i shall call it. comparative religion 101 thread.

but honestly i think Abra has covered it all already in
previous posts in the religion forum...

I see what you're saying Voil. I didn't mean to promote non-religion. I was simply mentioning that it is my own personal mindset.

More to the topic of why people are religious at all,... There seems to be a common belief that all men are driven to "know God" Personally I think that's hogwash. I think what men are driven to know is their true nature. If there is a god associated with their true nature then, of course, they would want to get to know and understand their creator. However, I think it's completely wrong to believe that all men are innately driven to believe that their creator as an external human-like deity who has an ego and all the other human frailties of men.

There's so many possibilities that people don't even seem to be considering. For one thing, most people who consider religious ideas take it for granted that they came into being when their physical body was born. I don't buy into that notion to begin with.

If we can believe that we are fundamentally spiritual beings when we die, then why can't we believe that we were fundamentally spiritual beings before we were born?

I don't buy into the idea that we were created at birth, so I really have no desire to consider any religions that think that way or suggest that this is the case.

I'm truly not interest in manmade religions at all. I'm much more interested in my true essence. Why make up gods that we have no clue exist?

Just be who you are. That's as close as you can get to your true essence, and your true essence is really what you truly want to understand. In fact, when people get side-tracked into wanting to know some fictitious Gods from ancient folklore they completely miss the original concept that they truly wanted to know in the first place. They become idol worshipers of external Gods instead.

Hi James,

you say: I'm truly not interest in manmade religions at all. I'm much more interested in my true essence. Why make up gods that we have no clue exist?

reply: To make great fantasy novels like JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, CS Lewis, RA Salavatore, Robert Jordan, and David Eddings to name a few.

To have your book sitting as New York's Best Selling Novel!

to get the best selling novel to a screenplay and have it into a movie like Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien or Narnia like CS Lewis.


to have your characters as toys to buy at Toysrus stores near you

Man made religions are very entertaining for entertainment reasons.

now say hello to my little red hobbit on the corner of my picture. His name is Billibon Strudeln!


but yes I can see your point that one could also look into the subconscious mind and into more of the spirituality of ones self. One of the greatest mystereies of all time? Do we have a soul or spirit or do we confuse it with feelings with are central nerve system by feeling pain or hurt instead?

Oh boy what did I start! Sorry to the host, I truly want to keep this thread on subjects historically. I bow down to apologize!

Gee whiz Johnny, I never ment to imply that we shouldn't have fairytales and mythologies. I think they're great!

When we get into trouble is when we start believing them to the point that we lose touch with reality.

Edited to add:

Actually there's nothing wrong with believing in fairytales. In fact, that can be very good thing.

When we get into trouble is when we start demanding that other people believe in our fairytales. That's when all hell breaks loose. Clearly when all hell breaks loose the fairytale is no longer godly but has become demonic.

In fact, I'm thinking about writing my own bible just for me. If anyone else wants to believe in it by their own free choice that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

I know, I know! Just yanking legs here!

but you are truly correct about this! So many start believing in their imaginations to point where it takes control of their lives. I never understood that. Actually more then half of the world believe in a type of worshipping deity of some sort. Will there be a time when this will change?

The other day I watch a man sitting in a coffeshop reading out loud his bible. He would then look at me quickly then back down to his bible then back at me then back at his bible reading ever so more quickly each time. I would rather much just enjoy the great display of bakery the coffeeshop offered and the friendly smile of the cashier! Much more satifying to me!

In fact, I'm thinking about writing my own bible just for me. If anyone else wants to believe in it by their own free choice that's fine. If not, that's fine too

reply: Does it have to be called a Bible?? Just don't call it the King James version okay!

What will the name be of this book and how much will it cost?

Bible just means book. Book and bible are two words that mean the same thing. The "Holy Bible" is just the "Holy Book". So it's just a book. If I decide to write a holy book then my book will also be a Holy Bible.



The Flight of the Bird Fairies

It will be free because it will be the divinely inspired word of the Bird Fairies.

Anyone who believes in the Bird Fairies will have everlasting happiness. Nay Sayers of the Bird Fairies will be condemned to eat worms for the rest of eternity.

