What defines a religion?

[Upchurch]

In the politics board, one of the threads I'm participating in has gotten way off topic onto the subject of, in my opinion, what defines Islam and what it teaches. I think it is a question that is equally applicable to all religions and I think it, generally, has the same answer. For familiarity, I will pick on Christianity as my example.

I assert that it is not a religion's holy texts that define the religion. If the Bible were the definitive authority for what is or is not Christianity, there would not be different sects of Christianity. There certainly wouldn't be diametrically opposed sects of Christianity. Especially on this board, we are all acutely aware of discrepancies between what Christians say and what is actually written in the Bible. (As a corollary, I assert that people fit their holy texts to their religion rather than fitting their religion to their holy texts.)

I assert that it is not the religion's founding prophet/teacher/whatever that defines the religion. If s/he were, the religion would presumably stay fairly static over time. I could not help but imagine that Jesus (assuming he existed) would not recognize Christianity as it exists today, or even several hundred years after he lived.

Rather, I assert that it is the current, living practitioners of the religion that defines the what the religion is and what it represents today. The consequence of this is that there is no one true form any religion, although there certainly could be broadly agreed upon trends. For every 10 Christians, you may very well have 10 different forms of Christianity. What was true about Christianity 100 years ago, may no longer be applicable to Christianity today because there are different Christians now with a different set of social norms.

Anyone disagree?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The guys that wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution did as good a job as they were able to say exactly what they meant. They even made several tries at it.

Still, its interpretation broke into two distinct sects: The Sect of Individual Rights and The Sect of Collective Rights. There were also a bunch of different cults running around quoting 2A as justification for everything from bouncing checks in the name of producing their own currency, to killing government representatives.

...and that was only 200 years or so.

What do you suppose is going to happen in 2,000 years?

[Ethnikos]

Reply to Upchurch
It looks to me that you are using your own definitions. You seem to be saying that Christianity is a religion and that all the various denominations within Christianity are merely sects.
I would classify a group of very similar denomination to be a religion. All Calvinists or all Lutherans could be two separate religions because of their own distinct views, shared within their own group, that are in opposition to the views shared within the other group.

[Upchurch]

I would classify a group of very similar denomination to be a religion. All Calvinists or all Lutherans could be two separate religions because of their own distinct views, shared within their own group, that are in opposition to the views shared within the other group.
Fair enough. I concede the sect/denomination distinction.

Do you think those denominations are the same as when Calvin or Luther started them or have the modern practitioners modified the religion?

[Ethnikos]

Fair enough. I concede the sect/denomination distinction.

Do you think those denominations are the same as when Calvin or Luther started them or have the modern practitioners modified the religion?

I have to agree with what you said earlier that people are different. We are not the same as when the founders of these religions were alive. The religion becomes modified to conform with our current standards.
Also we get things broken down, over time, into more simplistic terms. I think it has to do with a more widespread education of the masses. People are no longer content to have a priestly class above them making all the decisions concerning doctrines. We all want to be our own amateur theologians and have everything laid out in terms that we can deal with.

[Upchurch]

People are no longer content to have a priestly class above them making all the decisions concerning doctrines. We all want to be our own amateur theologians and have everything laid out in terms that we can deal with.
Today. A hundred years from now, we may go back to that, and that's fine, but we will still be getting a contemporary person's perspective about the religion. Doubtless, it will be based on the social and political norms of that time more than any Biblical source.

[Delvo]

What the religion's followers do when they are free to do it without other outside restrictions demonstrates the true nature of the religion. I don't care what's written in some ancient text if the people don't follow it. I don't care what the founder taught if the current generation of "followers" don't listen to him/her. The religion, like anything else, simply is what it does when it gets the chance.

I add that last clause because, for example, Christianity has gone underground pretending to be something peaceful and harmless in the last few centuries, because it's lost power in Occidental cultures, to ideals such as democracy and human rights and logic-based decision-making. Its true nature (such as its obsession with trying to make its own believers' lives miserable) is what it did when it had theocratic power before that, when it didn't need to hide behind any disguises.

