What Is A Religion?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

IMO a religion is a philosophical modification. A religion may contain multiple philosophies, but can also be simply a fringe group of a single philosophy.

Philosophies are based on the way they treat the less rational aspects of life, those parts we cannot point at, measure, and manipulate with science and mathematics. Religion is both a subgroup because it deals mostly with the afterlife, and a more general grouping because religion tends to develop systems that affect the whole structure that philosophy is based on.

Any support or arguements...

[Dislogic]

not so much a support or an arguement but more of my own definition of religon.

- I see religon as something that plagues the minds of our entire population, so to speak that is... To me these beliefs people call religon serve as nothing but ways for people to cope with things they cant understand... such as the meaning of life and life after death... People are weak and need everything to be explained somehow and if it isnt then they either search for the truth (like many scientists and philosophers, and other intellectual people) or they make something up to supplement that.. that is why religon was formed and/or created in the first place and this will continue happening for a very very very long time since it will be a very long time until anyone figures out, scientifically, the answers to the questions that religon answers for the people who cant comprehend things that dont have easily understandable ends...

ok thats my little rant on this subject.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I hope you do not take this post as an attack, it is meant as a friendly offer of advise, as well as an observation on form.

You are defining your personal philosophy here as a negative. Therefore you not only give validity to your opposition by telling them you only exist because they do, but if you somehow achieve your ends and religion as you see it goes away what do you have left(?), since you define yourself by reference to them.

A philosophy that can stand the test of time must be able to stand on its own. It cannot be a hasty revision of another philosophy, nor can it be simply an expression of rebellion. You may want to review your beliefs and base a philosophy off of a solution, rather than a criticism.

Again, no offense intended, just an observation.

[Dislogic]

thanks for the advice though im not sure i quite understand you... i mean i am just one of those people for the most part who doesent believe something until he sees it or someone has made a sufficient arguement about it.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

(lol) There are plenty of people that do not understand me. I hope I am not coming off too much as an "English Major" mentality, even though technicly I am worse, an engineering major (lol). I just happen to love debate, and cannot resist an attempt to try and get a new forum set up with good habits to, hopefully, attract more addicted debaters like myself. Frankly my debate skills and my grammar have increased significantly in the last 3 years from debating in such a manner. It has also done wonders for my ability to express myself, strenghtened my reasoning skills, and forced me to develop my personal philosophies. While I have always debated people at the drop of a hat, the net has done in a few years more than personal interaction did in the rest of my life...

[Myth]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 27 2003, 11:49 PM You are defining your personal philosophy here as a negative. Therefore you not only give validity to your opposition by telling them you only exist because they do, but if you somehow achieve your ends and religion as you see it goes away what do you have left(?), since you define yourself by reference to them.

In support of Dislogic, I would say that you are manipulating what he said to serve your own ends. He is not defining his personal philosophy as a contradiction of religion, as you are stating. What I believe he is saying is that he has his own philosophy, and chose to follow whatever it is instead of religion because he does not believe in (your) personal philosophy.

As a side note, there is no opposition for him to give validity to, there are the believers and there are the non-believers. Neither oppose each other, and it is only the extreme cases that push their own beliefs on one another.

Now, in my personal opinion, men gave birth to religion as a social control. However, man's creation gave birth to faith and has evolved into much more than it was meant to be.

[Jay]

I mostly agree with Wyrm: The main and original function of a religion is based on the attempt to explain the world and life and what happens after death. But I also think that the aspect of the community is very important, too. A religion can unite people and make them something like a (peaceful) family, since most (or all) religions are mainly based on the rules which the believers have to follow to live a "good" life. (In their terms)

Too bad the original function of religion has been abused during most parts of human history to legitimate wars and mass murder.

[TheSystem]

Originally posted by Jay@Aug 28 2003, 10:08 AM Too bad the original function of religion has been abused during most parts of human history to legitimate wars and mass murder.

Most of the people in arabic countries in this world following the Islam and we can see that there is a war between our culture and their culture. It is not a big war, but a silent war. The USA attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and the "war against terror" is not over. All the bad things happened since Sep. 11 are based on religous aspects IMHO.

However - I fully agree with you!

[Pooeypants]

Religion is just another form of control, obviously some are good and some are not so good.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Aug 28 2003, 10:01 AM Religion is just another form of control, obviously some are good and some are not so good.

That is not completely true. The original ideas of religion (at least of which I know) are not based on controlling people but it can easily be abused to do so. Mainly because the true meaning of the word religion and believe somehow got lost and most people ARE uninformed and have very blurred and scary views on religion.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Jay@Aug 28 2003, 03:12 PM That is not completely true. The original ideas of religion (at least of which I know) are not based on controlling people but it can easily be abused to do so. Mainly because the true meaning of the word religion and believe somehow got lost and most people ARE uninformed and have very blurred and scary views on religion.

Well it dictates what you can and cannot do (within reason usually) but ofc nowadays we have democracy to decide (on new laws for example). Hence I see Jesus as a dictator as well (although he seems some what communistic sometimes :s).

[Jay]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Aug 28 2003, 10:14 AM Well it dictates what you can and cannot do (within reason usually) but ofc nowadays we have democracy to decide (on new laws for example). Hence I see Jesus as a dictator as well (although he seems some what communistic sometimes :s).

1. Noone forces you to join a certain religion (Notice again that certain governments and ruling persons abused this and proclaimed that only their religion is the true one). From the view of any religion it is up to the individual to deciede wether you want to join and devote your life to something or not.

