Is a Religion Defined By It's Founder and Scriptures Or By It's Followers?

[blackout]

A religion is a set of beliefs. Just because people cease to believe them, doesn't mean the set of beliefs disappear.
.

What good are beliefs i no one believes them?

A "belief" without a 'believer'
is just an idea on paper.

 

[Tathagata]

What good are beliefs i no one believes them?

Appeal to consequences.

A set of beliefs is still a set of beliefs regardless of whether people hold those beliefs or not.


.

 

[darkendless]

Appeal to consequences.

A set of beliefs is still a set of beliefs regardless of whether people hold those beliefs or not.


.

But then its a set of beliefs and not a religion.

 

[Tathagata]

A "belief" without a 'believer'
is just an idea on paper.

Not to be picky, but I'd say that a belief without being put to practice is just an idea on paper. A believer can hold a belief, and it'd still be just an idea on paper until it's put to practice.


.

 

[Tathagata]

But then its a set of beliefs and not a religion.

But that's the definition of "religion." I've never seen a definition of religion that said "a group of believers." It's usually defined as a system or set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as well as codes of ethics and conduct.


.

 

[darkendless]

But that's the definition of "religion." I've never seen a definition of religion that said "a group of believers." It's usually defined as a system or set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as well as codes of ethics and conduct.


.

I've always taken it as a "set of beliefs held by a group of people" not just a set of beliefs.

Is advanced geotechnics a religion because geotechnical engineers have beliefs that their work will lead them to improved efficiency in drilling whilst following a code of ethics set out of their country?

 

[sandandfoam]

It's the followers. Has to be. Everything is seen from an ever changing perspective. The idea of founders defining things rests on a view of a static world. I believe the world is fluid. Even if the founders were alive there are as many versions of them as people aware of them.

 

[Tathagata]

It's the followers. Has to be. Everything is seen from an ever changing perspective. The idea of founders defining things rests on a view of a static world. I believe the world is fluid. Even if the founders were alive there are as many versions of them as people aware of them.

That's not true. If Christ defined Christianity as accepting Christ as your Savior, does that change simply because the world is fluid and not static?

Buddha said that his dharma is the sure and eternal truth. And Jesus preached an eternal doctrine as well.

So the truth doesn't change just because because the world isn't static.


.

 

[blackout]

Not to be picky, but I'd say that a belief without being put to practice is just an idea on paper. A believer can hold a belief, and it'd still be just an idea on paper until it's put to practice.


.

Perhaps that would be a sign
that they don't REALLY believe that thing at all.

Many people perhaps BELIEVE
that they should/need to "go to church"
for some reason...
while at the same time not actually believing
anything they are told/taught there.
(as witnessed by further lack of action,
as well as contrary action)

So THEIR version of their religion is
they should "go to church".
That is their belief.
No more, no less.


Of course someone could go to church
just because they like the ASTHETIC
of the ritual.
(esp something like roman catholicism)
Perhaps it gives them peace to go.
They like the smells and the bells.
But they do not go to confession,
or believe homosexuality is a sin... etc etc etc....

Some would say they are not Catholic.
They would say they are.
The church would say they are catholics headed for hell.

What if the whole parish generally felt this way.
And really no one went to confession,
and used birth control,
thought homosexuality was just fine... etc etc
(I have witnessed this)

Do the people transform their (own) religion?
In light of THEIR OWN actions and beliefs?
Or does their religion produce a parish full of apostate/hell slated parishoners.
A parish full of mortal sinners.

Can someone pull this back on topic hard?

I know I'm on topic,
but I'm too tired to grasp the point I might be making.
lol

 

[sandandfoam]

That's not true. If Christ defined Christianity as accepting Christ as your Savior, does that change simply because the world is fluid and not static?

Buddha said that his dharma is the sure and eternal truth. And Jesus preached an eternal doctrine as well.

So the truth doesn't change just because because the world isn't static.


.

I believe that I cannot but see the world as I am.

Out of curiosity - I would have thought attachment to what the Buddha said was contrary to his message? I thought the idea was that you have to figure these things out for yourself and not take anyone elses word for them?

 

[Tathagata]

The Buddha himself said: "I shall not pass into the final Nirvana, O Evil One,
until there be not only brethren and sisters of an Order,
but also lay-disciples of both sexes,
who shall have become true hearers, wise, well-trained, ready and learned,
versed in the scriptures, fulfilling all the greater and lesser duties,
correct in life, walking according to the precepts -
until they, having thus themselves learned the doctrine,
shall be able to give information to others concerning it, preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!" [Mahaparinibanna Sutta]


There you have it, straight from the Exalted One!


.

 

[sandandfoam]

I know I'm on topic,
but I'm too tired to grasp the point I might be making.
lol

Would a being who didn't encompass apparently contradictory elements be a human?

 

[Tathagata]

I believe that I cannot but see the world as I am.

Out of curiosity - I would have thought attachment to what the Buddha said was contrary to his message? I thought the idea was that you have to figure these things out for yourself and not take anyone elses word for them?

You are missing an important distinction. There is a difference between stressing what Buddha said and taught and actually accepting what he taught. I will always stress the importance of his teachings, but that doesn't mean I blindly accept his teachings merely because he said it.



.

 

[Smoke]

To those who said "followers."

If Jesus explained Christianity and then his 12 disciples turned around and explained it differently, who's explanation of Christianity are you going to take? Jesus CHRIST's explanation of CHRISTianity or his 12 disciples?