No, I'm just kidding!

There are no penalties for disbelieving in the Bird Fairies, you'll just lose out on all the fun is all. Atheist are even free to embrace the Bird Fairies as pure mythology. They will receive all the same benefits of happiness and joy as the true believers will, and there are no commitments or fine-print contracts involved.

However, this is an active-participation religion for the true believers. In order to actively participate a true believer must build bird houses, and regularly feed the birds around their homes. They must also learn to recognize all of the birds by their songs as well as by sight. They will learn about all the special powers of love and enchantment that each special Bird Fairy emanates. There will be many stories and construction projects in this bible as well as cut-outs that can be folded-up in to gliding models of actual flying Bird Fairies. There will also be construction plans for building all manner of Bird Fairy houses and feeders. Along with poems and songs and whistling tunes that should be chanted and whistled at various times of the year. The Bird Fairies will offer magic to anyone who believes in them with complete child-like innocence.

'smiless' wrote:

'... I am looking forward to the first questions you will pose that will be shared here to discuss...'

Fair enough 'smiless'.

Don't know that we need close-ended questions though, when the whole thing is but a wide-open question in itself!!!

But here are some foundation blocks with the intent of clarifying the context of this 'wide-open' question!!!

It wouldn't be to hard to agree that the historical perspective only knows of a plurality of 'religions', and not 'the religion', be it founded on 'transcendance', or 'human nature', or some sort of 'psychological laws'

On the other hand, in order to discuss the plurality of religions, we need to recognize a 'unique' (as in singular) concept of religion, an abstract concept, as in the concept 'tree' for example, which defines all trees in general, and none in particular, all in one.

With that in mind, if we wish to explore or inquire into 'the history of religions', we cannot avoid posing the meta question:

'... WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF RELIGION?...'

Of course, like myself, many of you might think, eventhough we don't necessarily have 'the' definition on the tip of our tongue, that 'the' definition exists, and nothing more complicated than a 'google-doo' will pop it in the center of our discussion.

Well, not so fast!!!

The fact of the matter is, given the pragmatic nature of this thread, there is no accepted 'meta' definition of 'the concept of religion'.

In spite of hundreds of officially proposed definitions over the past one hundred years (history of religions is in its infancy), none succeeded in imposing itself definitively.

Since the day I learned this distinction, from a wise and rather ecclectic Catholic priest/teacher, I haven't been able to wipe the 'corner-mouth' smile off my face everytime I meet someone whom rushes to give me THE TRUE AND ONLY MEANING OF 'FAITH' OR RELIGION!!!

The recorded reasons for failing the 'definition' exercise so far, are often very simple, EITHER ...

- they start off with non-scientific presuppositions,

- they are founded on a single religion, or a single type of religions and thus, the definition excludes or doesn't apply to others, nor to all,

- they account for one only, or partial aspects of religions (doctrinal, subjective, sentimental), and not all aspects of religions.

Notwithstanding these failures at coining an officially accepted definition of the concept 'religion', we might have a hard time believing that such reasons are enough to explain that we wouldn't have found a satisfying definition to this day.

And the difficulty is in fact partially explained by another specific reason, which we ignore, or too often forget, in spite of its evidence.

The concept of 'religion' has been shaping itself (and continues to this day to shape itslef) mostly throughout the history of western civilization.

It is important, for the sake of sticking to facts, that nowhere in the language of primitive peoples, nor none of the superior archaïc civilizations, not even Greek or Latin, closer to our period, can we find a term corresponding to this concept of religion, which was yet historical evolving within different specific periods, and geographical areas.

For the record, the word 'religion', which was coined later, is directled derived from latin 'religio', and yet many subsequent definitions of religions, have arbitrarily opted instead for the presumed latin 'relegere' or 'religare' ethymologies.

Why? Simply because emerging religions of the day didn't find that the historical latin root 'religio', agreed with the then more modern and 'improved meaning' of religion!!! And so started the hijack of the 'word'!!!

Latin 'religio' litterally stands for 'to tie together', 'to connect', 'to link', 'to join', 'to bind'.

