What is religion?

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,504
Reaction score
4,335
Points
108
Location
London UK
Religion engages man in his whole being (e.g. Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself"), vertically (towards God) and horizontally (towards the world).

Religion is essentially discernment — a discernment between God and the world, between the Aeternal and the ephemeral, between the Absolute and the contingent and, in the last resort, between the Real and the unreal.

Religion is not simply a binding, it is a union, with the Divine (or, with its object, which is considered the ultimate or absolute, according to its own determination). Everything in every religion has its foundation in these two elements: discernment and union (I will be your God, and you will be my people").

Man is intelligence and will, and religion is discernment and concentration.

A religion is an integral whole comparable to a living organism that develops according to the principles of discdernment and union. One might therefore call it a 'spiritual' organism, it is the Spirit that binds (cf Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6), and the 'societal' or 'exoteric' aspect is founded on the inner (esoteric) reality of a union both vertical and horizontal.

Religion cannot therefore be determined by the constituent elements independently of their inward unity, as if one were concerned with a mere collection of facts. This is why empirical data alone will not suffice to reveal anything about the reality of a religion, other than its historical forms. Nor can a religion be dissembled, as if one is seeking the core. This is akin to disassembling the brain in search of the mind.

The reverse is also the case — the empirical investigation of its constituent cells, taken individually and collectively, will never reveal the richness of the human mind. Why, therefore, anyone should think the mere 'facts' of a religion will reveal anything worthwhile shows how far off the mark we are. The Quest for the historical Jesus, for example, is just one example of the futility of this exercise.

The term 'heresy' points to this. It derives from the Greek verb 'to choose', and indicates an over-emphasis that distorts the organic integrity of the whole.

Religions are authentic when they comprise a sufficient idea of the Absolute and the relative, and thereby the nature of any possible reciprocal relationship. Central to this is the activity — both physical and spiritual (eg alms-giving and prayer) — that is contemplative in nature and dynamically effectual with regard to our ultimate destiny.

Heterodoxies, on the other hand, tend to adulterate either the idea of the Divine or the manner of our relation to it. Invariably they offer a worldly, profane or, if you like, "rational" and “humanist” view of religion that is tragically bankrupt, or else a pseudo-mysticism with a content of nothing but the ego and its egregores.

The idea then that religion should be removed from the primary focus of one's being, and kept concealed in the wings, as it were, flies in the face of Scripture. The exhortation of the Shema Israel is absolute, and admits no condition or relative determination.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Religion is merely an expression of spirituality. Aboriginal peoples are spiritual but rarely religious and almost never theological (in the Western Sense). The problem is that out pigeonholes in this area are too influenced by the Greeks. In the beginning the metaphysics consisted of ontology (what is), cosmology (the universe), and theology (the gods). And we keep repeating those categories over and over and over. Forcing events and experiences and facts into them.

One does not need G!D to be spiritual (see Jainism). One does not need religion to be good (see Daoism).

In our culture, in our civilization (or our society with all of its traditions—we may not be cultured or civilized, depends if you look at things from the point of view of Ghandiji or the Reverend Moon) we have perhaps, no, make that certainly have empowered the ego too much (“gee, if I can imagine a universe where everything just divides like an ameba to take care of those little things I don’t know like time and interconnectedness, I can just define it as such” or “I don’t like the actions of this religion or that race, I can invent a new one”). It is a matter of the middle path, neither this nor that. Not a matter of “my book trumps your book”.
 
Religion engages man in his whole being (e.g. Luke 10:27 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself"), vertically (towards God) and horizontally (towards the world).
I was with ya at "Religion engages man in his whole being" but after that ya lost me.

Religion is essentially discernment — a discernment between God and the world, between the Aeternal and the ephemeral, between the Absolute and the contingent and, in the last resort, between the Real and the unreal.
I am good with this statement since I see god as my Higher Self. Though I believe the go between/Logos is our Daimon/HGA etc.

Religion is not simply a binding, it is a union, with the Divine (or, with its object, which is considered the ultimate or absolute, according to its own determination). Everything in every religion has its foundation in these two elements: discernment and union (I will be your God, and you will be my people").
I agree with the first part but I do not see any 'people', my god is my Self, and I am the only follower.



Heterodoxies, on the other hand, tend to adulterate either the idea of the Divine or the manner of our relation to it. Invariably they offer a worldly, profane or, if you like, "rational" and “humanist” view of religion that is tragically bankrupt, or else a pseudo-mysticism with a content of nothing but the ego and its egregores.
That could be seen the other way around! Orthodoxy is conformity to something you will only have 'faith' exists. Truly, an agnostic icing over a religious cake will be most palatable.

The idea then that religion should be removed from the primary focus of one's being, and kept concealed in the wings, as it were, flies in the face of Scripture. The exhortation of the Shema Israel is absolute, and admits no condition or relative determination.
When you can remove the confines and limitations of religious doctrine then religion will make sense.

Diabolus Beatus,
Etu
 
Hi Mr R —
Religion is merely an expression of spirituality. Aboriginal peoples are spiritual but rarely religious and almost never theological (in the Western Sense).
I'm not so sure. Nor am I sure we can apply either term, both of which carry a degree of lexical baggage, let alone one and not the other.