Islam, for example, is often defended based on some supposedly peaceful quotes from Mohammed or the Koran. But if they actually are/were peaceful and sane, then they're being ignored by the people who live where Islam is running the show and free to be itself. The way it acts when and where it's free to do what it wants shows it to be a religion of rabid psychotic bloodthirst. Another way people defend it is by pointing out that many people who call themselves Muslims live right here among us. But your brother's friendly nerdy accountant Mr. Khalid is actually following something else, not authentic Islam, because it differs radically from what's being followed in places where Islam doesn't have to contend with silly Western ideas (like pacifism and compassion).

I actually once caught myself making a similar bad call. Having read about the teachings of Buddha, I looked at Tibetan Buddhism's loud colorful festivals full of references to gods and spirits and superstitious practices to appease them or scare them away or whatever, and said at first "That's not real Buddhism! He didn't teach anything like that!" But if it's what the people actually do, then it IS the real thing. Words spoken by a dead guy nobody really listens to are nothing.

[cgallaga]

Upchurch I agree with you but think it can be taken down to the individual level. My mother has professed to be a devout Catholic her whole life. But there are a lot of official doctrines of her church hat she does not agree with. Like Hell, Like Homosexuality, Like Priests and Marriage, Like that the Pope is infallible, Like Transubstantiation. And yet if you ask her she will insists she is a devout Roman Catholic.

I think every religion is an individual creed, cobbled together from all life experience and only marginally founded on the teachings of anyone else. So if there are 6 Billion believers in the world then I think that equals 6 billions distinct religions, though they huddle under some of the same umbrella "churches" for convenience sake.

[Wides]

some people like Coke, some people like Pepsi. If you ask them why, they'll give you a dozen reasons. The same goes for religion. It comes from centuries of conflicting interests, and personal interpretation. They'll mold their belief structure to what suits them.

[Ethnikos]

I think every religion is an individual creed, cobbled together from all life experience and only marginally founded on the teachings of anyone else. So if there are 6 Billion believers in the world then I think that equals 6 billions distinct religions, though they huddle under some of the same umbrella "churches" for convenience sake.

I think some of the convenience has to do with a lot of religious people being rather judgmental and intolerant of differing religious views.
I joined the Bible Forum and noticed one of their rules was not posting blasphemy.
I had to wonder what that meant.
So, people will congregate with others who hold similar views to themselves in order to not be labeled a blasphemer.

[Upchurch]

Still, its interpretation broke into two distinct sects: The Sect of Individual Rights and The Sect of Collective Rights. There were also a bunch of different cults running around quoting 2A as justification for everything from bouncing checks in the name of producing their own currency, to killing government representatives.
Exactly so, hence my corollary above. Rather than living their lives according to their holy texts, they fit their holy texts to justify how they live their lives.

I would tentatively go so far as to call it an innately human trait.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agree.

[gumboot]

That depends on your definition of "religion".

[Brian-M]

What the religion's followers do when they are free to do it without other outside restrictions demonstrates the true nature of the religion. I don't care what's written in some ancient text if the people don't follow it. I don't care what the founder taught if the current generation of "followers" don't listen to him/her. The religion, like anything else, simply is what it does when it gets the chance.

So, you could define a religion as a loose collection of memes centered around a spiritual concept, and held in common (more or less) by a portion of the population who identify themselves with that concept? (I know, it's a clumsy way of putting it, but it's the best I can think of at the moment.)

For example, Christianity is a collection of memes centered around the teachings of the Bible, and not the teachings of the Bible itself.

And belief in Uri Geller's psychic powers is not a religion because:
a) While that portion of the population may share a set of common memes (ie. psychic powers exist), these memes are not based on or centeed around Geller's claims of psychic power, and...
b) They don't identify themselves with the concept of Uri Geller having psychic powers (eg, they don't refer to themselves as "Gellerists").

And following a sports team is not a religion because while a portion of the population might identify themselves with their team (eg, "'I'm a [myteam] fan"), they do not share a collection of common memes about the team.

Does this definition work for you?

[Kopji]

My view would be that 'religion' is defined in a way that is similar to how business customers define and change a product over time. Religion is a kind of business.

You may start with 'Jesus Classic', but over several thousand years the customers have changed, and so the product changes to reflect these new tastes or needs. Just because today's Jesus does not resemble the Classic, it is still the Jesus product line.

