What is a religion?

[Boozy]

To me, a "religion" is simply a set of beliefs. It doens't require any type of higher power. Just a set of beliefs that you abide by or allow to influence you in your daily actions.

Under that definition, things like vegetarianism and Republicanism could be considered religions.

Which could lead to some hilarious civil action suits under the First Amendment.

Buddhism doesn't teach you to follow a supreme being. It teaches you to BECOME a supreme being. If you attain the highest level of enlightenment, you become a Buddha.

To nitpick: a Buddha is not a supreme being.

[Evandril]

Just because I thought it was appropriate...here's the online Merriam-Webster definition of 'Religion'

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


IMO, the last one would apply to atheism.

[crashhelmet]

I got a kick out of this.

http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_str...70402.zoom.gif

CH

[crashhelmet]

To nitpick: a Buddha is not a supreme being.

True. I'll give you that one.
CH

[Gerrinson]

Science and religion are two different ways of trying to explain the same thing. One looks at the how, and the other looks at the why.

Actually, the logical conclusion is that science and religion are not explaining the same thing. Science attempts to explain how the universe works based on testable and observational evidence. Science then quantifies it into predictive models. If those models fail to properly predict reality, then they are corrected or reworked based on further data.

Religion attempts to explain why we exist and does so based upon belief in a god or gods that created everything. Religions usually go further and say that the how of 'this' or 'that' cannot be explained and must be evidence of the god or gods in question. Religion further demands that adherents follow a basic set of tenets to belong, must believe in A, B, and C, and must condemn those who believe differently. And all of this must be accepted on blind faith and is not to be questioned or <insert bad thing(s)> will happen.

Thus, science and religion are not 'trying to explain the same thing.' They try to explain two very different things that people sometimes confuse for one another. I can understand the confusion, it is a fairly easy mistake to make until you've thought it through quite thoroughly.



If my explanation sounds bitter, but you can blame my church and family for letting me read the Bible. Then I asked questions and was told that what I read is wrong. Yet it was in the Bible, which is always right?

The Bible is what convinced me that 'religion' is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to confuse and control people who either can not or do not wish to decide about the world around them for themselves. I came to that conclusion at the age of 10 based solely upon having read the Bible twice. I then took a great deal of berating from most of my family and many others who all agreed that they had not read the Bible cover to cover as I did, yet professed to know more about it than I did. If you claim to be Christian, but have not read the Bible cover to cover, then I suggest you do so. It's a real eye opener. And don't have someone else (i.e. priest, pastor, etc.) tell you what it means. Judge for yourself.

To be fair, I've done a bit of reading of other 'holy texts' and found equally bad at dealing with the real world. I do feel that I would need to learn Hebrew and Arabic to make proper judgement of the most commonly discussed non-Christian religions, but given the translations I've seen, they have no more relevancy to reality than Christianity.

After all this religion and Bible-bashing, I would agree that the Bible has some excellent basic rules for living in a primate society without bashing your neighbor's head in on a regular basis. And Jesus, assuming he existed, was a wise fellow with more patience and tolerance than I have. I have a lot of respect for the man, but little for the religion that sprang from his wise words. Still, I have yet to see an idea so wise that no fools will believe it. (Not mine, paraphrased, and I seem to have forgotten the original source, but still quite true)

[Sylvia727]

Actually, the logical conclusion is that science and religion are not explaining the same thing.

Poor phrasing on my part, perhaps. Science and religion both look at the world around us. Science looks a bit closer, and religion looks a bit further. They do not explain the same things.

Religion attempts to explain why we exist and does so based upon belief in a god or gods that created everything. Religions usually go further and say that the how of 'this' or 'that' cannot be explained and must be evidence of the god or gods in question. Religion further demands that adherents follow a basic set of tenets to belong, must believe in A, B, and C, and must condemn those who believe differently. And all of this must be accepted on blind faith and is not to be questioned or <insert bad thing(s)> will happen.

Many religions do not believe in deities, or creators. Many religions do not condemn those of other beliefs. Many religions do not demand blind faith, (some encourage their followers to question), and many religions do not use fear. Off the top of my head and from my cursory understandings, Shinto, from Japan, does not preach the existence of gods or creators. Many many denominations of Christianity, particularly those that follow the New Testament (love thy neighbor, and do good to those who hate you) more closely than the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, and homosexuality is an Abomination Unto the Lord), do not condemn those of other beliefs. Buddhism springs to mind about a lack of blind faith (open-eyed faith?) but there's some discussion about whether or not it is a religion. Organized religion does usually have a set of tenets that their followers believe, but if someone doesn't believe this, why would they want to follow that organization anyway?

It seems to me that your troubles were with organized religion, and a denomination of Christianity in particular. One can have religion without belonging to an organized religion. Not attending church (or temple, or mosque, or mass) and not following a holy book does not mean that one is not religious. One can still have a set of beliefs about the supernatural without deriving them from another source or attending meetings on the subject.

If my explanation sounds bitter, but you can blame my church and family for letting me read the Bible. Then I asked questions and was told that what I read is wrong. Yet it was in the Bible, which is always right?

