RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat:Religion

07:19, 22nd May 2024 (GMT+0)

General Discussion, and not so Major Issues (NICE)

Posted by rogue4jcFor group 0
silveroak
player, 703 posts
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 20:26
  • msg #936

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

While I would argue that quite vehemantly they aren't listed in thec conclusions as categories surveyed specifically, though apparently some fo teh questions at least were about Buddhism.
Sciencemile
GM, 1457 posts
Opinion is the default
for most everything I say
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 21:27
  • msg #937

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Mormons and Atheists are also have the lowest imprisonment rate relative to their percentage of the population.

I'd say that the "philosophies" of Buddhism, Taoism, Confuscianism, etc, may have been philosophies at one point, and may be to some people, but the reality seems to show they have become religions.

They have centers of worship and have developed doctrines of belief.  Confucianism even passes out tracts in their Chinese food cookies.

The difference between say, Buddhism and Hedonism, is that Hedonism might have a gathering place, like say a Rave or Nightclub, while Buddhists have an official meeting place stating proudly "Buddhist Temple".
silveroak
player, 705 posts
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 22:18
  • msg #938

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Then there are celebrants of Eros...
Heath
GM, 4675 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Occupation: Attorney
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 22:49
  • msg #939

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Sciencemile:
I'd say that the "philosophies" of Buddhism, Taoism, Confuscianism, etc, may have been philosophies at one point, and may be to some people, but the reality seems to show they have become religions.

Buddhism is a religion, but certain sects of it (like Zen Buddhism) are not.

To the extent Taoism was blended with traditional Chinese religions, yes, but Taoism in and of itself is a philosophy.
silveroak
player, 706 posts
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 22:53
  • msg #940

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

You know it doesn't have to be an either or. A religion can be a philosophy and vice versa. Philosophy and theology are pretty exclusive but religion does not have to involve a deiety, just a sincerely held dogma.
Heath
GM, 4677 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Occupation: Attorney
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 23:17
  • msg #941

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

I disagree for the reason that a religion deals with issues of salvation and its relation to a higher power...from the Buddhist reincarnation and pantheon to Christian's savior and ideas of heaven and hell.  You can't really believe in two religions simultaneously.  However, you can believe in multiple philosophies simultaneously.
silveroak
player, 708 posts
Tue 28 Sep 2010
at 23:41
  • msg #942

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

No, the christian religion deals with salvation and a higher power- which is part of the theology of christianity. That doesn't mean it is an aspect of all religions.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
quote:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

no requirements for deities- especially does not mean only.
Sciencemile
GM, 1458 posts
Opinion is the default
for most everything I say
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 01:54
  • msg #943

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Judgement seems to be a more universal aspect in aggregate theology than salvation.

Judgement is usually based on the concept of Afterlife, however you don't get into Salvation until you build upon Judgement the concept of predetermined guilt.  You don't need to be saved if your case isn't closed until the moment you die.
Trust in the Lord
player, 2018 posts
No Jesus No Peace
Know Jesus Know Peace
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 05:51
  • msg #944

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

silveroak:
No. I am saying that for government to 'establish a religion' in whole or in part- even to teh point of establishing values, that the burden of justification must fall upon those who would restrict liberty not those who would grant it.

What does that have to do with justifying actions from illegal to legal? That's not a liberal or conservative issue nor is it a religious issue.
katisara
GM, 4651 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 11:43
  • msg #945

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Sciencemile:
Judgement seems to be a more universal aspect in aggregate theology than salvation.


However, it's also a norm of both moral philosophies and of law. I wouldn't consider utilitarianism a religion.
silveroak
player, 712 posts
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 13:41
  • msg #946

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

How it relates to justification of transitioning an action from being illegal to being legal is that if the ideal of freedom is to be observed in reality, as opposed to simply giving it lip service whilr seeking to impose our personal ideas about 'universal' morality upon others then the burden of proof should fall to the justification of keeping the activity illegal rather than a need to justify decriminalization.
Heath
GM, 4678 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Occupation: Attorney
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 19:21
  • msg #947

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Not to bring up a dead issue that we already previously discussed, but I generally don't quote the dictionary as the end all be all of what something means.  The definition above could equally apply to science as religion, or to philosophy.  It's just too unspecific.

At its core, any religion is about "worship."  If there is no worship involved, there is no religion.  In almost any religion, these have to do with a higher power of some sort, or salvation.  It's not limited to Christianity.

Ethics, morality, and belief about the "facts" of the universe or its origin are just tangential to the the fact that religion is about worship.

That's why philosophies aren't really "religions."
katisara
GM, 4662 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 19:58
  • msg #948

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

The more I think about it, the  more I like that definition. It isn't about believing in a higher, inexplicable or supernatural whatever (or that would then include the philosophy of Taoism and even astronomy). It isn't about morality (because that would imply a religion isn't valid until it has a code of law). It's about saying there is that whatever out there (or in there), even if it isn't the creator of the universe or even a single 'thing', that is worthy of full worship.
silveroak
player, 721 posts
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 20:08
  • msg #949

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Here is the problem- there are several worldwide generally acknowledged religions such as Buddhism which do *not* have Gods, or acts of worship. You reject teh definitions which include them, reject them being religions, and teh arguments are circular, essentially based on your authority as to what is or is not a religion.
I'm sorry but I do not recognize your authority to determine what is or is not a valid religion.
from http://buddhism.about.com/od/b...ngs/a/philosophy.htm
quote:
In many ways, the "religion versus philosophy" argument is an artificial one. The neat separation between religion and philosophy we insist on today didn't exist in western civilization until the 18th century or so, and there never was such a separation in eastern civilization. To insist that Buddhism must be one thing and not the other amounts to forcing an ancient product into modern packaging.



from http://www.conservapedia.com/Religion
quote:
"Religion" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. Morality is often based on religion. Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

Formal definition: "The service and worship of God or the supernatural;"[1] Under this definition, atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism are not "religions." [2].
Functional definition: "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"[3] By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as atheism, humanism, and agnosticism could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.[4][5]
Organisational definition: Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a Catholicism, Methodism, or Lutheranism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
Practical definition: Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."


Now for me the organizational and practical definitions are the ones that matter, while you seem to insist on only the formal definition, however even the formal definition does not specifically *have* to imply a deity -for example shamanic beliefs have spirits rather tha gods. As noted under teh functional definition, teh supreme court has already stated that for legal purposes the need for a deity is irrelevant to the establishment of a religion.
katisara
GM, 4664 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 20:19
  • msg #950

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

I don't think anyone required a diety for worship. You can worship the spirits or yourself or the Tao. As long as you are worshipping - i.e., saying that something is worthy of your body and soul.

Since there are Buddhist temples, where Buddhists go to worship, I don't see any problem with saying those Buddhists have a religion. If you are a Buddhist who does not worship, but does follow, or someone who does not worship God & Jesus, but believes the Bible is a valuable moral guide, that would be a philosophy, not a religion.

Nor am I saying that one is more or less valuable than the other. But it would seem that they operate differently. For instance, religions (note, not necessarily sub-denominations) are mutually exclusive. If you worship the circle of life that Buddha points to, or the God portrayed by Islam, you will have a difficult time also worshipping Rah. Unless you follow a unique religion that puts all of these in the same pantheon, like Bahai (sp?), giving yourself entirely to one means when you try to give yourself entirely to the other, you find you have reservations. This is not the same with philosophies. You can be a religious or philosophical Catholic, but also a philosophical Taoist.
silveroak
player, 723 posts
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 20:29
  • msg #951

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Actually Budhism is a religion which is non exclusive- Buddhism teaches that teh world is illusion, but allows for the existance fo Gods and spirits as a part of that religion. Thus there are many Shinto Budhists, but also some Christian Buddhists, wiccan Buddhists, and so on.

Actually outside of monotheism religions are pretty much not exclusive- in ancient Rome one could easilly worship both Aphrodite and Isis (if one had the physical stamina for both sets of rites, especially after the Saturnalia, which was dedicated to Saturn but also a more mandatroy festival...)
katisara
GM, 4666 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 20:34
  • msg #952

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

Let me say that differently.

You cannot hold two religions which do not agree. You cannot hold that God is the one and only god, but also worship Isis, who is a different god.

You can hold two different philosophies, and apply them as you feel appropriate.
silveroak
player, 725 posts
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 20:52
  • msg #953

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

If the two different philosophies don't agree it is equally impossible to hold both.
I cannot for example simultaneously believe in both Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism. Or Hedonism and Asceticism.
Heath
GM, 4680 posts
Affiliation: LDS
Occupation: Attorney
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 21:03
  • msg #954

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

silveroak:
Actually Budhism is a religion which is non exclusive- Buddhism teaches that teh world is illusion, but allows for the existance fo Gods and spirits as a part of that religion. Thus there are many Shinto Budhists, but also some Christian Buddhists, wiccan Buddhists, and so on.


There are many different sects of Buddhism.  Pushing them altogether will lead to inaccurate conclusions.  Some sects of Buddhism are clearly religion, and some are not.

I have particular familiarity with Buddhism, having lived many years in Japan.  Most Buddhists in Japan do not consider Buddhism to be a religion per se.  This also allows them to be part of multiple "religions," such as Buddhism and Shintoism without fear.

To some extent, some things called religions are, if not philosophies, then a kind of mysticism--which is what some sects of Buddhism are.

And I'm not asking anyone to accept my definition.  I'm just stating fact.

If you want to include all those things lumped into "religion," then the result is that you have to then split the meaning of the word "religion" into sub-categories.  The more you generalize a word like that, the more the fine tuned meaning of the word is lost and technical jargon will become necessary.

Granted, the definition of a word will be different when it is applied, for example, to a legal context, as opposed to a societal context.  For example, the supreme court in defining "religion" for purposes of the first amendment interpreted religion to mean "a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons."  And the legal interpretation is usually pretty broad to make sure no one's rights are violated.
Sciencemile
GM, 1470 posts
Opinion is the default
for most everything I say
Wed 29 Sep 2010
at 23:24
  • msg #955

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

I think we're very very close, it's just a matter of that whole worship problem.

It is the case that you need something to worship at or to to be worshipping at all.

However, quite a few religions don't have worship but something very similar, that is meditation, and I'd think that worship would just be a branch of meditation, or deep contemplation or thought, usually centered around the goals or objects of one's religion.

In the case of worship, you're contemplating and thinking about, to, towards, etc, your god, while for Buddhists it might be about or towards Nirvana.
katisara
GM, 4668 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Thu 30 Sep 2010
at 01:05
  • msg #956

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

I hold quite a few competing philosophies, so I don't know why you say that, silveroak. Some of them are even directly contradictory.
cm60854
player, 10 posts
Thu 30 Sep 2010
at 05:36
  • msg #957

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

As I understand it, Buddhism was orriginaly a method by which Hindus could escape the cycle of reincanation and reach Nirvana.  So Buddhism is in a similar boat to Christianity, you can choose to follow the teachings of Jesus or the Buddah without any reference to religion, or you can choose to believe the religion surrounding them.
silveroak
player, 728 posts
Thu 30 Sep 2010
at 12:22
  • msg #958

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

A philosophy is a way of looking at teh world, of understadning it and percieving it. If you hold two *trully* contradictory philosophies in sincear belief then your point of view is simply insane.
To *trully* believe that everything is a subjective illusion and a projection of our inner desires *and* that the world is completely objective and rational means you are looking at everything through a 'split lens' in which on one side a ball falls to teh ground because gravity attracts it and on the other side the ball falls to the ground because you are uncomfortable with balls hanging unsuspended in the air.
Sciencemile
GM, 1474 posts
Opinion is the default
for most everything I say
Thu 30 Sep 2010
at 14:42
  • msg #959

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

quote:
If you hold two *trully* contradictory philosophies in sincear belief then your point of view is simply insane.


Perhaps, but it is a well-observed thing that people do.  Compartmentalized thinking I believe it's been termed.
katisara
GM, 4671 posts
Conservative human
Antagonist
Thu 30 Sep 2010
at 15:36
  • msg #960

Re: General Discussion, and not so Major Issues

I believe the universe was created in accordance with the laws of physics. I believe in God the Creator. I believe in my anatomy textbooks. I believe I contain within me a spiritual tree whose power I can tap. I believe that death is permanent and irreversible. I belive my passed loved ones are with me now. I believe my body is a piece of nature, a piece of created art, a stupid machine, and a vehicle for the ego. I believe in Keynesian economics, and in the Vienna school. I believe life is tragedy. I believe life is rapture.

Guess I'm crazy.
Sign In