Comments on: defining religion

By: Edgar Hunt

Edgar Hunt — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:24:29 +0000

The procces of religion in nature would be the exchange of information between beings of different universe by other than the acepted five physical senses. Regarding the 1st ammendment, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Religion is a personal procces of nature of the exchange of information, just like radio or tv. The coarse of science and government should be the evaluation and identification of the source and content of this information. Religion is the same as freedom of speech. It is not the talk that does harm it is people acting on that talk out side of the rules of law. Religion has in it universal laws which we call morals that apply in this life and are carried into the nexst life. just as federal law superceeds local law, moral law superceeds mans laws. So as we call the the laws of nature, the laws of man and the laws of the universe or moral laws that extend beyond the scope of physical life in the present and also still aply into the life of the future as understood is there by the content of religions.

By: Edgar Hunt III

Edgar Hunt III — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:58:53 +0000

I found my personal definition threw science and a personal experience. If we look at what religion is and how it works along with the contents of religions we find that in science and religions are common areas. Religions speak of non physical realms and beings in those realms. Today science is teaching us of what to us would be non physical realms, meaning not physical as we know and define it. This is found in parallel universes and multi verse. Secondly religions talk of non physical exchange of information, prayer and meditation and visions. these are exchanges of information by means other than the 5 physical senses recognized by science. In studying parellel universes science states that the exchange of information between universe is allowed by the laws of science. that also is a common and agreed area. Lastley information ahead of time or phrophecy is also agreed upon by science and religion. science says these thing are allowed to happen in the laws of nature and religion states they are and have been happening threw out nature. there really is no dissagreement between science and religion if you look at things in a propper perspective. religion is in fact a procces of nature which man is a part of. religion is a procces of the exchange of information in a universal scope with extra sensory senses that all human beings have. Religion is a procces of nature just like talking or listening is a procces of nature. When you get into the content of the information being exchanged and the organizations that make claims based on that information, well that is another subject. So Religion is the super luminal exchange of information between human beings and other beings in other universes. Those being may well be ourselves in a future life, life after death.

By: Zero-Equals-Infinity

Zero-Equals-Infinity — Thu, 25 May 2006 07:11:20 +0000

I am less concerned with defining religion, than in eliciting Primary Religious Experience (PRE).

PRE is the root and religious forms are what results from interpretation of PRE in the context of an individual and culture.

PRE is, I believe the means to overcome the differences that divide us. If those who follow a religious tradition can reach back to that common place and see how the branches of religious tradition are connected through this ineffable nexus, then there is a point of common-union from which to appreciate other religious forms.

In ec stasis unio.

By: peter@usa.net

peter@usa.net — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000

Agreed with Charles.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:45:18 +0000

Religion seems to me personally to refer to something sacred, like life, love, people, relationships. There is also the transcendent, the divine Being, the Other that we are “part of” but “distanced from”, possibly at the same time. Language breaks down and meditation or some other direct form of contact allows for a “religious experience” or “spiritual experience”. Alot of this seems to depend on one’s upbringing and other experiences which have formed our perception of “spiritual and/or religious matters”. I also see religion as meaning “going back to the source” which comes from a Kundalini Yoga teacher I had.

By: jeev

jeev — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:35:52 +0000

Paul Tillich defined religion as your “ultimate concern”

By: Mano Marks

Mano Marks — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:39:59 +0000

You know, any good student of information knows that categorization is not absolute. You can define a set of criteria and say that while some things are “religious” they are not best representatives of the category of religion.

By: Irina

Irina — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:54:39 +0000

You know, in research, when the types of studies, that you mention, are done, in my experience there is actually rather little attempt to define “religion” and to judge what constitutes as “religious”. The question simple asks the respondent to let the researcher know whether they attend religious services and how often, whether they consider themselves religious and whether that is a big part of their life (all of those questions or some). The respondent gets to define what they mean by religion/religious/service. Of course, this turns to another question, one of validity – what if every single person means a different thing? Yet the epidimiology studies are fairly clear that people who consider themselves relgious, even more, regardless of that, people who attent religious services relatively often, have better life expectancy. There are many hypothesized explanations to that and few of them involve defining religion. It’s a worthy philosophical question, and, personally, I don’t think it really can be defined with X=Y if it fits A, B and C else X doesn’t = Y. You know, I am sorry, I haven’t had a personal experience of union with the Godhead, I guess whatever my set of beliefs, it can’t be religious under this definition. But I think there is a difference between saying that there is something of value about participation in religous activities and defining whether activities can be called religous .

By: Bob Aman

Bob Aman — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:47:46 +0000

I would probably suggest that while your definition of religion is probably correct, or at least very close, “religion, minus the rituals bit” probably needs its own term, as well, and should probably be considered distinct from the “religion.”

By: Mano Marks

Mano Marks — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:56:44 +0000

For mystics, religion is often less important. Particularly, Quakers (or I should say Unprogrammed Quakers, as I am) arguably have no rituals, and tend to be anti-ritual.