Thus religion (religio), in that sense only pointed to a general set of observances, general guidelines & warnings, general rules, 'forbidences' (no-no's) for all 'religions', from a context of 'connection', of commonaltity, universality.

It made no reference to the specific adoration code of deity, nor to specific mythical traditions, nor specific sacred celebrations, nor loads of other specific rituals which, over time, we have come to accept as 'religious'.

So from a personal perspective, wanting to define 'religion', equates to giving it 'meaning', ... our 'personal meaning', a meaning articulated by each and everyone, and that we end up taking for granted, and using 'normally' in the vaguest and most uncertain terms.

So, the challenge and purpose of the day, for the community of scholars and academics focused on the matter, remains to arrive at a 'functional' definition, such that it can serve and be used towards scientific ends, as opposed to formulating a caracters based definition, which would only serve to distinguish one thing from another (one religion from another: that would be the origins of marketing (differenciation), not religion (linking)).

To get the importance of this point across, we must be clear that a little more than a hundred years ago, it was still claimed as accepted wisdom, that certain 'primitive' or native people of different origins, '... were 'ignorant' of all that which would resemble a 'religion', at a time where the accepted sense of religion was narrowly limited to the christan experience.

Up until recently, and without exception, it was widely accepted that what wasn't of Christianity, was pagan and ignorant of 'religion'.

Today, while the older mentality survives, there is growing consensus for a much wider meaning of the term (encompassing a much larger number of religions than 'the one').


Much more to come, but let's hear what the feedback at this point.

The word religion

Thank you for clarifying where and how the word “religion” originated from. It is a interesting perspective of where the roots of the word originates itself. It is also interesting to see how many have different definitions and beliefs of what the word itself means to them.

The challenge in its days

Yes in the older days it was considered an accepted law (what was written in the scriptures) and none probably dared to question it at the time like today. For example: One would just believe there is a hell and a heaven and not dare to question if it is a justified belief. One can only see through history those who did question a religion or law where always labeled as “ rebels “ at no end for simply asking or contradicting scriptures or whatever other means used to identify a law. Fortunately in the 21st century in most countries we can arise questions and even say we don’t believe in such religious documents of whatever belief system there is.
Yes I think it is a good start to first define the word “religion in itself” before pondering off to more topics. To also describe how much freedom one had in such times compared to today where we can actually questioned other belief systems.

not another fairy book!

but it would be probably much more inviting for my daughter to read this indeed, so stop saying you are going to do this and really do it!!!

When it come to semantics, labels are labels. That's all words truly are. Most of them can have a very wide range of meanings and the precise meaning that is intended is often conveyed in the larger context of the communication.

For example if I say the word "Tree" you might first think of a large plant that has leaves. But if I talk about a family "Tree" you quickly have a completely different idea of what I mean by that word.

I think most people have come to identify the word "religion" with a believe in a particular picture of a creator or "god". However, I personally believe that the origins of the word actually refer to 'rituals' or doing things dutifully, or with consistent repetition and form. In other words, a believe in anything doesn't become "religious" until it becomes ritualized, or dedicated in some way.

This is why many people prefer to use the word "spiritual" to describe a believe in a spiritual world that is not dogmatic or ritualized.

So for me personally, the very term "religion" simply means to do something with dedicated consistency. "Religiosity", and it doesn't even need to be associated with gods or spirit or anything like that. I have a neighbor who "religiously" jogs around the block every morning. He just does it religiously. Not to imply that is has anything at all to do with any belief in anything supernatural.

Clearly religions that are based on dogma and ritual are indeed "religious" in their nature because they adhere to specific dogma and rituals.

In some ways religiosity is good. I wish I could be as religious about jogging around the block as my neighbor is.

I think worshiping a deity could easily become a religious ceremony for many people. Jeanniebean talks about the importance of showing gratitude and feeling gratitude. She may very well be religious about feeling gratitude, thus making her belief in the Law of Attraction a bonafied "religion".

In fact, I'm starting a 'religion' based on the flight of the Bird Fairies. The reason that it will be a bonafied "religion" is because it requires feeding and caring for birds "religiously". It will definitely be a true religion in that sense even if it isn't believed to be spiritual.