Islam is the same, but maybe some feel so strongly about 'Classic Islam' that they want to eliminate the new and improved versions. Extremist views do not mean that the same forces aren't at work though.

So I have trouble ascribing religion entirely to self description of followers. Religions are a business that leverage part of our physical nature or environment that we perceive as transcendent.

[Aitch]

Apparently, I was a bit surprised by this, in the UK it is defined by The Equality Act of 2006. This clarifies the law on religion or belief discrimination. It also changes the existing definition of religion and belief set out in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Mind you, IANAL so I could have missed something important; also, other acts my be relevant. Not to mention case law. :)

[Radrook]

From a non-godless perspective-may I dare to say that

What defines a God-given religion is its original form-not what came later due to human ulterior motives. In contrast, what defines a man-made religion is its present form.

[FireGarden]

(As a corollary, I assert that people fit their holy texts to their religion rather than fitting their religion to their holy texts.)

I agree that's the way it happens.



I think Kopji has a point when comparing religion to commercial products changing. Except the product is changed by the consumers, not the manufacturer.

[Upchurch]

I think Kopji has a point when comparing religion to commercial products changing. Except the product is changed by the consumers, not the manufacturer.
Maybe the Web 2.0 is not that novel after all. Perhaps we've had consumer derived content for centuries now.

From a non-godless perspective-may I dare to say that
Absolutely, but it doesn't mean we won't question you about it. ;)

What defines a God-given religion is its original form-not what came later due to human ulterior motives. In contrast, what defines a man-made religion is its present form.
But we are still humans. How do we know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?


[off-topic]
For that matter, how do we tell which religion(s) are God-given and which are man-made?
[/off-topic]

[Brian-M]

You may start with 'Jesus Classic', but over several thousand years the customers have changed, and so the product changes to reflect these new tastes or needs. Just because today's Jesus does not resemble the Classic, it is still the Jesus product line.

I love that idea. Makes me think of someone standing at a vending machine, trying to decide if they want 'Classic Jesus' or 'Vanilla Jesus', or if they should do the right thing and get 'Jesus Lite' instead. :)


From a non-godless perspective-may I dare to say that

What defines a God-given religion is its original form-not what came later due to human ulterior motives. In contrast, what defines a man-made religion is its present form.

By that logic, Christians should be regarded as advocating the death penalty for children who disobey or curse their parents, because both Moses and Jesus said so. Does this mean anybody who refuses to implement that scriptural law, isn't really a Christian at all?

[cgallaga]

What defines a God-given religion is its original form-not what came later due to human ulterior motives.

Ahhh but how do you know she is a witch it is god-given, without having some pesky subjective human decision that it is so?

If it is as simple as the sort of "she turned me into a newt...I got better" testament of other humans I am afraid you still have a "man-made" religion to at least some extent.

[Kopji]

More seriously, I used to think about this question a lot. As Radrook said, it is an important question - if you believe there was a genuine foundation of revelation, and that we (well men anyway) have mucked it up God's efforts over time.

[cynic = hi]
You could easily spend a lifetime looking into what might have gone wrong.
[cynic = med]

I don't know if this is helpful, but I tend to divide "RELIGION: The Business" from "Spirituality: the art form".

Spirituality has an innocent quality. It has many forms and sounds. We tend to think of it in supernatural terms but I think it is a very natural, evolved human quality that we can nurture if we choose to.

Religion as a business, even if worked at its best, highest sense - is like a kindly old man who loves cats, and rises early to feed the birds. He does not seem to ever notice that the cats feed well on the birds, and the cats always seem to come no matter how well intentioned his kindness. "Spirituality" is like those birds.

[Radrook]

But we are still humans. How do we know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?


[off-topic]
For that matter, how do we tell which religion(s) are God-given and which are man-made?
[/off-topic]

If we assume a religion to have been of devine origin than it is illogical to accept later contradictory modificationsbased on human whim as genuine. That's the point I'm trying to make.
For example-if Christianity required love of neighbor and I teach hatred instead, obviously I am deviating from the original concept and do not have an acceptable basis to call what I am teaching Christianity. Neither would the acceptance of such a deviation by millions make it so.