I certainly think we err when we suppose we can say aboriginal peoples are spiritual (assuming a 20th century AngloAmerican context) but not religious (assuming the same, generally rather perjorative, definition).

I would suggest, following the Dreaming, that aboriginal art, music, song, dance etc., has a profoundly religious dimension, indeed they perform liturgical ceremonies, which is lost in, and on, the West.

Aboriginal peoples tend to mythos rather than logos, I agree, but I would still argue that aboriginal peoples do not compartmentalise life in quite the way the modern west does.

The problem is that out pigeonholes in this area are too influenced by the Greeks.
I disagree — these two pigeon-holes didn't really exist prior to the 1700s. Both terms were in existence, but they were synonymous in Latin Christianity, and they still are in the Orthodox world.

The contemporary insistence on a profound distinction is not Greek, it's entirely a West European phenomena that emigrants took to the US.

In the beginning the metaphysics consisted of ontology (what is), cosmology (the universe), and theology (the gods). And we keep repeating those categories over and over and over. Forcing events and experiences and facts into them.
Oh, I don't know. As a Catholic, I believe in the Revealed Mysteries — the Incarnation, the Trinity, miracles — yet secularism would force those beliefs out, because they don't fit within their 'categories' of possibility.

So I would agree that, for example, if one tries to Platonise Christianity, then one is forcing experience into a pre-determined mould ... but when Christianity stands on its own ground, and thinks 'outside of the box' of the standard category set ... the flak we get!

And then people talk about thinking 'outside the box' of religion, and fail to notice they're thinking within a box of their own projection ... the evidence of that is writ large here, where people pop up and dismiss 2,000 years of philosophical/theological/metaphysical speculation as nothing, and think their latest opinion outweighs all that ...

When the lexicon of Greek philosophy is exhausted, then I will accept there is a need to review the categories, but until then I will consider it more than sufficient to the task — I'm reading Ricoeur, for example, who is investigating Aristotle and Augustine ... and the stuff is breath-taking.

When the likes of Derrida et at still investigate the works of Plato and Aristotle, when Heidegger says Eriugena said it all a thousand years sooner, then I believe there is still life in those old categories yet.

Bearing in mind that 'metaphysics' and 'ontology' was largely regarded as nonsense not so many years ago (and still is in some quarters), when 'meontology' has dropped out of language altogether, when empiricism and subjectivity become the rule and benchmark of the real and the true (ref Tony Blair's justification for declaring war on Iraq for anyone who thinks it's unimportant), then I suggest we've lost more than we assume we have gained?

One does not need G!D to be spiritual (see Jainism). One does not need religion to be good (see Daoism).
OK. Then be a Jain, or a Daoist ... but don't assume that all one has to do is make something up.

In our culture, in our civilization we have perhaps, no, make that certainly have empowered the ego too much ...
Yep, and sadly that's down to secularism and the Enlightenment. We bang one endlessly about 'humility' and 'detachment' and are criticised for holding on to old fashioned and outmoded values.

It is a matter of the middle path, neither this nor that. Not a matter of “my book trumps your book”.
But it's not a matter of 'my way equates to the middle way because it is my way' nor 'my book is as good as your book' – both of those are born of an artificial egalitarianism.

Surely, if that were true, we would never grow nor evolve; we'd all be stumped, waving at our neighbour saying 'after you' and getting nowhere ...

God bless

Thomas
 
What is religion? It is quite simply a compilation of books, traditions, thoughts, beliefs created by man.

I say this because I can think of no reason G!d would have created hundreds of religions and tens of thousands of denominations arguing who is right...

I am not demeaning G!d or religion in this statement....the religions seem to do this quite well on their own.


Oh and I love the quote from Luke.... it seems to be the favorite amongst Christians, pointing out how Jesus was quizzed by 'the expert in the law' and taught the people these all important things.... much better than Mathews version, where Jesus asked the soldier the same question and he repeated the answer easily because it wasn't anything new at all, it was taught by every parent to every child, when they awoke, and when they went to sleep, was nailed to their door and included in all their prayers....While I am positive Thomas is aware of this, many think that Jesus came up with this as new, and aren't aware it came from Deuteronomy and Leviticus....as he had been taught since birth.
 
Aboriginal peoples are spiritual but rarely religious and almost never theological (in the Western Sense)

Sailors on the High Seas are spiritual but rarely religious and almost always theological (in the Western Sense) ---since time immemorial. -IMH Observations
________________________________
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

A suggested exercise:

"Become Hapless"

Purposely become hapless ---not by accident ---with safety means of exiting the situation.

It is such "haplessness" where it is possible to be earnest when invocating & recognising God's presence ---or God's indifference ---in re: one's own earnest beliefs in God and a need for a religious practice.

Why would pampered people with a life of ease stop to consider the "Sublime Reality" above and beyond their lot; unless they are confronted with the reality of Haplessness?

We are not seeking to use "Aboriginal peoples" lot in life as the Gold-Standard of Higher Purpose(s) in Human Life.
_______________________________________________
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Radar, do you believe that Humans evolved from apes?

