What Is Religion?

[Turtle]

Though Authority and Hierarchy have a definite place within the context of the arguement for definition passed through from organized religion.

 

Say what?

 

The arguement of authority and hierarchy are a distraction to the semantic examination of the word religion. That is they are a red herring.

 

To prove that authority or hierarchy is necessary or unnecessary to the human culture is ultimately irrelevant to the question of "What is religion?", and thus should be absent from this thread.

 

Those statements are nothing more than your opinion, and thus should be absent from this thread.

 

Just as your reply is a red herring, Turtle. Your post is deliberately designed, like many of your other posts, to divert the subject away from the topic at hand.

 

Unsubstantiated twattle.

 

I asked in the opening post "What is religion?" with the intention of addressing that topic. "What is Authority" and "What is Hierarchy?" though casually related through organized religion, are subordinate to the point of irrelevance within the context of the thread, and the chosen topic.

 

More unsubstantiated twattle.

 

So I would appreciate it, Turtle, if you would add something constructive and of relevance to the topic. Thank you, and if you wish to argue it further we can take our case to the Moderators.

 

clown(kloun)

n.

1.

a. A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation.

b. One who jokes and plays tricks.

2. A coarse, rude, vulgar person; a boor.

 

We are not amused by your religious persistence in starting threads and then berating those who post under the guise of authority you do not have or authority that does not support you. :hihi:

[IDMclean]

I am adamant in my duty to maintain the lines of inquiry. Much of what is written in this thread has little or nothing to do with the semantic examination of the word religion. Much of it is people's statements of opinion regarding specific religions, the operation of organizations under the moniker of religion, and personal dissertations in how religion might benefit society. Ad Nauseum.

 

Now what I said, and what you didn't understand is that authority and hierarchy are only of concern, semantically, when one considers forms of religion that have authoritative hierarchal structures. Al la Organized religion. Hence passed through. Organized religion is the same entity as authoritative hierarchal religion, and thus is merely an alternate identity of the same entity. Al la alternate identity theory, rather than separate entity theory.

 

Why is this important? Well the distinction is important in keeping scope resolution on the topic and away from tangents. This thread's expressed purpose is to semantically examine the meaning of the word religion and the concept that it relates to.

 

Now, I may not personally have the authority with which to enforce the rules, however I do have the authority of the rules themselves. I started a topic with a specific degree of scope in mind. Things that are definitely outside the topic are off topic and thus against the directive of "Stay on topic".

 

A note on staying on topic. This post marks at the least number four of a string of posts that have lead off the topic. Further complaints and/or disagreements should be directed to Private Messages and/or the management.

[charles brough]

Earlier, Alias remarked that belief in God was not necessary to religion. This is not a popular conception but is well understood by one segment of the social science community which refers to Marxism as a "secular religion.' Scientology can also be logically referred to as a religion even though also filled with doctrines of dubious scientific merit.

 

In other words, religion is a form of ideology that is relatively uniform to all its believers and which has staying power.

 

Digging further, all such religions have a core of belief sometimes called a "theology" which answers, always, the same questions. Every religion has different answers, but all answer these same questions:

 

"what is our common origin?, What are we striving for (our coal)?, by what means (moral) are we to obtain it?, and what obstical stands in our way?" The power religions have is derived from the answers to all four questions being totally consistant with each other.

 

Take Chrstianity for example. All in one book, you have all the "answers" (now obsolete ones to be sure, but they were not obsolete when the religion began!): origins is all in Genesis, goals are "heaven" and "the Second Coming," means are the Ten Commandments" and obstacle is "Satan and demons". All together it is a neat, self-consistent package! No wonder it has survived 2000 years while our scattered, inconsistent, secular opinions leave society confused and divided.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[Turtle]

I am adamant in my duty to maintain the lines of inquiry. Much of what is written in this thread has little or nothing to do with the semantic examination of the word religion. Much of it is people's statements of opinion regarding specific religions, the operation of organizations under the moniker of religion, and personal dissertations in how religion might benefit society. Ad Nauseum.

 

Now what I said, and what you didn't understand is that authority and hierarchy are only of concern, semantically, when one considers forms of religion that have authoritative hierarchal structures. Al la Organized religion. Hence passed through. Organized religion is the same entity as authoritative hierarchal religion, and thus is merely an alternate identity of the same entity. Al la alternate identity theory, rather than separate entity theory.

 

Why is this important? Well the distinction is important in keeping scope resolution on the topic and away from tangents. This thread's expressed purpose is to semantically examine the meaning of the word religion and the concept that it relates to.

 

Now, I may not personally have the authority with which to enforce the rules, however I do have the authority of the rules themselves. I started a topic with a specific degree of scope in mind. Things that are definitely outside the topic are off topic and thus against the directive of "Stay on topic".

 

A note on staying on topic. This post marks at the least number four of a string of posts that have lead off the topic. Further complaints and/or disagreements should be directed to Private Messages and/or the management.

 

More nonsense accompanied by the threat, "I'm telling!" :) Come on people! This is NOT a discussion on religion in the spirit of Hypography; this is the buffoons diatribe on why the rest of us don't know what religion is.

 

Part of my religious behavior is to call 'em like I see 'em, and clowny has contradicted himself here more times than we can count. We started with in the 3rd sentence of the first post>>

I expect that the outcome of this examination will reveal that the word religion is as meaningful as the statement "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Now above, buffoon says it's not a matter of semantics!???:doh: The thread is rife with such contradictions! I complain to you all, that clown religiously accuses me of violating rules when in fact I religously give an honest opinion, and I disagree that our points in this thread can be dismissed by the word of the clown and we expected not to counter.

 

Religion is the purposeful repetition of acts in response to some supposed authority. :cup: :naughty:

[IDMclean]

I would warn that two things need be taken into consideration, one is that different kinds of logic maybe in play. I, myself, use something akin to Paraconsistent Logic of the Dialetheism kind. Second off, one should beware that my position in a given argument shifts as more information becomes available. Thus my opening statement does not indicate my current position.

 

The opening statement does issue the challenge, and set the tone. As well as outline the expected outcome of the experiment/discussion. Most importantly it sets the scope of the discussion. It says what we are to discuss, and implicitly eliminates the many things that we could otherwise discuss.

 

That you resort to name calling, Turtle, shows the manner of your person, and the quality of your integrity. I would ask that you afford to me at least the same level of respect that I afford to you.

[Turtle]

I would warn...

 

That's where you are out of line from the git go. You don't have any authority to 'warn' me about anything. That you couch your threat in such ridiculous archaic terms is just as affronting.

 

Second off, one should beware that my position in a given argument shifts as more information becomes available. Thus my opening statement does not indicate my current position.

 

translation >>> again with a threat, then followed by weaseling couched in more archaic prose of no content. Thus you assume the right to to claim other posters' responses are wrong for the simple reason they disagree with you. Again you have no authority.

 

That you resort to name calling, Turtle, shows the manner of your person, and the quality of your integrity. I would ask that you afford to me at least the same level of respect that I afford to you.

 

Following your modus operandi religiously, you manage to deride me for name calling as you call me names. :naughty:

 

Can I really be so off base here on answering the question the title proposes, and calling to account the nonsensical claims against my answer? More to the point, our answers? If you other respondents aren't affronted, I don't for the life of me understand it, and if you are affronted and don't say so, I can't for the life of me understand it either. :shrug: :eek:

[Turtle]

Cough, cough!! It's a little thick in here. Is that smoke or dust?

 

No matter, I can speak in the dark holding my breath. :hihi:

 

This thread is not to answer "What is (a Specific Instance) of Religion?", It is "What is Religion?"; the question is purely oriented towards formally defining a glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion.

 

Religion is the purposeful repetition of acts in response to some supposed authority.

 

I just browsed the whole thread so as to reassure myself that my 'glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion' covered all the bases proffered by posters (and a motley crew we are! :lol:), including the court jester's.:doh: :naughty:

 

:hihi: Yep; I got it spot on. Covered all the bases. Purposeful; gotta have that. Repetitive; wouldn't be religion without it. Acts; what else is there? Response to supposed authority; aced by virtue of Milgram. Secular or sacred; got 'em both covered. Yep, I got 'er bagged and ready for market.

 

You rest assured it's not a pig in a poke, because you saw me bag it. I religiously show my work; nothin' up my sleeve. :hihi:

 

Post Script: On reflection, a refinement is thus in order after the best concept of follow-through. :doh: I said "Religion is the purposeful repetition of acts in response to some supposed authority."; I replace "...response to some supposed authority', with ...'obedience to perceived authority."

 

Netting >> Religion is the purposeful repetition of acts in obedience to perceived authority.

 

Logically, if a person has not read Milgram's study -or at least about it -, then such a person is in no position to discount its relevance to a definition of religion; however, if a person has read Milgram's Obedience to Authority or a scholarly review of it, then that person must logically accede to a fundamental role of obedience to authority in defining religion. :hihi:

[ughaibu]

This video might be interesting, then again, it might not, I found it rather disappointing: Online Video: Brief History of Disbelief Part I | Veoh Video Network http://www.veoh.com/videos/v290167nBNFCMmq

[charles brough]

This video might be interesting, then again, it might not, I found it rather disappointing: Online Video: Brief History of Disbelief Part I | Veoh Video Network

 

I watched the video quite a while and agree entirely with you! It is disappointing. It is as if he is trying to make the subject as complicated as possible instead of cutting rigtht to the heart of the matter and coming up with something intelligent.

 

What about my post #173. Does it make sense to you?

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[InfiniteNow]

I watched the video quite a while and agree entirely with you! It is disappointing. It is as if he is trying to make the subject as complicated as possible instead of cutting rigtht to the heart of the matter and coming up with something intelligent.

 

I watched the whole thing. Enjoyed it. Important to remember that this was one of a multi-part series.

[charles brough]

I watched the whole thing. Enjoyed it. Important to remember that this was one of a multi-part series.

 

It was professionally done, but I soon got the impression it was not going to come up with anything brilliant. Did you find some insight or any specific bit of knowledge that was significant? I might then go back and see the whole thing.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[ughaibu]

I thought the athropologist, in the video, made an interesting point; that proto-religions aren't concerned with questions such as the afterlife but are to do with attempting to control assumed conscious entities activating various natural phenomena. In other words, religion is the practice of sorcery.

[charles brough]

Though Authority and Hierarchy have a definite place within the context of the arguement for definition passed through from organized religion. The arguement of authority and hierarchy are a distraction to the semantic examination of the word religion. That is they are a red herring.

 

To prove that authority or hierarchy is necessary or unnecessary to the human culture is ultimately irrelevant to the question of "What is religion?", and thus should be absent from this thread.

 

Hence the term incidental.

 

 

 

Just as your reply is a red herring, Turtle. Your post is deliberately designed, like many of your other posts, to divert the subject away from the topic at hand.

 

I asked in the opening post "What is religion?" with the intention of addressing that topic. "What is Authority" and "What is Hierarchy?" though casually related through organized religion, are subordinate to the point of irrelevance within the context of the thread, and the chosen topic.

 

So I would appreciate it, Turtle, if you would add something constructive and of relevance to the topic. Thank you, and if you wish to argue it further we can take our case to the Moderators.

 

May I suggest that you are leading the change of subject by relentlessly arguing about it? Personally, I think the thing to do is just ignore digressions. A good way would be for one of you to comment on what I wrote on the subject! Or is all this just a subconscious way of avoiding that?

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[Turtle]

It was professionally done, but I soon got the impression it was not going to come up with anything brilliant. Did you find some insight or any specific bit of knowledge that was significant? I might then go back and see the whole thing.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

 

May I suggest that you are leading the change of subject by relentlessly arguing about it? Personally, I think the thing to do is just ignore digressions. A good way would be for one of you to comment on what I wrote on the subject! Or is all this just a subconscious way of avoiding that?

 

charles

 

You seem to imply that my comments have been digressive. However, if you can point me to some specific insight you offered that challenges my definition, I might go back and read your whole piece. :phones:

 

I thought the athropologist, in the video, made an interesting point; that proto-religions aren't concerned with questions such as the afterlife but are to do with attempting to control assumed conscious entities activating various natural phenomena. In other words, religion is the practice of sorcery.

 

This is completely in line with my definition of religion in terms of what is fundamental to it; that is, it is an obedience response to authority. That authority for religion may be a god, or authority for religion may come from a principle. Therefore by my definition, sorcery is always a religion, but religion is not always sorcery.

[Boerseun]

Religion is a crutch. Turns out humanity is lame, for the most part.

[IDMclean]

I could actually champion Turtle's definition. It accurately describes religions and religious practice. At a glance, I would need to take time to consider the fringe effects of such a definition, but it does seem to cover the majority of basises to me.

 

With the possible exception of one. Turtle's definition is that of a verb, not a noun. Religion, in this sense, is something that the predicate says, and someone, someplace, or something does.

Religion

-verb

the purposeful repetition of acts in obedience to perceived authority

 

Religion

-???

the willful faith in, assent to, and embrace of, a self-transcendental purpose or purposes; subject to individual experience, and/or perception.

 

In examining Turtle's definition, it brought me to ask the same question of the definition I had formulated earlier. I must then question, am I describing the object or the act? If I am describing the object, then I have a noun. However if I am describing the act, which it would sound to me like I am, then I have a verb.

 

Comments, Turtle?

[Turtle]

I could actually champion Turtle's definition. It accurately describes religions and religious practice. At a glance, I would need to take time to consider the fringe effects of such a definition, but it does seem to cover the majority of basises to me.

 

With the possible exception of one. Turtle's definition is that of a verb, not a noun. Religion, in this sense, is something that the predicate says, and someone, someplace, or something does.

 

Originally Posted by KAC

Religion

-???

the willful faith in, assent to, and embrace of, a self-transcendental purpose or purposes; subject to individual experience, and/or perception.

 

 

In examining Turtle's definition, it brought me to ask the same question of the definition I had formulated earlier. I must then question, am I describing the object or the act? If I am describing the object, then I have a noun. However if I am describing the act, which it would sound to me like I am, then I have a verb.

 

Comments, Turtle?

 

Well writ response! :eek: I give you an A. Even-handed, succinct, on topic, & advanced the discussion while incorporating new information. :) Nicely done & a tip o' the hat to your coach(es) as well. :cup:

 

To the question at hand, I think we have no problem with my definition's noun-hood, inasmuch as '...the purposeful repetition of acts...' is taken to mean a collection of acts and a collection is a 'thing' & so we have noun. For example, a person's reputation (noun) is not a single act, but the collection of a person's acts. At any rate, I don't think my definition is in variance with the dictionaries in regard to parts of speech.

 

Now you give this wording ...

...the willful faith in, assent to, and embrace of, a self-transcendental purpose or purposes; subject to individual experience, and/or perception.

 

I would not argue that this is wrong in its details, only that by including these details you have narrowed the definition of religion down again, when your goal was (if I understood you correctly) to expand it.

 

I have chosen the words & their order in my definition to get the most possible meaning from the fewest possible words. I have explicitly worked to include your details -as well as the other respondents - in my definition implicitly. :cup: