What qualifies as "Religion"?

[blackout]

Even this most fundmental concept of our forum here
"Religion"
is often a matter of contention.
Some posters even seem to (attemt to) prove their "points" about religion,
by defining religion to fit their points.

I am unsure at this point
if even MY OWN world view/life practice
qualifies as "religion".
(though I clearly cannot call mySelf "athiest")

We each have a world view of our own (/choosing).
So I ask...
What, in your view, qualifies a world view,
(/word view ) as "religion"?

What "elements" are inherently necessary
to the recognition of a view/perspective/practice
so as to make it ("legitimately")(a) religion?

What disqualifies a particular world view
from the title "religion"?

What is the fine line between
"religion"/"not religion"?

 

[blackout]

Can I add a poll?

Or do I need a mod.
(can you believe I don't know how?) lol.

n'eer mind, I'm gunna make a couple of different poll threads I think.
We'll keep this one discussion only.

 

[LuisDantas]

We each have a world view of our own (/choosing).
So I ask...
What, in your view, qualifies a world view,
(/word view ) as "religion"?

Some degree of statement about moral values and choices. Some degree of intent of linking everyday actions with abstract, transcendental values. As a consequence, also some degree of capability for inspiration in the moral sense.

What "elements" are inherently necessary
to the recognition of a view/perspective/practice
so as to make it ("legitimately")(a) religion?

Same as above. Also, the recognition that people ought to make their own choices and learn to take responsibility for them.

What disqualifies a particular world view
from the title "religion"?

Lack of significant effort to address moral issues and/or lack of significant effort to deal with actual concrete situations.

Doctrines that give direct statements of obligation or forbiddance without allowing for individual reflection are also not religions, or at the very least rather degenerated examples of religions.

What is the fine line between
"religion"/"not religion"?

Knowledge without a moral component is not religion. Therefore, science is by definition not religion.

Doctrines that do not serve to inspire some sort of moral values and reflection are not religions. Therefore, extreme literalism and reliance on scripture actually disqualify said doctrines from the claim of being religions.

Also, doctrines that see themselves as closed systems that can't or don't ever need to learn from the changes of the world may perhaps be considered religions. But they are also inherently rather poor specimens that are probably best left alone to be forgotten. Healthy religion is interested in the real world and learns to make constructive use of its changes.

 

[blackout]

Some degree of statement about moral values and choices. Some degree of intent of linking everyday actions with abstract, transcendental values. As a consequence, also some degree of capability for inspiration in the moral sense.



Same as above. Also, the recognition that people ought to make their own choices and learn to take responsibility for them.



Lack of significant effort to address moral issues and/or lack of significant effort to deal with actual concrete situations.

Doctrines that give direct statements of obligation or forbiddance without allowing for individual reflection are also not religions, or at the very least rather degenerated examples of religions.



Knowledge without a moral component is not religion. Therefore, science is by definition not religion.

Doctrines that do not serve to inspire some sort of moral values and reflection are not religions. Therefore, extreme literalism and reliance on scripture actually disqualify said doctrines from the claim of being religions.

Also, doctrines that see themselves as closed systems that can't or don't ever need to learn from the changes of the world may perhaps be considered religions. But they are also inherently rather poor specimens that are probably best left alone to be forgotten. Healthy religion is interested in the real world and learns to make constructive use of its changes.

Confuse me some more, why don't ya!

Ok, going by what you've said here
I would have to conclude that Roman Catholicism
and Fundamentalist Christianity
(just to name a couple)
do not/hardly qualify as valid religions by your thinking Luis?

Note,
I did not ask what qualified as a HEALTHY or "good" religion,
simply,
what qualifies a view/practice AS "Religion".

I must say though,
I really did like, and connect with this...

Some degree of intent of linking everyday actions with abstract, transcendental values.

 

[crimsonlung]

Interestingly enough, I started a thread that lead to the difference between what we think of as Religion and Belief:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/107539-religion-blind-faith.html

The conclusion was that Religion is based on a set of core beliefs and guidelines you must follow in order to be in the religion. Also, you can only have 1 religion. For example, you can't be Muslim and call yourself Christian as well. Those are both religions, but, you can be Muslim, and still call yourself a Taoist.

 

[blackout]

Interestingly enough, I started a thread that lead to the difference between what we think of as Religion and Belief:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/107539-religion-blind-faith.html

The conclusion was that Religion is based on a set of core beliefs and guidelines you must follow in order to be in the religion. Also, you can only have 1 religion. For example, you can't be Muslim and call yourself Christian as well. Those are both religions, but, you can be Muslim, and still call yourself a Taoist.

So a person cannot have/construct their OWN religion?

EDIT: And what of Syncretic Religions?

 

[crimsonlung]

So a person cannot have/construct their OWN religion?

EDIT: And what of Syncretic Religions?

A person can create their own religion, yes, why wouldn't they be able too?

And its not really referred to as "Syncretic Religions" but rather "Syncretism"

 

[blackout]

A person can create their own religion, yes, why wouldn't they be able too?

And its not really referred to as "Syncretic Religions" but rather "Syncretism"

well... you said this...

The conclusion was that Religion is based on a set of core beliefs and guidelines you must follow in order to be in the religion. Also, you can only have 1 religion.

So Religious Syncretism combines more than one religion....
which could be seen as having more than one religion, no?

Also, I guess a single person could have their own religion
intended for no one else
that constructed a set of core beliefs and guidelines
that that single practitioner MUST follow
to be in his/her own religion... but...... why?

I'm just asking for your own thoughts.
not arguing.

 

[crimsonlung]

Right, but Religious Syncretism seems to be more of a thought process or a way of looking at religion as opposed to an actual religion. I see religion being more organized, if you are questioning whether you are in a religion or not, you are more than likely not in one.

Ok, maybe MUST was a bad word to use, since there are different levels of religious integrity and there are murderers out there that still call themselves Christians and Terrorists that still call themselves Muslims. But a religion does have rules that are generally accepted and should be followed, eg, 10 commandments of Christianity. I am still trying to figure out other attributes that religions have in common.

A Book(s) (e.g Bible, Torah, Koran)
A Place of Prayer (e.g. Church, Synagogue, Mosque)
A View on a creator (e.g. Allah, Vishnu, Jesus)
A view on afterlife (e.g. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory)

 

[blackout]

Right, but Religious Syncretism seems to be more of a thought process or a way of looking at religion as opposed to an actual religion. I see religion being more organized, if you are questioning whether you are in a religion or not, you are more than likely not in one.

Ok, maybe MUST was a bad word to use, since there are different levels of religious integrity and there are murderers out there that still call themselves Christians and Terrorists that still call themselves Muslims. But a religion does have rules that are generally accepted and should be followed, eg, 10 commandments of Christianity. I am still trying to figure out other attributes that religions have in common.

A Book(s) (e.g Bible, Torah, Koran)
A Place of Prayer (e.g. Church, Synagogue, Mosque)
A View on a creator (e.g. Allah, Vishnu, Jesus)
A view on afterlife (e.g. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory)

Right! And this is what I'm aiming to sort through a bit.

Which of these things is/are intrinsically necessary to "religion"?

Is a god concept inherent to religion?
Any god concept?
Or only a "creator" god version.
Any creator god version?

What if your place of 'prayer' OR ritual is your bedroom?
Or your backyard?
Or wherever you may be?

Even athiests have a "view" on the afterlife. no?

Just unpacking.

 

[blackout]

Right, but Religious Syncretism seems to be more of a thought process or a way of looking at religion as opposed to an actual religion. I see religion being more organized, if you are questioning whether you are in a religion or not, you are more than likely not in one.

Why do you say this?
I know Religious Syncretics who would say otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Confuse me some more, why don't ya!

Ok, going by what you've said here
I would have to conclude that Roman Catholicism
and Fundamentalist Christianity
(just to name a couple)
do not/hardly qualify as valid religions by your thinking Luis?

Roman Catholicism must be judget in a case-by-case basis, since for many people it is more like a codename than a belief, much less a religion. That said, it certainly is a religion for many people.

The same is also true of Fundamentalism, including Christian Fundamentalism. With the added note that some forms are so misguided that they don't even attempt to be religions anymore and end up being just superstitions.

 

[LuisDantas]

The conclusion was that Religion is based on a set of core beliefs and guidelines you must follow in order to be in the religion. Also, you can only have 1 religion. For example, you can't be Muslim and call yourself Christian as well. Those are both religions, but, you can be Muslim, and still call yourself a Taoist.

Wait, what?

Are you saying that Taoism is not a religion?

IMO most non-Abrahamic religions are compatible with quite a few others.

 

[crimsonlung]

I don't know anything about religious syncreticism, but from what I am reading on websites, it doesn't sound like a religion at all:

What is religious syncretism?

Syncretism as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief. This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity.

Syncretism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile contrary beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism may involve attempts to merge and analogise several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

 

[blackout]

Roman Catholicism must be judget in a case-by-case basis, since for many people it is more like a codename than a belief, much less a religion. That said, it certainly is a religion for many people.

The same is also true of Fundamentalism, including Christian Fundamentalism. With the added note that some forms are so misguided that they don't even attempt to be religions anymore and end up being just superstitions.

OK, so the "religion" comes to life (exists) ONLY in the practitioner,
and does not exist/stand on it's own as a "practice/doctrine/way"
found in a "holy" book, or handed down tradition, or "sanctified" system,
or "ordained event".

Since you hinged your first post mainly around "morality"
I'll have to re'read it now
and reconsider what you said.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, so the "religion" comes to life (exists) only in the practitioner,
and does not exist/stand on it's own as a "thing/doctrine/way"
found in a "holy" book, or handed down tradition, or "sanctified" system,
or "ordained event".

Yes, that is certainly how I see it. Doctrines attempt to teach religion, with various degrees of sincerity, wisdom and success. But they aren't religion proper. Religion is a private, individual achievement, even if it involves a strong degree of social interaction and thought.

Since you hinged your first post mainly around "morality"
I'll have to re'read it now
and reconsider what you said.

Thanks for you attention.

 

[crimsonlung]

Wait, what?

Are you saying that Taoism is not a religion?

IMO most non-Abrahamic religions are compatible with quite a few others.

I am saying Taoism is not a religion, its a belief. Even the word Tao means "path" or "way" (of life)

 

[blackout]

I don't know anything about religious syncreticism, but from what I am reading on websites, it doesn't sound like a religion at all:

What is religious syncretism?

Syncretism as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief. This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity.

Syncretism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile contrary beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism may involve attempts to merge and analogise several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

Why, if you fuse or reconcile belief systems of existing religions,
will you not come up with a new one?

 

[blackout]

I am saying Taoism is not a religion, its a belief. Even the word Tao means "path" or "way" (of life)

What specifically does "Not Make" Taoism a religion?


Thoughts...
Most religions incorporate some kinds of beliefs or another.
In christianity they say 'Jesus' Is/means "way".
(though that could be understood, in more than one way.
Assuming you are 'allowed' to interpret your own way. lol)

 

[crimsonlung]

What specifically does "Not Make" Taoism a religion?


Thoughts...
Most religions incorporate some kinds of beliefs or another.
In christianity they say 'Jesus' Is/means "way".
(though that could be understood, in more than one way.
Assuming you are 'allowed' to interpret your own way. lol)

Taoism is a combination of a number of teachings based on various revelations, its more of a theology on nature and life. You don't go do a church to pray Tao, there is no creator or list of rules you should follow. Taoism is more of a way to perceive life and nature.