Understanding and defining religion afresh
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
Unfortunately "religion" is an English word.
It is thus "Western" by this very fact.
Other countries, other cultures will not use the actual word "religion" but words that we have transalated as "religion" and thus apply our preconceptions of the word onto whatever it is the other culture does.
In English the definition is (at least from www.dictionary.com):
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "return," and ligare means "to bind;" in other words, "return to bondage."
Alternative etymology traces it back to re and legare - "to read again" - or even to relegere - "to treat carefully".
It is thus "Western" by this very fact.
Other countries, other cultures will not use the actual word "religion" but words that we have transalated as "religion" and thus apply our preconceptions of the word onto whatever it is the other culture does.
In English the definition is (at least from www.dictionary.com):
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "return," and ligare means "to bind;" in other words, "return to bondage."
Alternative etymology traces it back to re and legare - "to read again" - or even to relegere - "to treat carefully".
How true of so many other terms and concepts --- right from race (black/ white/ yellow/ brown), ethnicity (Latino, Asian, Caucasian), Geography (what is east and what is westj, middle east, south, north), politics (rightism/ leftism/ centrism), sexual orientation (heterosexual/ homosexual/ bisexual), world order (first world, third world) and so on --- everything is defined by the west* (with its basis in Christianity), and then influences the original cultures/ traditions of the rest of the world all of whom try to fit themselves into these definitions.Sarkus said:
* Actually some 'advanced' countries which may or may not fall in the west. While not every country that falls in the west is included in the list --- such are the contradictions of the English language.
Another problem with the English Language! So many important terms mean so many different yet related things that it leads to ambiguity and misunderstandings. It makes it so easy to misrepresent or misinterpret facts.Sarkus said:
To take an example when Christianity is considered a 'religion' and so is 'Buddhism' (I'm not a Buddhist! then they are often compared at the same level. However, they are actually two very different concepts and this comparison can be very very unfair and misleading.
i don't think one of the interpretations of reigion 'to bind' should so soley translated as 'bondage'. for example the religion of the Earth, wich i feel is the original religion.
Many Indigenus poples had/have rituals whereby they as a community partake of a ritual which involves eating/drinking etc psychedelic sarcraments
it's purpose is to 'bind' group togther and bind group to Nature. now these may be awkward terms. dunno, let's explore. would BOND be better??
how is 'our' state NOW with teEarth generally would yu say.? havewe lost some essential MEANING of our place in Nature?
Many Indigenus poples had/have rituals whereby they as a community partake of a ritual which involves eating/drinking etc psychedelic sarcraments
it's purpose is to 'bind' group togther and bind group to Nature. now these may be awkward terms. dunno, let's explore. would BOND be better??
how is 'our' state NOW with teEarth generally would yu say.? havewe lost some essential MEANING of our place in Nature?
Buddha1 said:
Religion is based on bona-fide scriptures (ie, bible, Quran, vedas etc..), the idea is to cultivate faith in the God.
Spirituality carries on from religion, and incorporates methods of how to ultimately reach God.
Bsically.
Jan.
I think like with 'science' and 'sexuality' we have to look at the origin of the word 'Religion'. When was it first used? and in what context?duendy said:
I don't think the ancients had any concept of a 'religion'. They had deities and gods/ goddesses, legends, tales, myths, but the concept of religion is different concept.
It built on the original traditions but is not the same as them.
But then I may be off the mark. I'm still investigating.
Take Geography for example. The earth is round. And the words east and west are only relative not absolute terms. But the words east and west are defined according to (I guess) the place where the English language originated. They now become absolute terms. And sometimes it may become funny as Japan which is considered 'far east' is actually west for America --- and probably both 'east' and 'west' for Europe --- depending on which way you approach it.Buddha1 said:
Similarly, Asian is defined as a 'mongloid'. But there are so many different races in Asia, and it will funny for an Arab not to be considered an Asian.
Likewise, Americans define Caucasians as 'white' but there are so many brows, reds and even blacks who are Caucasians.
The whole identity system of the west is designed to:
a. divide the world into the bipolar extremes of black and white.
b. Group/ Classify the world according of the needs of the powerful.
So, if you take 'color' of people as an example, the west describes brown people or 'whites' with even a slightly brownish complexion as 'blacks' --- because they would like to keep white -- as pure white. While these people may be closer to whites than they'd ever be to blacks.
Take Latinos for example. Many of them are indistinguishable from whites. But they are still 'blacks' because they belong to a impure white race.
So everything is defined and designed to keep up the power balance in the hands of the powerful.
And so is sexuality. They need the power of numbers, so everyone who claims even the slightest interest in women is included as a 'heterosexual'. But a homosexual has to be 'exclusive' to be seen as one.
Similarly countries are divided into first world and third world based on who is powerful and who is not. More wierd is the division of countries as North and South. Many countries in the Northern hemishpere are 'south' because they are underdeveloped. And many in the south are north because they are 'overdeveloped'.
Please define what you mean by "bona-fide" scriptures. Can you give examples of any non-bona-fide scriptures?Jan Ardena said:
And spirituality is not a continuation of religion - but merely a potentially overlapping view. You can be religious without being spiritual - and you can be spiritual without being religious.
The native indians of America were animists - not deists or theists.
They did not believe in God - but they were very spiritual people.
"Religion" is far more encompassing than just limiting it to those major religions that you deem to have "bona-fide scriptures".
Some more food for thought....
"Religion is nothing more than a response to the deficiency in the human condition to deal with the existential facts of life - primarily DEATH."
Again, a result of the English language.duendy said:
If you "bind" something to something else, the two things are "bound", and the thing between them is a "bond".
"Bondage" merely means being "bound" to something, usually for a length of time - but its use in everyday parlance is either related to sex or slavery.
However, its everyday usage should not detract from the times when it is used with its purer meaning, without the additional connotations.
Furthermore, religion requires "bondage" - to the tennets of the faith. So it is an accurate description, I think.
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
in generql when we say we are bonding with someone it means we are getting to know each other. becoming familiar with each other, doesn't it. it doesn't really mean we are becoming in bondage, which has a negatic connotation
i know what you mean about dogma. for me that ISbinding. i see this transiton occured when it got writ down. in theWest i am seeing tis happening in anceint Greece when the Orphics reformers --the first mystery /mystical school-- wrote down their dogma.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
RELIGION IS THE STUDY OF LIFE AND NATURE THROUGH THE SCIENCES AND SCRIPTURES IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE, ITS CREATION, AND SO, HOPEFULLY THE CREATOR. And it is not so much that we have the answers... it is not so much that our NEW RELIGION OF SCIENCE is correct or absolutely true...
The point is that we seek truth... and we do so with science.
This is my religion, and it is my view based on my studies that there truely is not much conflict between the science world of theory and the spiritual world of scriptures in general.
The problem has been with the 1500 year old interpretation of Genesis, and the idea that we can add up the years of the lives of those people in the bible and determine the age of the earth... Nonsense.. if God wanted to tell us that, it would have been written down clearly... I.e.. the Bible never says 6000 years...
only interpreters say so...
This same kind of problem can be found in the established teachings of most existing religions.
Therefore, i have been forced to establish my own.
http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/
-MT
The point is that we seek truth... and we do so with science.
This is my religion, and it is my view based on my studies that there truely is not much conflict between the science world of theory and the spiritual world of scriptures in general.
The problem has been with the 1500 year old interpretation of Genesis, and the idea that we can add up the years of the lives of those people in the bible and determine the age of the earth... Nonsense.. if God wanted to tell us that, it would have been written down clearly... I.e.. the Bible never says 6000 years...
only interpreters say so...
This same kind of problem can be found in the established teachings of most existing religions.
Therefore, i have been forced to establish my own.
http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/
-MT
I see nothing spiritual about a God who goes around ordering people to worship him otherwise face the consequences. And a god who, as per his own whims and fancies, seeks to control the lives of humans for no spiritual good.Mosheh Thezion said:
In the ancient mythologies there used to be demons who wanted to be 'God's. This behaviour is typical of them.
And anything which seeks to force humans to procreate more and more, and to enroll more and more members, can have nothing to do with spirituality. Because spirituality is about quality. Materialism is about quantity. Spirituality does not seek social or political power --- that comes from a numerical strength. Any thing that so separates one human being from the other can not be spiritual.
The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has retained its original ways and Christianity has been much subdued by reforms. But they both have a similar non-spiritual, political agenda. And anything based on such negative foundation cannot have a fruitful future. Of course we all know what is happening with Islam today.
Last edited:
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
Just because many humans have many views of God in many varied and different ways.... doesnt mean any of it is true...
and im not telling you it is.. im just saying that its ok to read it. To study it.
truth is up to the individual to deside for themselves.
the Empirical Church exists to faciclitate the discussion and study efforts.
-MT
and im not telling you it is.. im just saying that its ok to read it. To study it.
truth is up to the individual to deside for themselves.
the Empirical Church exists to faciclitate the discussion and study efforts.
-MT
In my view, there is nothing in common between Christianity and Islam and what you call the other religions. The other ones do not have a political or expansionist agenda. They are just ways to relate with god/ nature. They are what spirituality denotes. While Christianity and Islam are religions.Mosheh Thezion said:
The English language (with the Christian background) seeks justification for Christianity by labelling all of them 'religions' and by calling 'Christianity' spirituality in return.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
are you a Buddhist? In the Empirical Church we study Buddhism on wednsday.
-MT
-MT
Yes, but when institutions want to decide the truth for the individual, and they want to proselytise and expand (rule), this is where politics comes in the whole thing --- and then they take away the power of the individual to relate with God on his own, and then they go about murdering others who will not leave their natural freedom to relate with god in order to join them.Mosheh Thezion said: