What is "religion"?

[alexander]

There are religions which definitely don't proselytize, with Judaism...

Ooh, to be a smart *** about it or not to be, that is the question.... No i'll be civil, i have a lot of respect Q

In general, Jews do not try to convert non-Jews to Judaism. In fact, according to halakhah (Jewish Law), rabbis are supposed to make three vigorous attempts to dissuade a person who wants to convert to Judaism.

Also, aside from the fact that saying "in general" is not the same as saying that they "definitely don't", i am getting a hint of reverse psychology, if i say you can't have something, most people, due to our nature, would want it just that much more, and Jews being usually perceived as being the more intellectual kinds of people, would pretty easily realize this.

 

Yes, as I said in the other thread, the Latin word religiòne meant reverent care or consideration of something

Yes ofcourse, because it could not derive from Old French "religion", Anglo-French "religiun", or from old Latin "relegare" (which is what a lot of current etymologists lean more towards).

 

Also, "religio", means "in fear of", generally with a supernatural accent , "religiosus", meaning, basically, god-fearing, also "religionem", meaning "in reverence of God/supernatural".

"religio" derives from an indo-european root "leig", which is used in words like leigere, to bind (or to tie, in a fastening sense)...

 

Just wondering, is faith an element of religion?

faith in what exactly?

 

it would seem that a cult could be considered a religion

cult is a system of ritual practices, very ofteny of religious kinds, but not necessarily... A cult however can not be considered a religion, because its a system of practices, religion is not just about practices, or at least that's one of the thing's i'm trying to prove/show with this theory of mine...

 

we borrowed it from Norwegian rigga

very unlikely, norks is a northern germanic language, by which it would be more likely that it came in contact with Latin-speaking people, a lot more so then english-speaking. And though i would not deny that there was some of the language that was borrowed by English, futhorc, used to record Old Fridisian, after all, is a runic alphabet used by the anglo-saxons 6th century to about the 11th, until most of even Northern Germanic was converted over to use Latin alphabet. It is much more likely though that riggen, deriving from Scandinavian, or rigga (as you mention in Norwegian) effected Latin, in the root of the term leig (as you can see, its a close-sounding term that means nearly the same thing). Although it is more likely that this term came from latin into german, as a german and Romanesco rhotacisms all tend to migrate from using more "l" to using more "r" sounds, so a lot letters "l" were converted to an "r" sound, hence how leig can become reig to rigg over some years... Especially considering how much germans were impressed by the Roman way of being able to put things together, rig some things up, and defeat the local tribes, per say :thumbs_up

[coldcreation]

Just wondering, is faith an element of religion?

 

faith in what exactly?

 

Great questions gentlemen.

 

In all my discussions here in Spain (where many are devout believers) Faith seems to be the one and most important aspect of their practice.

 

Some don't particularly believe 100% in god, nor do they necessarily worship Him/Her. (No thanks to me ).

 

They do, however, have a profound Faith in the "message of Christ."

 

So faith appears, at least from one perspective, to be the most important aspect of religious practice.

 

Of course, it can be argued that Christ (and his message) descend from Above. The faith is thus in He/She implicitly. But the counter argument is that "Christ was real person, really existed, and no matter what his immaculate origin, he still had a message that helps better the lives of those who have faith.

 

Though faith alone is not a definition of religion per say, i.e., religion is much more complex than faith alone, it certainly is a nonzero aspect of it.

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Just wondering, is faith an element of religion?

 

Let me reword my poorly phrased question.

 

While having faith in something, like gravity, does not imply that one is religious does the fact that someone is religious imply that they have a system of belief(s) based on faith?

[Qfwfq]

Folks, seriously, it doesn't matter which language the word came to English through. There's no doubt that the English word religion, the French religion, the German religion, the Italian religione, the Spanish religiòn, the Portugese religião the Dutch religie, the Russian Рели́гия from which religija in some Balkanic languages, all these (and others too in Europe) are the Latin word which Cicero attributed to re-legere while Tertullianus and Lactantius attributed it to re-ligàre.

 

Sman, why do you feel a need to tell me what the latter one means when I had said it myself? I'll tell you what, in standard Italian it became legare with an e but in Venetian, spoken here in Veneto, it is ligàr (with an i) and the Veneto part of the Northern League is Liga Veneta; seems you don't need to fill me in on the matter and I don't see why etymologies are always unhelpful, I had even talked about "what we mean today by the word" but I guess you hadn't noticed. :)

 

I don't see the point of your reply and I think I'm discussing the matter seriously. Considering all aspects of the topic includes discussing the history and the etymus.

 

I think Q makes makes a good example of Judaism.

Yup, especially as I had based it on Jewish sources! ;)

 

Alex I don't take the forbidden-fruit effect as grounds for calling it proselytizing. If you research it a bit, you can find that actually, it is currently less difficult than in past times for someone to be accepted as a new Jew. Traditionally it was very difficult and apparently it still is with Zoroastrianism. Certainly in both these cases and in many others, it simply isn't part of their doctrine to recruit folks, with or without sending missionaries around. I also looked it up about Hinduism. While the Hare Krsna movement strongly proselytizes, it is not a traditional aspect of the Hindu doctrine.

[Qfwfq]

Let me reword my poorly phrased question.

 

While having faith in something, like gravity, does not imply that one is religious does the fact that someone is religious imply that they have a system of belief(s) based on faith?

The word faith essentially means trust as far as I can trace its roots, as used in religion. It is also connected of course to loyalty but I think this is consequential to the nexus between the two things in the Abrahamic tradition (loyalty to God, which becomes submission in Islam).

 

I don't think that belief is based fully on these notions in all religions. Indeed some, while based on traditional beliefs, are more a philosophical inquiry than a blindly dogmatic faith.

[C1ay]

The word faith essentially means trust as far as I can trace its roots, as used in religion.

 

faith (fth) n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

I guess what I'm really wondering is if "religion" in general relies on belief(s) that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence? Are there any faithless religions based only on belief(s) supported repeatable, verifiable, testable evidence like science requires or do all of them rely on some measure of faith as defined in 2 above?

[coldcreation]

I guess what I'm really wondering is if "religion" in general relies on belief(s) that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence? Are there any faithless religions based only on belief(s) supported repeatable, verifiable, testable evidence like science requires or do all of them rely on some measure of faith as defined in 2 above?

 

 

Here is one that has both faith and belief; and it is based on the methods of the natural sciences. In other words; based on supported repeatable, verifiable and testable evidence.

 

 

I love this one. Enjoy:

 

 

THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

 

 

[Edited to add: I don't think this will work without a massive overdose of faith]

 

CC

[C1ay]

THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

 

Thanks for the laugh ;)

[alexander]

Alex I don't take the forbidden-fruit effect as grounds for calling it proselytizing.

I dont call the slight change in position from "This is the only way to salvation" to "We know something about the world, but we wont tell you because you are not one of us" a complete absense of recruiting.... Hell if Jews never recruited, actively or passively, they'd never make it to Mozes... it's like saying there was no sex in USSR, sure that is what politics said, but somehow women got pregnant and kids were born, lets not kid ourselves...

[alexander]

They do, however, have a profound Faith in the "message of Christ."

interestingly enough, i find christians follow more of the ideas that they are told to follow, the ideals of what Christian rule-makers make, then the actual following of Crist's teachings... and boy do they get upset when you explain and prove it to them (not true with all Christians, but to different extents, true with the overwhelming majority of them, remember, Christ taught almost pure Judaism)

[alexander]

Thanks for the laugh

yes, that is great... my all time favorite is "Well the Bible says there's a God" ;)

[coldcreation]

yes, that is great... my all time favorite is "Well the Bible says there's a God" ;)

 

Yea that's a good one.

 

Actually that's not all it says, if you read between the lines.

 

 

I found this. It is only of interest following the discussion above (not particularly on topic):

 

Arguments for the existence of God

 

 

And in the same article:

 

Arguments against the existence of God

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

interestingly enough, i find christians follow more of the ideas that they are told to follow, the ideals of what Christian rule-makers make, then the actual following of Crist's teachings... and boy do they get upset when you explain and prove it to them (not true with all Christians, but to different extents, true with the overwhelming majority of them, remember, Christ taught almost pure Judaism)

 

Okay, following too from the discussion above (perhaps more on topic) regarding the evolution of religion, from Upper Paleolithic to now, we can project into the future from the present. In this way we draw a complete picture of religion.

 

What is 'required' during the process of developing new religions?

 

Development of new religions

 

The process and mechanisms that lead to the emergence of religions proceed by innovations modifying existing traditions. Such innovations ultimately lead to schisms, reformations or divisions that separate a new tradition from its predecessor. The dynamics of this can be described in biological analogy, in terms of the mutation and selection of memes, or in economic analogy, in terms of supply and demand.

 

The innovations originate with charismatic figures who succeed in fascinating larger audiences with their personal spiritual experience. The opposing force of inertia is the priestly establishent that accretes around any religious tradition over time.

 

And:

 

Stage of new religions

 

Anthony F.C. Wallace proposes four stages in the emergence of an organized religion out of individual religious experience:

 

1. Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest.

 

2. Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. One who has acquired religious authority through one's own means.

 

3. Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge.

 

4. Ecclesiastical: Most complex. Incorporates elements of the previous three.

 

Rodney Stark & W. S. Bainbridge's in their book "Theory of Religion" and subsequent works present four models: the Psychopathological Model, the Entrepreneurial Model, the Social Model and the Normal Revelations model.

 

*Psychopathological model: religions are founded during a period of severe stress in the life of the founder. The founder suffers from psychological problems, which they resolve through the founding of the religion. (The development of the religion is for them a form of self-therapy, or self-medication.)

 

*Entrepreneurial model: founders of religions act like entrepreneurs, developing new products (religions) to sell to consumers (to convert people to). According to this model, most founders of new religions already have experience in several religious groups before they begin their own. They take ideas from the pre-existing religions, and try to improve on them to make them more popular.

 

*Social model: religions are founded by means of social implosions. Members of the religious group spend less and less time with people outside the group, and more and more time with each other within it. The level of affection and emotional bonding between members of a group increases, and their emotional bonds to members outside the group diminish. According to the social model, when a social implosion occurs, the group will naturally develop a new theology and rituals to accompany it.

 

*Normal revelations: religions are founded when the founder interprets ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural; for instance, ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the religion to that of the deity.

 

 

The problem is not as simple as it would have first appeared. But it can be very simple (or at least as simple as starting a small business).

 

Interestingly enough, there appears to be great similarities between the anthropological/archeological/paleontological approach mentioned above, i.e., there is evidence that primitive cultures dating back 40-10,000 years ago, at least, made use of similar practices, e.g., through healing, sacrifice, groups or clans, and possibly founded at a time of severe stress or mental illness. The latter could be either in the life of the founder, or in the life of the he/she that 'needs' to be 'healed.'

 

In the same article be sure to read Dogma selection, Role of charismatic figures in the development of religions, Periodic reforms and schisms, and A Study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee.

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

interestingly enough, i find christians follow more of the ideas that they are told to follow, the ideals of what Christian rule-makers make, then the actual following of Crist's teachings... and boy do they get upset when you explain and prove it to them (not true with all Christians, but to different extents, true with the overwhelming majority of them, remember, Christ taught almost pure Judaism)

 

They should try following The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as a general philosophy on life. I find it quite compatible with humanism. The vast majority of the supposed Christians I encounter are hypocrites. For them "Christian" is not a lifestyle but simply a label.

[alexander]

What is 'required' during the process of developing new religions?

before we go that far, we still can't agree on what "religion" is exactly ;)

For them "Christian" is not a lifestyle but simply a label

Clay, glad that i'm not the only one who observes this, it's quite ridiculous at times, isn't it... Speaking of which, wasn't there a Family Guy episode that paralleled this?

 

Ok, great side discussion, but we should get back on topic.

 

What is the next argument i am to refute to show that there is indeed a pattern in those 3 "rules"?

[coldcreation]

In this thread i would like to discuss what religion actually is. [...]

 

Basically I said that all religions follow the 3 basic rules of religions:

 

1) they all offer salvation

2) they all follow precise theology

3) they recruit people into their ranks, as i have said either passively or actively

 

[...]

 

Religion is a market.

 

The market of religion, like the stock market, the real estate market and the art market, are economic bastions, designed to make money on one end and lose money on the other.

 

1) The market of religion offers salvation (rescue, saving, help, conservation and support).

 

2) The market of religion(s) also follow precise theology (theologies), doctrine, faith, a system or school of opinions concerning economic and social questions: that you will get a return on your investment that exceeds your 'donation' value, in the form of penitence, salvation etc. Belief in the product (e.g., god, the message of Christ etc.) will make you a better, 'richer' person.

 

3) They recruit people into their ranks, both passively and actively (in the form of seminars, colloquium, where the masses gather to discuss the benefits (or in private). I've attended these before, both for stock investing and religious gatherings. There is little difference between the two.

 

I'm not saying that the world-markets are religion, but that religion is a world-market (a deregulated one at that). Obviously, if you need a place to live, you have the money, you purchase a home. Likewise, if you enjoy displaying paintings on your walls, you may want to purchase a Rothko. That is not religious.

 

What more do these four markets have in common? Financial markets have evolved significantly over the centuries. Throughout history they've all gone though bubbles, booms and busts.

 

Too, global markets can be extremely lucrative for those on the top of the 'food chain' (e.g., guru's, CEO's, the Pope). Financial markets are all about raising capital.

 

So, what is a primary difference between these financial markets for average homosapiens (raucous followers, special-ops, activist umbrella groups, insurgents, assistants, sycophants, People of the Book, students, geeks, witch doctors, epicures, distant relatives, disciples, danger-seekers, prisoners, gay liberal flag burners, tribal praise-singers, black-clad prelates, baffled hominids, spookspeakers and assorted cathode tube educated hanger-ons who worship and embellish those unsung heroes who’s writings are legible only to the spirits)?

 

The market of religion will not earn you a single cent. You will only lose money if you donate, or brake even if you don't.

 

The same cannot be said of the stock, art or real estate markets, since there is a possibility that you will make money (in addition to lose or break even).

 

Any other differences? Whereas financial markets primarily rely on interactions between buyers and sellers to allocate resources, religion is more of a gift economy, where services are given in exchange for a 'gift' without any explicit agreement for immediate or future benefits (no formal quid pro quo exists).

 

 

Religion is an often-lucrative financial industry and should be treated as such.

 

 

 

 

CC

[alexander]

So cold seems to basically be agreeing with my points of what is a religion...

 

Tangent:

The market of religion, like the stock market, the real estate market and the art market, are economic bastions, designed to make money on one end and lose money on the other.

yes, quite an interesting comparison, but the question is, is it like the "Farmers Market"

 

OMG idea, we should totally hold the world's first religion market.... "Next 5 minutes only, join orthodoxy and get salvation at 1/2 sins off" "Judaism, orthodox judaism, learn the secrets only we knoe with extra anesthesias at your brit milah" "Think you are better then everyone, join Yazidi and offend them publically, to look stronger in the name of Tawuze Melek"