nPeace
Veteran Member
What is the purpose of your op? Why did you ask the questions in the OP? Are others allowed to question you? Are others expected to get an answer from you, in relation to the OP you started?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you understand Religion, or do you think you understand Religion
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Sirona
Hindu Wannabe
Last time I checked, there were religions, multiple ones . I can't claim to know them all. It's a totally different situation in case Religion with a capital R stands for Islam and you're just too hush-hush for saying it loud. Anyway, your opining question can be read as you're the judge for the correct practice of religion. I wouldn't take such a position because of possibly being considered extremely arrogant.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well I would expect that if one is dead.. in a very deep sleep, one would need to shout, if they are to hear.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes. Before I went to the Church, I didn't. I didn't know what they meant by god, spirit, fulfilment, or so have you. Was in and out of the hospital to think of such a thing. When I went into the church, I was thinking "oh THAT's what they meant." Prayer, being with peers, just siting in the church, and having peace with god (from how I knew of him) was spirituality. There are many ways people express their spirituality. When I realized the theology and spiritual feelings (real feelings) did not match up, I took what I learned (you can't just throw away spiritual awareness just because you don't follow the theology) and look to practice and experiencing these things outside of theologies and religion.
Of course many people think I'm not spiritual because I need to follow a religion to do so and use mystic terms for it, but I just don't see it that limited. So, yes I do.
That's the only way I knew is that I practiced. A lot of people have practiced and experience spirituality. The personal experience shouldn't be dependent on whether one has a religion or not. It also shouldn't depend on whether one believes in god or not. It's a specific human experience and religion, in all of its flavors, can be a conduit to that experience or it cannot. It depends on the person not a universal right or wrong answer.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Not at all, this thread is not about my belief or Islam, this tread is about what you as a believer understand religion to be and what way is best to practice.
Not every OP i make is about me or my belief.
Considering religion is a modern, Western construct that scholars of religion can't even agree upon how to define the essence of religion, it'd be pretty arrogant of me to presume I know or understand what it is. This doesn't mean I don't have a reference construct of my own (because of course I do) and I certainly understand what my own constructed understanding of religion is, but nobody's construct is the thing it is trying to describe.
Sirona
Hindu Wannabe
Well, Hinduism can be understood or practiced predominantly by works (karma-yoga), by the intellect (jnana-yoga) or by emotional devotion (bhakti-yoga). These yogas are just the most important ones, and they are complementary. Practice by intellect is not "worse" nor "better" than practice by devotion, for example, just depending on the preference of the practictioner. In Hinduism, we are also reminded that we can only see a part of the whole, and claiming to have "seen it all" is considered disrespectful to the view of the other believer.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I am not sure where you got your information from.
Could you point to any reliable source that says "religion is a modern, Western construct".
Every reputable source I have come across, as well as all archaeological evidence, shows religion to be quite ancient.
It is also understood, what religion is, although like science, and philosophy, persons have varying opinions on describing them... I suppose that is the case with everything.
nPeace
Veteran Member
this tread is about what you as a believer understand "religion to be and what way is best to practice"
I didn't get that impression with your responses to my queries a moment ago.
I'll try again then.
Do you understand Religion, or do you think you understand Religion
The way that is best to practice would obviously be the way the true God dictates, because worshiping - or practicing religion in a way that displeases God is actually a vain exercise. Would you agree?
How do we know which way is best? Am I allowed to ask the poster of the OP that question?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I understand my religion as well as other Indian religions, Christianity and Islam very well. Religious practice has a good placebo effect on many people. But there are many bad effects also.
@SalixIncendium @nPeace
This is what I'm talking about - Definition of religion - Wikipedia - and - Religion - Wikipedia - though you'll encounter this elsewhere outside of the internet, of course. The concept of "religion" arose in Western culture after the rise of Christianity, and because of that, the way we think about religion largely revolves around defining religion in ways that make it look like Christian traditions. A few more relevant tidbits:
This is what I'm talking about - Definition of religion - Wikipedia - and - Religion - Wikipedia - though you'll encounter this elsewhere outside of the internet, of course. The concept of "religion" arose in Western culture after the rise of Christianity, and because of that, the way we think about religion largely revolves around defining religion in ways that make it look like Christian traditions. A few more relevant tidbits:
"When religio came into English around the 1200s as religion, it took the meaning of "life bound by monastic vows" or monastic orders. The compartmentalized concept of religion, where religious things were separated from worldly things, was not used before the 1500s. The concept of religion was first used in the 1500s to distinguish the domain of the church and the domain of civil authorities.
