What is a "religion"?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Why are we here?

Why are we here in this internet forum? Better still, why am I here?

Honestly speaking, it is satisfying to be in this forum to express my views on in this particular thread what is a religion.

Of course, side by side with the boon there is the potential bane of being shown to be nonsensical or all wrong, and sometimes in intemperate language.

But the prospects of the satisfaction is too much to be deterred by the hazard of aspersion; so I continue to post my thoughts on religion here and also in other topic threads.

Why so satisfying?

Well, it is human nature at least from my part to find pleasure in making known my thoughts. So did Jesus Christ and Buddha and Marx and all of us here. Well, at least from my part, it's a pleasure, whatever it is for others.

If you have a mouth it is a pleasure to use it for food intake. I just happen to have a brain and the skill of writing what's processed there in the way of ideas and words, so I derive pleasure from their employment, the whole chain of physiological faculties to and from the brain.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Testing: thread closed?

(Here is a reproduction of my post in “General Lounge > Unusual Churches and Cults”. If I may, I would like to continue from here. And I promise to abstain from this kind of a procedure in the future.)


http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3812#post3812

Entrepreneurial religion Post #2
Susma Rio Sep
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2003
Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian
Had this pointed out to me from somewhere else - effectively, a great list of...unusual churches and cults.

Have a look and tell me what you think.

http://unusualchurches.blogspot.com/


This thread is a good point of departure for the search into the law’s definition of religion, church, cult, or simply put, religion. I suspect that the law might not be so concerned with the definition of religion as with the definition of church; but religion and church are connected terms.

The law gives authority to church ministers or religious ministers to officiate marriages that have effects in law, namely, in the court; and it likewise covers acts or omissions of the married spouses and third parties dealing with them. Moreover, the law also grants tax exemptions to religious institutions.

On these scores it is incumbent upon law to define what is a religion or what is a church or what is at least a minister of religion or church.

Would my definition of religion be acceptable in law?
Quote:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.


What I know of law is that it does not as a rule concern itself with the inner dispositions and intentions of an agent; but it does have to just the same for the determination of validity of acts, and also the determination of guilt and innocence in regard to acts or omissions in contravention of law.

It does not concern itself, I should be more precise, with the intrinsic truths of a religion and worth of its observances, provided the professed truths and practices of a religion or church are not disruptive in the least of peace and order.

Suppose I found an association called the Beatitudes Doers, and put the word ‘Church’ to it, thus: Beatitudes Doers Church. Moreover, I get some friends together to be members of this group, and they accept me to be their head; so that in effect I am their pastor, minister, religious head, whatever.

Now, I have this group registered as a religious corporation or institution, with myself as the minister head.

I can now officiate marriages and solicit donations from all and sundry even non-members, and put all properties in the name of the church, thereby enjoying whatever of tax exemptions there be allowed to religious institutions.


I will report back to this thread, after I make some readings about law on religion, church, and related subjects.

Right now, I am very inclined to say that I can engage in entrepreneurial religion and have a good living thereby. When we look at religion we can also certainly see the entrepreneurial aspects very visible in its composition and operation.

Susma Rio Sep

The way I see it, my interest in religion is very much centered on the immediate environment of the persons practicing a religion. So I tend to see the daily routines and acts of a religious person, specially the day in the life of an elite religionist.

There are 24 hours in a day, seven days in a week, and 365.25 days in a year. How does the elite religionist live his life year in and year out. With the masses religion is seemingly one item of a week’s or month’s or year’s program.

What am I myself? One of the masses of Christians, more specifically a postgraduate Roman Catholic. I know about Catholicism, from cradle and hopefully to the grave. All my education had been Catholic from the first days in nursery school to college.

So I tend to see everything of religion in other systems from the standpoint of my acquaintance with Roman Catholicism. I know how the priest lives his 24/7/365.25 time and place life.

What about the Buddhist monk or pastor if any such characters? I know also extensively about Protestant ministers. After all Protestant churches are derivatives of Roman Catholicism.

One of the things that strike me a lot is the financial aspect of religion. And I will come back again and again to this side of religion and religious elites. The materiality of religion notwithstanding its avowed spirituality.

About law on what is a religion or a church, I have not found any texts so far in the Net. If anyone can give me references, thanks a lot. I am still looking. No text so far of a law dictionary free online.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

The legal boons of religion

So far I have not found a formal definition of religion in the law texts I located in the Internet. This does not mean that there is none; the law texts freely available which I have consulted – and there surely must be more than I have come across – obviously make up only a very small part of the average collection of a law library.

One of my purposes is to see whether a formal definition by law of religion might have any resemblance to my own, namely:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.

Knowledgeable people in law can correct me here. And I welcome their corrections.

I am going to give my impressions about law and religion from what I have read on three items.

1. Religion and nonprofit organizations: Religion is a qualification for the grant of the legal personality of a nonprofit corporation. Such an organization can raise money through soliciting donations. So, a religious society can become rich even though it is supposed to be nonprofit. And the people running the corporation, while not owning the money pouring into the corporation, can assign themselves enviable salaries, and can use all the properties of the corporation as they also exercise the power to acquire and dispose of them.

2. Military service: If there is compulsory draft in a country, a person with a religion advocating a pacifist ideology can obtain exemption from combat duty. U.S. judicial decisions have extended this exemption even to people who have not so much a pacifist religion as a philosophical antipathy to war, even on the basis of their own evaluation of just cause. Of course, the U.S. now has a voluntary recruitment system to enlist soldiers.

3. Religion and asylum in another country: Religion is also a ground for the grant of asylum to people who otherwise would not be eligible to immigrate to another country, which has a policy of granting asylum for various persecutions. So if you cannot enter a country and live there because you want to settle there and make a living there; you can do so on grounds of religious persecution.

However, all in all these three cases, I have not come across a formal definition of religion from law, not as formal as the one I myself have formulated and presented above.

Just the same on examination of the above three instances where religion is attended to by law, the people with religion all satisfy my definition of religion.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

religion and tax exemption

[ . . . ]

1. Religion and nonprofit organizations: Religion is a qualification for the grant of the legal personality of a nonprofit corporation. Such an organization can raise money through soliciting donations. So, a religious society can become rich even though it is supposed to be nonprofit. And the people running the corporation, while not owning the money pouring into the corporation, can assign themselves enviable salaries, and can use all the properties of the corporation as they also exercise the power to acquire and dispose of them.

[ . . . ]

I forgot to mention in the above paragraph that a nonprofit corporation enjoys exemption from real property taxation, and I think other taxes. So if you are interested, you can organize your family and home as a church and then you will be exempt from real property taxation. How to do that? Read on the provisions on exemptions in the internal revenue codes and also consult a lawyer on corporation law.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

religion and custody of children

There are also texts on child custody of sparated spouses-parents where religion is a determinant for awarding the child to one or the other parent for staying with and raising up.

The decisions I have read seem to come up without any formal definition of religion. The emphasis appears to be on whether the religion of one or the other parent -- or the absence of religion -- is good for the child in terms of his future.

Judges seem to define good derived from religion according to their own individual preferences.

However, even though I have not come across any text where one spouse-parent embraces the religion of the Church of Satan, Inc., I would imagine from what I have read of texts from cases decided, the judge would award the child certainly not to the spouse-parent adhering to the Church of Satan, Inc.

Yet this church is also religion insofar as the law of incorporation is concerned. Of course it is supposed to be within the confines of the law in its beliefs and practices. It has convinced the law that it is a law-abding society.

However, I have to look it up, the Church of Satan, Inc., or something like that.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Primum non nocere

I have been reading about law and religion in search of a formal definition of religion for close to a week's time.

No, I have not found a definition which might satisfy one that can be considered formal. What is a formal definition? Don't hate me for this definition:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the power favorably to himself.

From general to particular to specifics, that I think is what makes up a formal definition of anything.

No, I have not found a definition that starts from the most general idea to more particular and finally to some indispensable specifics.

But what I do find so far is that law in the English speaking modern world is not concerned so much with defining religion as with finding out whether it does any harm and then whether it does any good to society or from/by one person to another or others.

So when religion steps in in any litigation of whatever nature in the modern English speaking world of law, in the end the judge decides on what the religion can do in terms of good for fellowmen and society and the harm that it should be prevented from doing.

Like medicine it seems: Primum non nocere...

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Religion in law is just plain philosophy

Religious liberty, religious intolerance, religious persecutions, religious discrimination, religious right, religious autonomy, etc., I have read about all these subjects in my spare time from making a living and running a home and family, just to find one definition that will flatter me in my own definition of religion:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the power favorably to himself.

Forgive me for this one weakness among many in my character, trying always to find out whether others might agree with me in my opinions or findings.

Now, I seem to reach the conclusion that in law, and I mean the law of the contemporary English speaking world, religion is not so much religion as I understand in my definition, but philosophy.

So, law considers religion as a philosophy. And in the contemporary English speaking world (not that I am saying anything pro or anti in the non-English speaking world on religion, for not consulting materials in other languages, but just restricting myself to the English speaking world because my reading is limited to materials written in English), religion is belief [period].

Law does not go beyond belief in its understanding of religion, namely, it does not consider an unknown power believed in and the intention of the believer to influence the unknown power.

As a philosophy, religion is just a department in law dealing with freedom of thought and speech and act, on condition that you do not disrupt the peace and order of society.

And law will favor you if you even advance the progress of society in that more people will have more of peace and order and higher standards of living, and the advancement of the best in civilization, like helping fellowmen not as lucky as you are, and advancing knowledge of the sciences and arts, and advocating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also the trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity.


The broad trends in the history of law and religion is that there are three big directions in mankind: the prince, the priest, and the thinker.

Law is the sphere of the thinker; and after all these millennia of religion and politics, the thinker seems to have arrived at the conclusion that the best thing to do about religion is just to stop at religion being a belief just like any philosophy: let religion be but restrain its exuberance when it puts into practice its beliefs and observances to the detriment of peace and order and the advancement of society in terms of life betterment.


And that is why I cannot find a formal definition of religion in law.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Separation of church and state

There are plenty of law materials in the Net on the separation of church and state, and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The church is the establishment of religion and the state is the government. We might also call the first the priest and the second the prince.

Where does my definition of religion enter in this law domain?

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended by the believer to influence the power favorably to himself.

Let us look at the question in the following way:

At the beginning the prince got to be a prince ruling over fellowmen by muscle power and physical skills in combat, and also expertise in leading fellowmen to greener pastures.

The priest got to be in charge of man’s mind and heart by claiming to know things others did not and could not know. Among the things he knows were agents, possessed of personality like humans themselves, agents which can be bargained with and are possessed of whims and biases in their dealings with man. They are superior to man but invisible.

How does the priest get to know such esoteric things? by some special inborn talent of insight bringing him enlightenment, or from thought transmission by the unknown power agent. Who says he knows better things because he knows better? He says so and says it so well he gets people to believe him.

And he claims to be the sole middleman of these powers which eventually filtered own into one supreme entity, whatever the multiplicity of aspects it exhibits, like the Trinity of Christians.

So, for reasons of practicality and economy, the prince got himself also endowed with the personality and office of the priest; or the priest got himself endowed with the personality and office of the prince. Or they collaborated together in controlling fellowmen in an uneasy balance.

Now enters the thinker who realizes that the prince puts everyone in his place by brawn power, but the priest controls man’s heart and mind with the threat of banes from the unknown power he represents and the promise of boons from the same power.

The stock in trade of the priest is what I define to be religion: a belief in an unknown power and the attempt to influence this power for favors by appropriate affection and action directed toward the power.

Do we see here the big decisive difference between the prince and the priest is that the prince has to bring his fellowmen to greener pastures here and now; but the banes threatened by the priest and his promised boons are conveniently procrastinated to the post-death life, the existence beyond the grave also sub-veniently postulated by the priest.

It was not long before the thinker dawned upon the idea that the uneasy balance of collaboration between prince and priest can be resolved to the advantage of the prince, by on the one hand excluding from the priest anything and everything that has to do with bringing the people to the green pasture and maintaining them there, and on the other hand he would grant all competence and power over matters of the next life to the priest.

That in essence is the doctrine of the separation of church and state or the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That is the stroke of genius from the thinker, and everybody should be happy. But why is the priest not happy with this arrangement?

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Law and Religion

Law and religion: on this subject I have read in the Net to some good extent in search of a definition by law of religion, hoping to find one in confirmation of my own; but to no avail.

In the process however I have penetrated into the bottom-line concerns of law and of religion in the respective spheres of each in regard to mankind.

To make our discussion genuinely relevant, and not closeting ourselves up there in the cloud of unknowing, absorbed in the very broad abstract concepts of law and religion, we must go to more concrete entities, like state and church. Still coming to more immediate institutions we have government and pastorate.

Finally, the only really valid way of dealing with law and religion is to approach people who are upholding and operating the government of law, and people who are upholding and performing the functions of religion. These are the government officials and the church ministers, the first representing law and the second representing religion.

As a rule, to authentically know the gist of what an issue is all about, we must always find the human persons involved in them, who have personal stakes in the issue. I mention ‘human person’ because in the very last analysis we cannot otherwise than deal with fellow human persons; even though they could claim to represent non-human agents or non-person realities.

Let us now bring the issue of law and religion to the realm of what people or human persons in government and in religious pastorate are after?

What are they after? What else but to control other people. Why would they want to control other people? Because it is very humanly satisfying to any human person to be able and to actually control other people.

You don’t accept that? Suppose I am in control of you; who is then in a more satisfying position: you and me? Even though it is just being responsible for someone or being in charge of someone, the essence is the same, being in control of someone.

Power is the name of the game in law and in religion; between the people in government and the people in pastorate, who should or do actually wield power over other people, and even over the other power rivals – the law people over the religion people or vice-versa?

Civilization however has raised man to the idea that naked quest for power is ignoble, and the only justification for power is as an office for the attainment of fellowmen’s welfare. Which ironically provides a facile pretense for the quest of naked power; so that even Christians used to justify slave-holding as for the good of the slaves.

What people have the greater good of fellowmen in their heart and mind, the people in government or the people in the religious pastorate?

People in the religious pastorate claim that they are after the greater good of mankind, namely, not only of his visible existence but also his invisible existence that transcends matter and time.

For people in the government, current history in the Western world would seem to tell us that they maintain the greater good to be of the visible world and in the realm of matter and time; because the invisible world is of no effective momentum.

And they are not inclined to allow the invisible world advocated by religious ministers to dictate to them: how they are to control fellowmen toward the common weal. Besides, they are not disposed to allow themselves to be subservient to people in religion all in the name of invisible contingencies to all appearances wholly in the mind of religious people.

The fact remains however for students of law and religion that both people in the government and people in the religious pastorate are after power, after the control of fellowmen. And power is satisfying if nothing else in the way of gross material and vain social gains.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Law over Religion

I am planning to inspect carefully the ideas of other posters here in this Comparative Religion forum on what they say is religion , as soon as I finish some more of my preliminary suspicions of what religion is genuinely all about.


Now to the question whether the church or religion is under the government, or broadly from the standpoint of the government, we can discuss the question as under the heading Law over Religion.

From my reading in the Net on materials involving conflicts between religions or churches or religious peoples over their religious matters, and also in conflicts between government and church or at least a religious congregation or even just one person, my conclusion so far is that in the current English speaking world of the West today (however, I am not excluding materials written in non-English language as of no relevance) law is in charge of religion.

Ask yourself this question, when two or more churches or religious groups are in trouble among themselves and they have to settle their troubles, where do they go ultimately? Where else but the law. If they don’t go to the law they will never resolve their troubles with any kind of definitive determination, or at least with any kind of warranted permanency.

You want an example? How about this one where two personalities with their respective followers are quarreling about who is the Number One in their church? Where do they go finally, but to the law? In this case the law will decide for them decisively not only on material considerations but also on the logic of their spiritual or church principles who should be their Number One.

Other examples, where do churches go for the favor of tax exemption? Where do they go even just for obtaining a legal personality to represent themselves in society and to enjoy the rights of property and property disposal? Where do religious ministers go to obtain the authority to officiate marriages binding in the civil jurisdiction which is the jurisdiction that has any binding effect among the citizenry at all? Again to the law. Another one, where do religious people go in order to so much as be allowed to set up a church? Of course to the law.

Next, when there is conflict between the law and religion, which will prevail? Law in the person of the government will prevail; and if the religious people involved would not accept the dictate of the law, then the government will graciously give them the coercive option of moving out from the dominion of the law, i.e., go and live and practice in another country.

When the Mormons insisted on keeping simultaneously multiple wives on the ground of religious belief and observance, they were given the option by the government to move themselves out of the U.S. jurisdiction. Propitiously enough their founder had a timely revelation to the effect that the obligation of simultaneous multiple wives was lifted by God for the time being.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Religion, the word and the thing

First there is the thing and then there is a mind seeing it and forming an idea of it in his mind. Then to share this idea with another mind or human person he gives it a name or word which is agreed to by the other party. Now they can talk about the thing by using the word both agreed on based on what they perceive to be the components making up the thing.

Such also is the history of the word, 'religion'.

Matters should be all right if no interested parties step in to put things not religion into the name 'religion' or to exclude things that are religion out of the word 'religion'. Now things will certainly get muddled up so we don't know anymore or precisely what these people are talking about who insist on including or excluding things which should not be or should be in the word 'religion'.

The key to the problem then is to examine the interests represented or pursued by parties who want to include or exclude from the word and even the idea of religion things which should not be in it or should be in it.

So the moment such a party is discovered to be pursuing or advancing or fighting even for a purpose, then it is already dubious whether he is really after the real thing which is the essentially constituent essence of the thing called religion.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Gradations of religion(?)

Gradations of religion


My own definition of religion is as follows:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

In the course of search for a formal definition from others, I have come across what I consider now to be gradations of religion, considering that various parties in pursuit of their interests prefer to understand religion in their own ways.

First there is the idea of religion as consisting in a belief how the world is constituted and especially how mankind should be managed. Here we have humanism, communism, capitalism, globalism, liberalism, libertinism, and even slavery.

Second we have parties who believe in or do not believe in unknown powers like God, and gods, and all kinds of deities and spirits having some kind of power over nature and man. Here we have theism and atheism and agnosticism and satanism and Wicca, and their proponents and opponents. We must take note here that some theists are the ones who insist in including groups antipathic to them as belonging to religions. So the atheists and the agnosticists do not claim but even reject their belonging to any religion; but their opponents, the theists, insist they do.

Third among the theists there are what I now consider properly belonging to religious systems. All these systems effect affections and actions to influence their conceptions of the unknown power to react favorably to themselves. All these systems are religions in accordance to my own definition of religion. These systems are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all the masses versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, etc.


Where do I belong? I am a postgraduate Catholic. God and Jesus are no strangers to me, but I maintain my own kind of religious autonomy, not submitting myself to any human agents claiming to speak for any kind of unknown power. Of course I go for church wedding and religious burial. And I pray to God and to Jesus also.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

How to study religion

Do I have a religion? I maintain that I do have a religion, the one I have defined time and again in this board, namely:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

I talk to and with, or to use the technical term, pray, to God and Jesus and Mary and all the saints known and unknown in the Catholic martyrology, ceaselessly; and by a virtual intention addressed to God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to the Son Incarnate, Jesus Christ, I have consecrated my every waking hours as prayer to them all.

Of course so far I have not with certainty known of their responding to me like my wife and kids do. But I do have answers to my prayers, not all of them, of course; nonetheless some good ones – obviously and admittedly, answers from God to my prayers I believe them to be.

Yes, and I also worship God, One and Triune, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I tell Him that I am tremendously impressed by His power and wisdom and His infinite goodness and love, and admire no end the terrific work He has done in creation.


What I want to say is that my definition of religion is based on my own observation of my own religious life and acts and also of others’ who are leading religious life and career, even such as I call to be professionals like priests, ministers, monks, nuns, religious brothers and sisters.

My proposal is that to really know what a religion is one has to study oneself, if one is indeed known to be religious in his own estimation and by consensus of others acquainted with him. Then from oneself the study should then branch out into one’s immediate circle of religious people, of the same religion or of other religions.

Next the examination can proceed to more distant persons, like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, and other celebrities. Logically, the followers of such personalities should also be considered in view of their religious life and acts.


This Internet Forum, Comparative Religion, is a very good field to study the religions of other people to find out what is to them a religion.

One of the questions I want to delve into is whether the people here talking about religion and disclosing their own religious ideas and attachments are talking from rote or from a very personally arrived at fundamental understanding of religion, even just from purely academic considerations of their own religious thinking and acting.

Are there people who talk about religion from rote? Put it in the opposite way: Are there not people, maybe many, who talk about religion even their own, from rote?

What about myself? Perhaps I am talking about religion from rote, even of my very own religious life and acts. How do I prove to myself or come to any kind of certainty that I am not talking about religion from rote?

My suspicion about myself is that I can be sure that I am not talking about religion and my own religion from rote, because I can say that religion is nothing but . . .

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.

So, may I suggest that a person can be sure that he is not talking about religion from rote when he can say to himself and to others that:

Religion is nothing but a human behavior . . .

Religion is nothing but a human behavior founded upon a belief . .

Religion is nothing but a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power . . .

Religion is nothing but a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions . . .

Religion is nothing but a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power . . .

Religion is nothing but a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward himself the believer.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Not expecting favors?

Is it unworthy of people to practice a religion where favors are being sought from the powers that be, like God and saints and whatever non-monotheistic deities or divinities or spirits there be?

My contention is that seeking favors from unknown powers is of the essence of religion, as human nature spontaneously makes up religion when his conscious life comes into functional existence.

The common sentiment is to expect favors; religious people are not generally in any manner troubled with this kind of an attitude. Go to any religious functions, and you will encounter all kinds of favors being prayed for by the congregation.

They have to be taught by their religious mentors to be detached from such an expectation in their relations with the unknown power, specially their God, in the case of monotheistic religions. But I imagine that in non-monotheistic religions there is no emphasis of desisting from the quest of favors from the unknown powers.

What is the psychology of people who claim that in their religion they do not expect favors from their God? It is the same psychology founded upon the sense of shame society and civilization has inured in people not to expect rewards for doing good to fellowmen. Which of course is plainly and mostly unrealistic in actual life. However, in doing good to fellowmen, the performance itself is the basis for the satisfaction with oneself, even without recognition from the recipients.

But when man believes in God and does His biddings, man is not supposed to expect any favor from God? He is supposed to be detached from God’s favors, disinterested?

Here is what I tell Pilgram in his thread on “Question to all” about finding a religion with all the things all religions hold in agreement and none which they so much as two of them do not agree on:

Of course you might find it unworthy of you that in religion you are seeking favors from unknown power(s); but when you observe religions and religions and more religions, that is exactly what it is all about.

There are religious people who claim that they are not after favors from the powers they believe in, like God. They just love God without any expectation of reward from Him. Which is very ungodly, for the God they believe in is always promising to reward them.

But just the same, ask them whether they love God without so much as expecting the favor of a smile from their God? Now, is that not intending God to react favorably to them? Or do they wish rather that in the purity of their love of God they want God to react to them with a frown? Anyway, it is still to be noticed by their God.

Or do they insist that they do not want to be noticed by their God, even? Like the way they might feel very bad not to be noticed by anyone as they enter a room with people inside, and nobody even bothering to so much as throw a quick glance at them? Why then do they bother with God, at all? They must be crazy then.

So, at least expect and await the favor of a smile from your God, all you who worship your God without any thought whatever of any rewards from Him. That smile is a big favor, worth more than all the favors you think you do not need and do not expect.

Susma Rio Sep

PS What I do to react to the definitions of others here of religion is to search for ‘religion’ in this forum on Comparative Religion, and contribute my thoughts. I will also go over the early posts here in the present thread on ‘What is a religion’.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Religion, theology, entomology . . .

Religion is essentially a study of human behavior. And here we go again with my definition:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the unknown power to react favorably to the believer.

Who does the study in religion? Man. Who or what is being studied? Man. In religion man studies himself, in accordance with the above definition.

Now in theology the study is about God? In entomology the study is about insects. What about gynecology? The study is about women's diseases. Who are the ones doing the studies? Man.

Here however we have a very striking discovery, namely, in theology man studies God as he studies insects and women's diseases? How dare man to study God! But then such is the arrogance of man that he dares to study God, and unavoidably in the way he studies insects and women's diseases.

In theology as in entomology man scrutinizes the composition and the operation of the object of study: in the one case, God; in the other insects.

Now insects can be presumed not to mind being studied or scrutinized. But what about God? Who is believed by man himself to be a person of infinite everything, including and especially His own sense of His dignity and the reverence owed to Him.

How would you like being scrutinized by your employees the way you scrutinize insects, going all over you, inspecting every cranny and corner in you, to find out what you are made of and what makes you tick?

If you are God, you will say to yourself that this is silly and crazy on the part of man. First you believe that I am infinite in everything, including my dignity and my reverendability; but then you will scrutinize Me. Silly because preposterous, crazy because you can’t do it. I am infinite in everything. You believe so; didn’t you say so to yourself and to Me?


My point is this: leave off God, and stick to religion and entomology and gynecology and arachnology.


Now in religion we can study the behavior of man in regard to his belief and the consequences of the belief. It is a valid study and a very fruitful one; because conclusions can be drawn from the study which all students possessed of average intelligence can accept in total consensus.

These conclusions will enable the thinking person to master his own religion; and to if he prefers employ religion to his advancement in life, and of course end up in a better post-death existence of his own imagining or of others’ which he chooses to ascribe to.

To be systematic in studying religion, divide man into three levels of behavior or operation: physical, emotional, and mental.

What are the activities or processes involved in man engaged in religion, on the physical level? For example what body postures they adopt in praying to their unknown powers?

For Catholics it is kneeling, for Protestants on one’s feet standing, for Muslims on knees but with buttocks seated on their legs, with Buddhists on their buttocks seated on the floor with legs folded in front.

Then there are handling of objects with their hands and fingers, positioning of their torso and head, for the effects imagined to be attained and effected with manipulations of body and appendages.

On the level of the emotions, what sentiments, feelings do they try to elicit and for what ends?

Finally what ideas and principles and concept-systems do they entertain and exercise and combine and permutate in their brain?

What we can do is go the typical but copious religious glossary of a religion, like Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, to divide the entries into the three levels of body, heart, and mind. Then find out what the adherents of a religion are expecting to arrive at with the engagement of whatever action, operation, process of body, heart, and mind entailed in the entry found in the glossary.

I will go into this endeavor soon, and report back to this board.

In the meantime I suggest that we leave off theology.


Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

What or which is the true religion?

Considering the tremendous stake involved in religion or the choice thereof, for it determines the eternal lot of the adherents, whether they land in weal or in ill after this life and for the rest of their existence, it is amazing that from talks about the merits or one or the other religion, people here are not apparently alarmed in any degree over the search for and embrace of the true one.

Maybe they do not know exactly what is truth, much less the true religion.

For my part, I have some opinions about truth and the true religion.

First, truth is divided into that outside the mind and that inside the mind.

Truth outside the mind is what will enable me to arrive at where I want to get to outside the mind, or get done what I set out to get done outside the mind.

Truth in the mind is what makes for a consistent system in the mind.

For example, outside the mind truth in advertising is what enables you to buy what you set out to buy; truth in a cooking recipe is what enables you to whip up a dish which you want to prepare for dinner; truth in the travel brochure is what enables you to get to your tourist destination with the least expense and trouble and with utmost safety.

Truth in the mind, is there such a thing as truth in the mind, namely which enables you to construct a system where everything fits in consistently, perfectly?

You can keep constructing your system in the mind, following the injunction of consistency, founded upon logic and mathematics, provided you start out also with first principles which are concordant with the dictates of logic and mathematics.

Now if you tell someone about your system, then both of your can dialogue about the truth in your mind, that system founded on logic and mathematics, and built up consistently observing the constraints of logic and mathematics.