Likewise for Siddhartha Gautama. If he explained the Buddhadharma and later down the line, his followers explain it differently, who's explanation holds more weight? BUDDHA's explanation of BUDDHAdharma or his disciples?

In both cases you must rely on the followers and their explanations no matter what. Jesus left no writings. Gautama left no writings. It was after they died -- long after, in the case of Gautama -- that their teachings were written down. They were necessarily written from the perspective of, and according to the teachings of, their followers. Or at least those who purported to be their followers. Their teachings are part of the larger tradition of their followers. To pretend that there is a pristine teaching that is the "true" religion is absurd. It's all tradition.

It's absurdly naive to imagine that Jesus founded Christianity, or Moses founded Judaism, anyway. Is Laozi really the founder of Taoism? Nobody knows who founded Sanatana Dharma; it seems a little crazy even to imagine that it had a particular founder. Why would a religion be bound by the dictates of a semi-mythical founder? How could it be?

A religion that was set forth once and for all by a founder wouldn't even be a religion. A religion that's practiced is a living thing, and living things change, evolve, mature, and die. Sometimes they grow stronger and wiser; sometimes they go horribly wrong. A religion that never changes cannot be a living religion. It's nothing but a relic, an artifact of the past, a historical curiosity. A real religion, even one so seemingly set in stone as the religion of the Amish or the Hasidim, doesn't remain static. It can't. It has new circumstances to deal with all the time; new people to filter its teachings and practices through their own thoughts and experiences and reflect and report on the results. A religion that never changes is like Colonial Williamsburg or Old Salem. People dress up and act it out, but at the end of the day they go home, put on their real clothes, and watch television. There's a good chance they don't even live there.

A living religion is a bear. A religion that's laid out once and for all and never changes is a stuffed bear in a museum.

Jesus and Paul never imagined papal indulgences, the Jesus Prayer, Easter baskets, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Chick tracts, or WWJD bracelets. It wasn't the intent of either for the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox to spend sixteen hundred years arguing about whether Christ had a human nature and a divine nature, or one nature both human and divine. Gautama didn't intend for Buddhists to spend decades of their lives chanting nam myoho renge kyo, or studying and meditating on the sutras, or building magnificent stupas, or making and destroying sand mandalas. Ezra could never have foreseen Reform Judaism, Hasidism, Kabbalah, the secular state of Israel, or the Wailing Wall. Muhammad never envisioned the burqa, Sufism, Ashurah, or the Ottoman Caliphate. Joseph Smith couldn't have imagined that his own family would belong to an entirely different sect of Mormonism than the main body of Mormons, or that one group would deny he ever taught polygamy and the other would abandon it a half century after his death. Brigham Young might have been shocked by African-American high priests. It's not likely that Gerald Gardner, who died during my own lifetime, looked forward to Dianic Wicca, Christian Wicca, newagestore.com, and Silver Ravenwolf.

But to have any value, a religion must be lived, and living things don't stay the same.

A religion is a set of beliefs.

Yeah, that's probably where you went wrong. A religion isn't just a set of beliefs. It's not even mainly a set of beliefs. A religion is also ritual and practice and custom. It's meditation, prayer, baptism, circumcision, weddings, taking refuge, receiving the precepts, ordination, sacrifice, eucharist, feasting and fasting, dancing, singing, chanting, funerals, confession and absolution, theology, liturgical books and vestments, sutras, haircuts, dietary customs, offerings, tithes, Vacation Bible School, kosher delis, prayer wheels, and japa malas.

Even the beliefs themselves are living things. If the teachings of Gautama are delivered once and for all in written form, that's a curiosity, a dead thing. The minute you begin to engage with those teachings -- probe, think, meditate, speak about them -- they become something else. That's not a bad thing. It's the way things are. It's the way things must be.

 

[Smoke]

A set of beliefs is still a set of beliefs regardless of whether people hold those beliefs or not.

That which is believed by nobody is by definition no longer even a belief.

 

[Smoke]

But that's the definition of "religion." I've never seen a definition of religion that said "a group of believers." It's usually defined as a system or set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe as well as codes of ethics and conduct.

Then it's usually defined inadequately. But I doubt that it's usually so defined anyway. I scorn dictionaries (except the OED), but just for curiosity's sake I looked up "religion" on dictionary.com. Here's what it says:

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. 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.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.

8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom

9. get religion, Informal .
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.​

It's rather telling that the editors found it necessary to give nine definitions. It's even more telling that the definition you keeping insisting on is too limited to encompass even a single one of those nine definitions.

 

[Smoke]

Buddha said that his dharma is the sure and eternal truth.

Sure and eternal truth cannot be reduced to written words on paper, and it's the height of folly to imagine that it can.

 

[blackout]

word etymology....

religion c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
​

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

I personally like the idea of "re'reading" as in Re'Interpreting or
Reading for One's Own Self.
Of course this is My Own Take on "Religion"
(Re Legare)
as one of the LHP.

 

[Engyo]

So, do you think the founder and the scriptures define the religion or do it's adherents define it?

The answer to your question is yes.

 

[Sunstone]

Likewise for Siddhartha Gautama. If he explained the Buddhadharma and later down the line, his followers explain it differently, who's explanation holds more weight? BUDDHA's explanation of BUDDHAdharma or his disciples?


.

I would hope that you'd take whichever explanation worked best.