water does not come from the fish. Whoever wants to see the fish at first sees the water, and when he sees the fish he forgets the water.
So when you see (when you bring up out of your own mind) the idea “God”, you (remain so amazed with this product of yours that you) merely discard your mind (as the creator of these products) -but without your mind the existence of your idea “God” does not exist, and without products (ideas, “God”, theories etc) there is no mind😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Your sixth cannot grasp it, so I will rephrase it for you and hopefully you will get rid of your lead:

Without mind there is no idea. Without idea there is no mind. But although the idea comes from the mind the mind does not come from the idea, just as the fish comes from the water but the water does not come from the fish. Whoever wants to see the f ...[text shortened]... idea “God” does not exist, and without products (ideas, “God”, theories etc) there is no mind😵

You can say that again. Or, maybe you cannot. If you do, let us know.

Originally posted by black beetle
When the individual has low awareness and conducts a false evaluation of the mind, the result is the birth of a religion

Mind gives birth to the idea of “God”, but the mind is not created by a “God”. The fish comes from the water, but the water comes not from the fish. If you want to see the fish you see at first the water. And when you see the fish ...[text shortened]... and. What is the meaning of these “footprints”? How can they be “holy”?



It 's only us😵

Reminds me of the Zen Master from Korea-(forget his name)

He did a hundred days meditation while beating his mokta the whole time.
A whole bunch of stuff "came up".
After 90 days he saw some "angelic" figures approach him.
He ignored them and finally reached enlightenment.