These two kinds of truths, one in the world outside the mind and one in the mind, are exemplified in college texts where you have titles like theory and practice of statistics, theory and practice of economics, theory and practice of computer engineering.


There is also that kind of truth in the mind that starts off without logic and mathematics, but merely on the gut feeling of it must be right or it is necessary.

Now we are in the sphere of religion. If you can succeed in convincing others to adopt your mental system; then you and they can dialogue together, but only among yourselves; others who are used to logic and mathematics will not understand you. And it’s all their fault: They don’t have faith, the kind that will accept mysteries.

The danger with this kind of truths is that it can lead to suicide bombing or end of the world behavior or self-immolation on the altar of some isolated self-enclosed camp life, also called religious community – unless the truth advocates make compromises with the facts of actual physiological life.

If the truth advocates here don’t make compromises with the facts of physiological life, it is very likely that sooner than later they would land in jail or in the psychopathic asylum; or they exterminate themselves in pursuit of their religious destiny.


In other words, the true religion is that where you can convince others by persuasive eloquence and other external indicators that your mental system about the origin of the cosmos and the purpose of human life works for the attainment of a purpose which you also propound that is realized in the post-death realm.

The more people you can convince to join you, the more true your religion; so brush up on your oratorical skills and look for miraculous occurrences that can be appropriated as proofs of the truth value of your religion.

But remember, when you get so many converts to your religion, make sure that you adopt a method of voting when there are differences over beliefs and practices. Those who will not follow the majority’s will as established from the ballot, can leave and establish their own new splinter true religion.

So at the end of the day, what determines a true religion? Number, more specifically, the ballot.

In which case, since the Roman Catholic Church has the biggest number of members, it must be the true church or religion(?).


Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

A DIY religion

My definition of religion is based upon my own observations of religious peoples, things, places, times, and human thinking and acting which all such items speaking people put in the big basket called religion.

For the purpose of the present post, here is again my definition of religion:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

There seems to be some kind of circularity in this definition. One day I like to work out the problem of circularity in my definition of religion. Let us now see whether my way of choosing a religion is in accordance with this kind of a definition of religion.


How should I choose the religion that I would enjoy belonging to and acting on? Enjoying: that is the keyword. The first criterion then for me is that the religion I choose must be enjoyable. So, founders of religion and proselytizers who advocate un-enjoyable religions, you will have no business from me.

Religion enjoyable is that which at least poses no objections against your exercising all your physiological functions: eating, drinking, sex -- all very important for enjoying life; but not to excess, lest you get jaded, then it’s no longer fun.

On that criterion any religion that proscribes certain foods and drinks, all such religions are anathema to me. Islam and Judaism are out, both are meticulous about unacceptable foods like pork. Islam is even more stringent, it forbids alcoholic drinks.

I drink with friends and family members who bring drinks to my home in their visits; but I myself don’t buy drinks to keep in my home, not even for friends and family members who come bringing no drinks with them. On record I enjoy alcoholic beverages.

I understand that some schools of Buddhism abstain from meats and alcoholic drinks also. Isn’t that the general and also basic diet observance of Buddhists? Anyway, those schools of Buddhism with that verboten are not for me.

Next, and still more serious, any religion that makes religion itself more important than life, one’s own life and others’, is to be avoided like the plague.

So religion that requires the ultimate price of martyrdom or demands suicide bombing for a testimony of genuine commitment; no, such a religion is not for me. Islam today is still obsessed with martyrdom and suicide bombing; Christianity however is rather more into killing others in its wars against Muslims, whom they label to be terrorists or enemy combatants.


The most critical criterion for which to shun a religion is its opposition to free inquiry and its imposition of blind discipline. For not showing that kind of opposition I would consider Baha’i and Buddhism to be the most attractive to myself.

Baha’i advocates the compatibility of science and religion; Buddhism does not appear to be in the habit to telling people how to live their daily life, except its inculcation of common sense observances and abstinences on do’s and don’ts which physical fitness and mental health are all about.


To make a long story short, I think the religion that I would choose to be my own is that which is made up of the most enjoyable ingredients in extant religions, and also of components which I myself would cook up.

If I were a rich man, I would choose the four wives allowed in Islam and the unlimited number of concubines in addition. For drinks, Judaism and Christianity, because they maintain that wine gladdens the heart of man. For unlimited variety of foods, Catholicism among Christian factions. For free inquiry, Baha’i; and for physical fitness and mental health, Buddhism. Martial arts exercises like Kung-fu in Buddhism coupled with meditation are truly to be recommended in these our hectic times.

What about the components I myself would conjure up in devising my own religion, one that for me would be most enjoyable?

My components are more in the negative, like no costumes, no special rituals except those to which I have become familiar with, like church wedding and religious burial, no sporting of a specific label connoting the founder’s name, for example identifying oneself as Catholic or Lutheran or Buddhist or Baha’i or Muslim. My religion would be more of the generic kind than the branded kind.