I also read the Bible, and some of the adults in my life were astonished when I asked them about some of the great family values in there, like incest, murder, and a vengeful, jealous god. So no, not all Christians understand just what all is in there. Most of the nice Christians I've met preach that the Old Testament is a collection of stories, myths, and legends meant to guide our understanding without being taken at face value, and must be filtered through the cultural expectations of the time. Any man with a clean-shaved face or a woman in public on her period, for starters.

The Bible is what convinced me that 'religion' is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to confuse and control people who either can not or do not wish to decide about the world around them for themselves. I came to that conclusion at the age of 10 based solely upon having read the Bible twice.

But the Bible is not the entirety of Christian teachings, and Christianity is not the only organized religion. Nor is all religion organized.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly, Gerrinson.. nice post (even with the debatable bit )

Secondly, it does raise the question of 'religion' versus 'beliefs'. I've noticed on various dating sites (umm... just passing through, that's all....), that they will, under 'religion' have the category of 'spiritual, but not religious' (and I think to myself..what the..???).

Now, take the Old Age, where one's beliefs were instilled in the clan, and sometimes, they'll be the only ones to actually believe those things. It wasn't really 'organised' at all.. it's just what you did or believed. When the thunder crackled, dad told you it was the spirits.

I've defined it in my reality as a religion, but given the way some things have panned out here... is it?

Also - Christian Science... what's that???

[Gerrinson]

I left out a quote of the bit about religions that don't believe in specific deities, but here we go: I understand the belief in spirits, and I can easily see how in the past people could believe in spirits/gods/etc., I mean 10,000 years ago who could test that lightning is just really big static electricity, right? But now, we know better.

So called 'psychic' powers to a point, actually, I can believe. Particulary precognition due to the fact that there is no scientific evidence currently to prove that time must flow in only one direction. Perhaps we're finally evolving to the point where we can begin to perceive more than before. Still, 99.99% can be proven to be deluded, scammers, or giving such generic info that you might as well have opened a fortune cookie (at least you get cookie!).

But the Bible is not the entirety of Christian teachings, and Christianity is not the only organized religion. Nor is all religion organized.

Okay. I don't know of any other primary sources of the teachings of Jesus Christ from that time period. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but you don't draw from his teachings in the Bible (or some other primary souce), then you're not following him, you're following someone else. At best, someone else's interpretation of his original lessons. At worst, you're following the teaching of somebody who has his own opinion and point of view and has falsely dressed it up as a teaching of Jesus Christ. If you believe that is what entails being a Christian, then I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked.

If you know of some non-Biblical primary source that has the teachings of Jesus Christ I'd be very interested to know what it is so I can research it for myself. The more you know and all that.

[Sylvia727]

I've heard of a number of non-Biblical gospels, some about Jesus and some about his disciples after his death. I haven't read any of them. I also know Christians who follow a "living Gospel", or a "verbal tradition", in which the customs and teachings of prominant Christians is added to Christian traditions. Catholicism's Pope comes to mind, as he is considered the heir of St. Peter and his words are sacred truth (in certain circumstances). Followers of these traditions are still Christians.

[anriana]

If you know of some non-Biblical primary source that has the teachings of Jesus Christ I'd be very interested to know what it is so I can research it for myself. The more you know and all that.

That would depend on how you define the Bible. Are you including the Catholic Apocrypha?

There's also the book of Mary and the book of Thomas and a few others I don't remember. Some are Gnostic and some are books that the political committee of men who chose the official Biblical books just didn't like.

[Flyndaran]

That would depend on how you define the Bible. Are you including the Catholic Apocrypha?

There's also the book of Mary and the book of Thomas and a few others I don't remember. Some are Gnostic and some are books that the political committee of men who chose the official Biblical books just didn't like.

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

[Gerrinson]

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

Exactly. And this why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Bible. You can pick and choose your holy texts? Is it still truly a holy text, or more a case of 'Choose-Your-Own-Messiah'? (Turn to page 87 to continue!)

And other ancient texts based on previously oral traditions are just as suspect. The more I that read about religions, the more it became clear that people were just fooling themselves. Personally, I require evidence beyond things seen by people in times when it was common for hallucinogenic fungi to wind up in the food, by accident of course, but still.

[AFPheonix]

I think of it less as people fooling themselves than as people in power using sacred texts that were supposedly inspired by God to control their populace. I am most familiar with the Bible, and it's pretty evident how that works in the Pentateuch and books of I II Kings and I II Chronicles. The difference in narratives are pretty interesting.

[Evandril]

Exactly. And this why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Bible. You can pick and choose your holy texts? Is it still truly a holy text, or more a case of 'Choose-Your-Own-Messiah'? (Turn to page 87 to continue!)

And other ancient texts based on previously oral traditions are just as suspect. The more I that read about religions, the more it became clear that people were just fooling themselves. Personally, I require evidence beyond things seen by people in times when it was common for hallucinogenic fungi to wind up in the food, by accident of course, but still.

I still enjoy the idea of a diety watching all this, with his hand on his forehead, muttering 'Where did they get THAT from?!? I never said that! Why did I ever let them have free will??'

[anriana]

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

The poster asked for primary sources of Jesus' words that weren't included in the Bible, so I listed some that claim to be that.