"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[Jeremy Mason]

Yes, I got that point from it, too. I also agree with that point. However, he then asked "Therefore?" in response to my assertion before that, and so I responded to that question. It was basically him saying "Yeah, I agree with that, what's your point", and me saying "My point was...".

I understood the therefor to mean, Judaism should retain it's original meaning as should evolution. We a educated people need to steer clear of equating Jews with secular people of Israeli descent.

 

[Storm]

Lilithu, maybe if you weren't trying to shove Alceste into a box that doesn't fit, she'd be kinder to you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do these childish quips really make you feel better, Alceste?

I suspect that their zealous vernacularphilia is likewise a comfort.

 

[Magic Man]

Most paradigm shifts are preceded by resistance.

However, this is not about a paradigm shift. It's about you offering a definition of a word that completely changes the meaning from what most people use it as. Why not just come up with a new word? It's like calling "God" "Love". Why use "religion", when you are trying to describe a different phenomenon?

What I am advocating here is that we discard the distinction between "us and them" with regards to religion, and the only "polarization" that I am seeing is from people who want to preserve that distinction. So accusing me of being polarizing is a bit disingenuous.

It's not about preserving a distinction. It's about being honest. I could describe football or fantasy football as my religion, or many other things. However, if I did that, I would be using the term "religion" in more of a metaphorical sense than a literal one. That use of the term is different than when you talk about Christianity or Islam. I don't think I'm better than everyone who's religious. I think they just see things differently than I do. I have no reason to want to keep an "us and them" distinction except that it exists. This "us and them" distinction exists just like the male-female "us and them" distinction exists. There's no reason to get rid of it, and it's fairly impossible. We can call everybody humans, but why not be more specific sometimes and call some people male humans and others female humans?

 

[Alceste]

Do these childish quips really make you feel better, Alceste?

Not nearly as good as trouncing you in a debate makes me feel. :flirt:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For review ...

 

[lilithu]

Lilithu, maybe if you weren't trying to shove Alceste into a box that doesn't fit, she'd be kinder to you.

Hey, after she said that she has no concerns beyond eating crisps, and I took her at her word.

And trust me, I am not concerned about her being kinder to me. It is a reflection on her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you asked me in a different context "What religion are you?" I would say, Unitarian Universalist." But if you then explained that you were defining religion as one's highest values and that you believed that everyone who shares justice as their highest value shares a common religion, I would have no objection to that.

Why do you consider the definition of the word "religion" to be context-dependent in the way you describe?

Why would it be appropriate to describe justice as a common religion and not simply as a common value?

So before you go assuming that it's a "fact" that Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians would disagree, why dont' we identify some people in those groups who also say that they hold justice as their highest value, and ask them? Please realize that they do not have the same hangup as you seem to about being labeled "religious."

In general, no, though I have had some Christians get very upset with me when I described them as religious (apparently, they considered themselves to be in a "personal relationship with God", not a religion).

Most paradigm shifts are preceded by resistance. I hardly think the fact that some people are going to object is reason to avoid the discussion.

Improper usage of language is often met by resistance, too. The fact that people object to your redefining of terms doesn't mean that we're on the cusp of a "paradigm shift".

What I am advocating here is that we discard the distinction between "us and them" with regards to religion, and the only "polarization" that I am seeing is from people who want to preserve that distinction. So accusing me of being polarizing is a bit disingenuous.

It's not so much wanting to preserve it as acknowledging it exists. And I don't think it's sensible to ignore the reasonably foreseeable effects of your choice of terminology.

Would you be similarily shocked if a Russian objected to being called a "good American"?

 

[Storm]

Hey, after she said that she has no concerns beyond eating crisps, and I took her at her word.

And trust me, I am not concerned about her being kinder to me. It is a reflection on her.

As your behavior is a reflection on you.

 

[Magic Man]

Once again, I think you've misunderstood Willa's post. Is this intentional?

I understood it perfectly, and I responded to it as I would to one of Jay's unhelpful quips. The point of my response was that my response to Jay which Patty was insulting was no more than turning Jay's own debate tactics back on him. As in, she wasn't really insulting me, but Jay.

Did you understand any of it?

Yes, that's right. He disagrees with you, so he must not be able to comprehend those things. Good call.

 

[lilithu]

However, this is not about a paradigm shift. It's about you offering a definition of a word that completely changes the meaning from what most people use it as. Why not just come up with a new word? It's like calling "God" "Love". Why use "religion", when you are trying to describe a different phenomenon?

It's not at all a new phenomenon. And I've given numerous posts now explaining how it's not. How the beliefs and rituals are just the outer form - the product of the institutionalization of religion - not the underlying cause. And for why defining religion as a set of beliefs and practices does not work - that definition includes things that are not religious and excludes things that are.

Really mball, after this many posts showing the logical progression, and after citing several theologians, not just Tillich, if you still insist that this definition is "new" I don't know what else to say. Clearly it is new to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For review ...

And from this (emphasis mine):

All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus require the creation of two more definitions.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency.[/FONT]

Also note that lilithu's definition is relegated to the category of the "other definitions picked up through random surfing of the Internet". I wouldn't consider this to be indicative of it being a generally accepted definition.

 

[Magic Man]

I understood the therefor to mean, Judaism should retain it's original meaning as should evolution. We a educated people need to steer clear of equating Jews with secular people of Israeli descent.

I understood that same first sentence. The second sentence does not follow, though. Maybe Jay meant something else with his "Therefore?" comment, but I took it to be asking what my previous comment's point was.

Your second sentence is just plain not true. Jews are an ethnic group. Some practice Judaism, some don't.

 

[lilithu]

I understood it perfectly, and I responded to it as I would to one of Jay's unhelpful quips. The point of my response was that my response to Jay which Patty was insulting was no more than turning Jay's own debate tactics back on him. As in, she wasn't really insulting me, but Jay.

Right.... as long as you understand that and it makes you happy.

As your behavior is a reflection on you.

You mean trying to get people to examine their assumptions and suggesting a more useful conception of religion? Yes, I would hope that would be a reflection on me.

If you disagree Storm, why don't you address the points, instead of this passive aggressive kind of attack?

 

[Magic Man]

Really mball, after this many posts showing the logical progression, and after citing several theologians, not just Tillich, if you still insist that this definition is "new" I don't know what else to say. Clearly it is new to you.

I must have missed them, which other theologians were cited? It is new in the sense that it is not generally accepted at all. If your definition replaced the dictionary definition, it would be considered a new definition. If it makes it easier, we could just replace "new" with "different".

 

[Magic Man]

Right.... as long as you understand that and it makes you happy.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Storm]

You mean trying to get people to examine their assumptions and suggesting a more useful conception of religion? Yes, I would hope that would be a reflection on me.

I mean trying to force your labels on other people despite their objections.

If you disagree Storm, why don't you address the points, instead of this passive aggressive kind of attack?

Because I'd just be rehashing what others have already said, and you're not listening anyway. Also, I'm not attacking you, passive-aggressively or otherwise. Just pointing out that you're making yourself look bad.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Your second sentence is just plain not true. Jews are an ethnic group. Some practice Judaism, some don't.

So much for making progress....

 

[lilithu]

I mean trying to force your labels on other people despite their objections.

I'm trying to get people to examine their assumptions and suggesting a more useful conception of religion.

The fact that they/you object so strongly to being called "religious" is telling tho.

Because I'd just be rehashing what others have already said, and you're not listening anyway. Also, I'm not attacking you, passive-aggressively or otherwise. Just pointing out that you're making yourself look bad.

I can live with looking bad to those who disagree with me. Once again, that says more about you than anything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm trying to get people to examine their assumptions and suggesting a more useful conception of religion.

The fact that they/you object so strongly to being called "religious" is telling tho.

In what way?

I don't see it to be that much different than the example I mentioned before of a Russian objecting to being called American. It's not a matter of "American" being a bad word, it's a matter of inaccuracy.