2. Jesus was not a dictator, not even in a metaphoric sense since he didn't force anyone to join the movement he started.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Jay@Aug 28 2003, 03:18 PM 1. Noone forces you to join a certain religion (Notice again that certain governments and ruling persons abused this and proclaimed that only their religion is the true one). From the view of any religion it is up to the individual to deciede wether you want to join and devote your life to something or not. 2. Jesus was not a dictator, not even in a metaphoric sense since he didn't force anyone to join the movement he started.

1. In most religions you either join a religion or you will be condemned to eternal damnation, ie Christianity. There is no such thing as true religion...religion is defined by eventually by a ruling body.

2. Jesus dictated what we should and should not do, see, if we don't do as he says, we go to Hell, hence he is forcing ppl to join the movement.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Aug 28 2003, 11:04 AM 1. In most religions you either join a religion or you will be condemned to eternal damnation, ie Christianity. There is no such thing as true religion...religion is defined by eventually by a ruling body. 2. Jesus dictated what we should and should not do, see, if we don't do as he says, we go to Hell, hence he is forcing ppl to join the movement.

1. This is what I said. But the act of a ruling body or a government forcing people to join a certain religion has nothing to do with the religion itself. Actually they're abusing it to legitimate persecution of those who won't.

2. I never actually read anything about Jesus saying "either you join my movement or you'll go to hell" since that would be totally against the original ideals of christianity. But you're right, he dictated (does that make him a dictator?) certain rules to the believers. However he didn't create those rules to empower his position as a leader unlike political dictators.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Jay+Aug 28 2003, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jay @ Aug 28 2003, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants@Aug 28 2003, 11:04 AM 1. In most religions you either join a religion or you will be condemned to eternal damnation, ie Christianity. There is no such thing as true religion...religion is defined by eventually by a ruling body. 2. Jesus dictated what we should and should not do, see, if we don't do as he says, we go to Hell, hence he is forcing ppl to join the movement.

1. This is what I said. But the act of a ruling body or a government forcing people to join a certain religion has nothing to do with the religion itself. Actually they're abusing it to legitimate persecution of those who won't.

2. I never actually read anything about Jesus saying "either you join my movement or you'll go to hell" since that would be totally against the original ideals of christianity. But you're right, he dictated (does that make him a dictator?) certain rules to the believers. However he didn't create those rules to empower his position as a leader unlike political dictators. [/b][/quote]
1. Which is exactly what I mean, the religion IS defined by the leader/ruling body. It isn't that hard to change the "holy" scriptures. Me thinks you need to read Nineteen Eighty four
2. He dictated virtues that must be followed in order to go to heaven. Or maybe I am wrong and he was just blabbing. Hey, would you say Jesus was a capitalist or a socialist?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Myth
? Exactly what motive have I managed to develop so quickly? I also specified my critic as an observation on form, not philosophy. The philosophy that you implied I belong to is incorrect by the way. You may want to stop making assumptions yourself...

[Exis]

I think that there is a difference between religeon and faith. Religeon seems to be more ritualistic, where as faith seems more personal. Religeon can be a forced faith, in which case it is used by crafty power-hungry people to control those below them (ie- the dark ages). However, faith is what religeon was, but is no longer. Faith is the roots of religeon, but man has turned religeon into a meaningless ritual in most cases with little to no faith.

As for me, I don't have a religeon, which binds me to certain rules. I have a faith, and in that faith I choose to follow which morals/upstandings/actions as those that I have been lead to by faith itself. This faith (which seems to be mentioned under attack for these last few posts), is not forced by Jesus, he gives us a choice.

To understand it, think of it more like you as a kid being told not to touch a candle. Despite your mother's warnings, you touch it anyway and burn your finger. It's kinda like that. You are entitled to your own opinion, but just because the child doesn't believe that it will hurt him to touch the candle, doesn't mean that it won't.

This little speech is not trying to "convert" anyone, or to attack any ideas or opinions. For after all, you do have your own decisions to make in this life, but you must also reap the consequences...

Exis

[eos]

IMO religion is believing that there is a supreme type being that is omniscient and guides us through life. if not guides then watches over us. and even if someone claims to have no religion, there's still a thought in their head questioning whether or not there IS a supreme being out there...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

eos
Are you saying that spiritualists that have no deity are not religious?

[Jay]

Originally posted by Pooeypants+Aug 28 2003, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants @ Aug 28 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Jay@Aug 28 2003, 04:43 PM <!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants @Aug 28 2003, 11:04 AM 1. In most religions you either join a religion or you will be condemned to eternal damnation, ie Christianity. There is no such thing as true religion...religion is defined by eventually by a ruling body. 2. Jesus dictated what we should and should not do, see, if we don't do as he says, we go to Hell, hence he is forcing ppl to join the movement. 1. This is what I said. But the act of a ruling body or a government forcing people to join a certain religion has nothing to do with the religion itself. Actually they're abusing it to legitimate persecution of those who won't. 2. I never actually read anything about Jesus saying "either you join my movement or you'll go to hell" since that would be totally against the original ideals of christianity. But you're right, he dictated (does that make him a dictator?) certain rules to the believers. However he didn't create those rules to empower his position as a leader unlike political dictators.

1. Which is exactly what I mean, the religion IS defined by the leader/ruling body. It isn't that hard to change the "holy" scriptures. Me thinks you need to read Nineteen Eighty four
2. He dictated virtues that must be followed in order to go to heaven. Or maybe I am wrong and he was just blabbing. Hey, would you say Jesus was a capitalist or a socialist? [/b][/quote]
JESUS WAS AN ELITIST! :O

Heh, I think this could go on forever. But I hope you see the difference between the pure and original religion and its ideals and a ruling person modifying and abusing religion to support his ruling position and power.
By the roots of every religion not a single one was meant to oppress or persecute people.