Has science isolated such a similar evolution of a species?

<Will Radar now bring up a new biological Standard to compare humans to?>
 
[
Radar, do you believe that Humans evolved from apes?

Has science isolated such a similar evolution of a species?

<Will Radar now bring up a new biological Standard to compare humans to?>
Only the ignorant believe that humans evolved from apes.

That has never been a premise of evolution.

Oh, to clarify, only the ignorant believe that evolution implies that humans evolved from apes.

Like those who misread religions due to only listening to someone else's interpretation....there are those who misread science by only listening to someone else's interpretation....
 
Only the ignorant believe that humans evolved from apes.

That has never been a premise of evolution.

Oh, to clarify, only the ignorant believe that evolution implies that humans evolved from apes.

Homo is a subfamily (Homininae) of the family Hominidae (Great Apes) and hence share common ancestors. The Great Apes includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

So no, we didn't evolve from apes (as in gorillas) but yes we are part of the same (evolutionary) family.
 
Only the ignorant believe that humans evolved from apes.
This receives a gargantuan "DUH"

That has never been a premise of evolution.
Are you sure about that?

Oh, to clarify, only the ignorant believe that evolution implies that humans evolved from apes.
Ok that was more civilized ;) . . . All life on this planet is evolutionary without Divine Intervention, just like all the Laws of the Material Plane, evolution works like a Meme, choosing the best route for survival.

Like those who misread religions due to only listening to someone else's interpretation....there are those who misread science by only listening to someone else's interpretation....
I'm sorry, is there anything else except someone's interpretation? Like a text signed by GOD? :D

Religion is a human construct/restraint, the sooner you get over it the sooner you can evolve.
 
Homo is a subfamily (Homininae) of the family Hominidae (Great Apes) and hence share common ancestors. The Great Apes includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

So no, we didn't evolve from apes (as in gorillas) but yes we are part of the same (evolutionary) family.
Exactamentary.....

I'm sorry, is there anything else except someone's interpretation? Like a text signed by GOD? :D

Religion is a human construct/restraint, the sooner you get over it the sooner you can evolve.

And again, fully agree...
 
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
 
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

There are also non-theistic religions, that don't worship a god.

Nontheistic religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I follow the teachings of Jesus therefore call my self a christian.

I don't believe in any superhuman controlling power that demands worship so I think nontheistic Christian is appropriate...

I believe in a Father (Divine Mind), Son/Christ (Divine Thought), Holy Spirit (Divine Creation), Potentiality, Inspiration, Manifestation... so maybe a Trinitarian, Nontheistic Christian.

And believe G!d (as universal truth and principle, (not as any plague wielding, lightening bolt throwing, bumper crop providing passive aggressive control freak) ) is part and parcel of all things....so lets say a Christian Nontheistic Trinitarian Panentheist.
 
Religion is way of God. Religion is never bad to people, but people badly use it for their interest. God give us knowledge for understanding true.
 
I was with ya at "Religion engages man in his whole being" but after that ya lost me.
OK, but that's a good start.

When you can remove the confines and limitations of religious doctrine then religion will make sense.
The confines and limitations make sense when one understands the religion in question, they confine and limit the passional element of the sensible cortex that renders man debilitated in the first place. The confines and limitations are a necessary (although sometimes provisional and conditional) process towards dthe development of discernment.

What is religion? It is quite simply a compilation of books, traditions, thoughts, beliefs created by man.
I'm pointing to what gives rise to those thoughts and beliefs. If one excludes the idea of 'revelation' or 'enlightenment' or 'the Other' or, indeed, 'the One', then really one's missed the point of the thing.

There are also non-theistic religions, that don't worship a god.
But the principle is the same.

Religion is way of God. Religion is never bad to people, but people badly use it for their interest. God give us knowledge for understanding true.
Well said.

Religion separates the Real and the illusory; the Absolute and the contingent; Atma and maya; God and the world and the 'Way' of religion is a journey from one place to the other. The one is Light, Beatitude, Consciousness, Subject, Being in a pure and absolute/transcendent sense ... the other encompasses an infinite variety of contrary worldly or illusory states.

God bless

Thomas
 
they confine and limit the passional element of the sensible cortex that renders man debilitated in the first place.
What on earth did you just say? What does passional mean? I'm pretty sure I don't have a 'sensible cortex' in my body either! :confused:
 
"Religion separates the Real and the illusory; the Absolute and the contingent; Atma and maya; God and the world and the 'Way' of religion is a journey from one place to the other. The one is Light, Beatitude, Consciousness, Subject, Being in a pure and absolute/transcendent sense ... the other encompasses an infinite variety of contrary worldly or illusory states."

Not bad, Thomas. The only difference is that what you are calling religion, I choose to call spritual. Again, going back to pre-Socratic roots the Absolute of Plato "beat out" the Process of Heraclitus. So Forms and Archetypes and Yes/No form the very essence of Western Thought. Today it is expecially exasperating in therms of quantum/relativity, me/you, Theology/Panentheism.
 
Back
Top