...
The modern concept of religion, as an abstraction that entails distinct sets of beliefs or doctrines, is a recent invention in the English language. Such usage began with texts from the 17th century due to events such the splitting of Christendom during the Protestant Reformation and globalization in the age of exploration, which involved contact with numerous foreign cultures with non-European languages."
...
The modern concept of religion, as an abstraction that entails distinct sets of beliefs or doctrines, is a recent invention in the English language. Such usage began with texts from the 17th century due to events such the splitting of Christendom during the Protestant Reformation and globalization in the age of exploration, which involved contact with numerous foreign cultures with non-European languages."
So you're speaking of the term "religion," not the concept itself? From that very same article you linked...
"Hinduism is one of the most ancient of still-active religions,[129][130] with origins perhaps as far back as prehistoric times."
"Jainism, taught primarily by Rishabhanatha (the founder of ahimsa) is an ancient Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence, truth and anekantavada for all forms of living beings in this universe; which helps them to eliminate all the Karmas, and hence to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra), that is, achieving nirvana. Jains are found mostly in India. According to Dundas, outside of the Jain tradition, historians date the Mahavira as about contemporaneous with the Buddha in the 5th-century BCE, and accordingly the historical Parshvanatha, based on the c. 250-year gap, is placed in 8th or 7th century BCE.[132]"
"Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama in the 5th century BCE."
There are more, but these are just a few samples that religion itself is not a modern western concept. It appears to go back to the prehistoric Indian subcontinent."Jainism, taught primarily by Rishabhanatha (the founder of ahimsa) is an ancient Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence, truth and anekantavada for all forms of living beings in this universe; which helps them to eliminate all the Karmas, and hence to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra), that is, achieving nirvana. Jains are found mostly in India. According to Dundas, outside of the Jain tradition, historians date the Mahavira as about contemporaneous with the Buddha in the 5th-century BCE, and accordingly the historical Parshvanatha, based on the c. 250-year gap, is placed in 8th or 7th century BCE.[132]"
"Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama in the 5th century BCE."
In Canada we had difficulty getting marriages legalised via the actions of the Hindu priest. Unlike Christianity and their priesthood, the Hindu priest was unable to sign the document that made the marriage ALSO legally binding. So Hindus needed two marriages, one by the commissioner of oaths, or Justice of the peace, or some other office that had been given the right to declare a marriage valid. (like a sea captain). The reason? Hinduism wasn't a religion. So too with pagans, and many non-Christian religions.
So 'religion' does have a legal meaning.
You mean what you think "Religion really is," and what you believe "is needed to be done to gain full effect of the practice."
The question is arrogant and sophomoric.
Yes, it stems from Christianity's division of the world into two separate spheres of activity - the mundane carnal world, and the transcendent spiritual world which is superior and beyond the carnal world. This was a relatively novel concept and influenced the idea of "secularism". It's all part of Christianity's desacralization of the natural world and daily life. Beforehand, "religion" was simply the folkways of your ancestors, traditions carried down through the ages. It was part of an holistic way of life, never viewed in isolation.
This hegemony of Christian concepts in our culture makes it hard for us to discuss non-Western religions. Hence why Western pollsters keep trying to depict the Japanese as "atheists" even though they really aren't. We don't have the language to really delve into indigenous spiritual traditions thanks to that hegemony.
Last edited:
There's no reason to be so rude, you know.
PureX
Veteran Member
Religion is an ideological methodology for living one's life in accordance with a particular theological proposition. Religion can be understood without direct participation, to a degree. But as with all things, direct participation affords experience and insight that cannot be attained by observation, alone.
It is interesting to me how few people actually do clearly understand what religion is, even among those who practice it.
It is interesting to me how few people actually do clearly understand what religion is, even among those who practice it.
You say "what religion is" and "what religion really is about" as if religion is a single thing.
"What religion is" and "what religion really is about" varies between religions (edit: and importantly, even between adherents of the same religion). Some people probably have quite a good understanding of one religion or a handful of religions, but I doubt it would be possible for one person to have a deep understanding of all religions.