I think if you are going to investigate the true essence of mankind you need to break it up onto at least two categories.

Spiritual and non-spiritual. This would leave room for atheistic philosophies.

They you could further break up the spiritual philosophies into religious and non-religious spiritualities.

At least that's how I'd go about it for starters and then maybe break off into other categories as it becomes necessary.

I'm just here for the free crumpets and tea.

We know that all current religions, morphed from the religions before it. So are you proposing that we discuss the reason man created religions in the first place? Such as an explanation for all the mysteries that surrounded him and then later, when organization came to be, a method to controlling others through fear and guilt?

Or do you want to discuss the part of man that believes there is something more? That part of us that asks, is this all there is? When I reached this point in life, I had already been raised Catholic and Baptist at the same time and had reached a stagnation in what I could get from the religions. It took me many many years, much suffering and loss to finally look inside myself for the answer. No, that is not all there is because we are part of a bigger picture but not in the religious sense. Because we live we are part of the bigger whole. Our life energy is the actual base for our "spiritual" selves. Once we recognize that the life energy is energy and like all energy it can never be killed it just changes form, then we can know that we are more than any religion can define.

Okay off my soap box here. Sorry. Anyway, if you can get anyone to participate it will be interesting. I have discovered through my journeys that to "talk" as if the religion is just another myth or story told does not sit well with alot of the religious.

If I'm going to write a fairytale it should be about fairies don't you think? Otherwise I'd be writing an ogretale.



What? You want to turn my dreams into an actual hard-labor job?

You meanie!

I personally feel that Dragoness just answered the whole topic and I don't see where there's much of anything left to be added actually.

OOpsie did I do that???? I just needed clarification, sorry

I think religion started when humans noticed they can take control of more then just themselves. An individual figured out how to sustain a group of people and even make them do things to their approval.

It may have continued by just observing the sky looking at the sun and how it appears and how it slowly dissappeared and also by looking at the stars and naming them each something or connecting the dots' astrologically'.

As the curiousity arised and the introduction to slap some drawings on rocks, stories were then uttered and eventually many started to believe the 'imagination' of the individual and maded it as a ritual or even a important part of the day to receite often.

As the mind of the human developed more imaginations grew and eventually more stories were told. Perhaps around campfire or again carved on stones and so forth.

Where do you think religion or a belief system first evolved?

Oh come on guys! This is the very first attempt to discuss mythologies and religions in a historically attempt without having scriptures hitting us from every end!

Let us be creative and pose interesting questions seeking knowledge in a historical reference if possible.

It is that German in me! We always make people work hard for some reason!

Okay that means you want to write it but you are not!

I guess I will pull out the Walt Disney's Tinkerbell book and read that to my daughter again

This is an interesting thread in that it asks that we discuss religions in an objective manner.

I feel a bit inadequate in the discussion because I have never actually studied theology, or history much or "the making of a religion" and what might be required to create one from start to finish and how one evolves over time.

However, I recently read a book called "Confessions of a God Seeker" written by Ford Johnson, an X member of a religion called Eckankar. He suggests the study of how this religion evolved is a modern sample of how other religions may have evolved, and since it evolved in modern times, can be looked at in history with more accuracy than some of the older religions.

I will take a look at that book again and I might find some interesting things to add to this thread.

JB

I think Jeanniebean is right. I don't want to talk about what sparked men to become creators in the past.

I just want to be the creator that I was born to be but never properly mentored to be become because everyone around me had their heads in the buckets of past mythologies and didn't have a clue how to act themselves much less be teaching others how act.

Seriously John, I like the idea of the "The Flight of the Bird Fairies". I think it will be a more productive endeavor than "Hooved Angels". Plus I can write it in bits and pieces and publish it on the fly.

Owl seriously look into it and let you know when I publish the first chapter. Owl have to think about this for a while and let the Bird Fairy spirits guide me. I can't dew it on an empty spirit ya know. In fact, owl want to use my own photographs, so owl have to go out and shoot some Bird Fairies.

With a camera of course!

This may not become a religion for my readers but it could very well become a religion for me.