I have defined religion as:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

Now, for myself and all others who share my sentiment in regard to religion, it should be rephrased thus:

My own behavior founded upon my own belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by me to influence the power to react favorably to myself.

In brief, the religion I choose is the one which I find in my own judgment and feeling to be most enjoyable to myself, on the physiological level, the emotional level, and most importantly on the mind and will level.


Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

...when does a personal philosophy actually become religious belief? What is actually required to define the differences between each? Are there actually key distinct differences? Or is there a muddy realm in meta-physics when personal belief cannot be defined wholly in terms of either a "religion" or as a "philosophy"?

Perhaps my understanding is a bit simple, but it works for me.

Religion is a system of belief.

With such guidance I view science, atheism, philosophy all as a form or type of religion.

Just my two cents.

 

[juantoo3]

Susma,
On the issue of context, I find it crucial when discussing matters with those of other cultures to figure out where they are coming from. It is one thing to be very knowledgeable in a matter, it is quite another to be able to convey that knowledge. For instance, I see you are quite knowledgeable in Latin. This is well and good. I am familiar with medical terminology, so the concept is not foreign to me. I am not, however, fluent in Latin, and have only managed to pull out a few words here and there from what you have posted. Not enough to make any sense to me. The end result is that in those instances you have said nothing to me, and likely the majority of those who have read your posts. You may as well have been writing in Greek or Senegalese. So you understand, or even know, a great deal of Latin. But if you have not conveyed your message, what have you achieved? All you show in that instance is that you can talk over other people's heads, which only makes you appear arrogant. I want to believe you are not arrogant, and that you have a message to share, but you have missed the context. You are not speaking to your audience, you are speaking at them. You are not listening to your audience, so you are not relating to their understanding, and you are not framing your responses to their needs. You haven't learned yet to translate to your students at a level they can relate to. Effective communication is a two-way street.

I suspect a part of your initial concern relates to my choice of avatar, the coyote. So allow me to clarify a few things. I am Christian, by birth and indoctrination. My mother was nominally Catholic, so I have a clue where you are coming from. I am an independent Protestant by culture and choice. I have read the bulk of the King James, and refer often to the Companion, Interlinear and Peshitta versions of the Bible. Frankly, I have no use for the Septuagint or Douay Bibles. My familiarity with Latin stems only from a required need in my profession. I have known many people in my life who were good, decent people, who just happened to be Catholic. I have also known good, decent people of other faiths. I take issue with the Catholic institution.

I am Native American by heritage. My paternal great-great grandfather was either half or full blood Cherokee, and from him I get my family name. There are things in my heart since my childhood that are not Christian teaching, but I know are "right". Like "dominion" granted Adam in the garden does not mean "dominance", but rather "caretaker", "tender", "gardener" or "husbandman". I do not worship nature, yet I understand God created a man to tend the garden. In that sense, nature is sacred.

There are so many similarities between faiths to those who seek. Since everyone here believes they are on the "right" path, some of us believe it is our imperative to demonstrate how our particular ways are superior to others. Is it not more conducive to peaceable discussion, to discover our common ground?

The Holy trinity (or unity, as some prefer) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) is represented in Native American tradition by Great-Grandfather (Wakan-Tonka), Grandfather (Tunkashila), and Earth Mother. Likewise the 4 archangels are represented as the 4 winds (supported by the Bible as the angels of the 4 corners of the earth, that hold the 4 winds). God created all in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim tradition, God created all in the Native American tradition and imbued that creation with a piece of himself, "god" (spirit/chi/pneuma/prana) is in all creation in many Eastern traditions.

I don't believe the purpose of this forum is to unify every faith, such in my view is not desirable. The purpose is not a free-for-all match to see who comes out on top. Religion in its grossest sense is a form of political control. Religion in its purest sense is a means to discover the unknowable. Uniting under the influence of one religious faith is disastrous, I need only point to the Dark Ages when Catholism "ruled", or the Spanish Inquisition. The Catholic Institution is not interested in saving human souls, it is interested in political dominance. Historically, when it could not control by brute force, it infiltrated and subverted, usurping from inside. I am curious though, did they learn such tactics from the Chinese, or did the Chinese learn from them?

I feel I must reiterate. I appreciate your inputs, you have a great deal of insight to offer. My suggestion, as a friend, would be to tone down the rhetoric, listen to the others here in an effort to understand where they are coming from, and translate the important things you have to say into words that communicate what it is you mean. And be patient, translation is an inexact art at best.

Shalom, Peace.

 

[juantoo3]

After having read a few more of your posts, I may have been a little hasty in my assessment. No offense was intended, and I hope that none was taken. Kindest regards.