[Smackety]

If we assume a religion to have been of devine origin than it is illogical to accept later contradictory modificationsbased on human whim as genuine. That's the point I'm trying to make.
For example-if Christianity required love of neighbor and I teach hatred instead, obviously I am deviating from the original concept and do not have an acceptable basis to call what I am teaching Christianity. Neither would the acceptance of such a deviation by millions make it so.

If you assume a religion to have been of devine origin than you are illogical regardless of what else you accept. Logic is not the mechanism through which man finds faith in God!

Upchurch: I totally agree. Religions are constantly changing and have fuzzy boundaries, we can only define them through generalizations. What a religion used to be, is supposed to be, or could be, while important, does not change what it actually is.

[Mark Felt]

words

You didn't answer his question(s).

[Smackety]

You didn't answer his question(s).

As if! That would be the day :D

[MrSangMang]

Anything calling itself a religion, which pre-dates L. Ron Hubbard getting an electric typewriter, and still exists today. I'd be somewhat comfortable with that definition.

I think religion is a rather hard thing to define without a context.

If the goal is to call science, belief in evolution :jaw-dropp, or something else a religion in order to confuse the argument.. then I don't think it much matters what you would define it as. ;)

All Praise Science!

[FireGarden]

If we assume a religion to have been of devine origin than it is illogical to accept later contradictory modificationsbased on human whim as genuine. That's the point I'm trying to make.

But the point everyone else is making is: "how do you decide what is original and what is a modification?"

And why should you limit your worries to condradictory modifications. What about an addition which contradicts nothing?

[Upchurch]

If we assume a religion to have been of devine origin than it is illogical to accept later contradictory modifications based on human whim as genuine. That's the point I'm trying to make.
That would surely be reasonable if religions kept a change log. Using the Christianity example, it's been 2 to 3 to 6 thousand years or more (depending on which divine revelation you choose to use) since the religion was "God-given". This allows plenty of time for us to muddle it up.

The question still remains: How do we mere mortals know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?

(BTW, I don't expect you to have an answer. Short of divine intervention, there is no way for us to know.)


For example-if Christianity required love of neighbor and I teach hatred instead, obviously I am deviating from the original concept and do not have an acceptable basis to call what I am teaching Christianity.
But the concept of "just war" has been a part of Christianity since Augustine. I doubt you'll find a Christian today who will not defend himself when attacked, physically or verbally.

Except the Amish, maybe. That is one amazing group of people once you get to know them.

[Dymanic]

If the Bible were the definitive authority for what is or is not Christianity, there would not be different sects of Christianity.Put another way: if there had not been different sects, establishing one text as the definitive authority would have been a piece of cake. But there were, and it wasn't. It's not that the teachings started out pure and were modified later; right from the beginning, there were deep divisions over important questions such as the nature of Jesus and his relationship to the Father.

How do you know what belongs in the Bible? The test is: is it "inspired"? How do you know what is inspired? Where the New Testament is concerned, that call was made by a bunch of Bishops at a series of Ecumenical councils beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. At that time, "the bible" existed only as a loosely connected set of writings, and "Christianity" existed as a loosely connected set of beliefs.

You could assume that, like the original authors, these Bishops were also inspired -- but they couldn't all have been inspired, because (like the various texts and beliefs they were trying to unify) they didn't always agree (and they weren't just quibbling over nuances, either). If they were making reasoned judgements, how would they have done that? By examining the content of each text in question to determine whether it is consistent with certain essential teachings. As the authoritative basis for that, each of them would naturally have wanted to use the teachings and the texts HE favored, but they didn't all favor the same teachings or use the same texts; that was the whole problem. So what they did was put it to a vote. The Trinitists won. The teachings of the chief opponent, Arius, were denounced as heresy, his books were burned, and he was exiled.

Ask any "Christian" about this, and he will most likely be able to tell you...

...absolutely nothing about any of it.

[Upchurch]

Where the New Testament is concerned, that call was made by a bunch of Bishops at a series of Ecumenical councils beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

{snip}

You could assume that, like the original authors, these Bishops were also inspired -- but they couldn't all have been inspired, because (like the various texts and beliefs they were trying to unify) they didn't always agree (and they weren't just quibbling over nuances, either).
I like to call this "Holy Scripture By Committee".

It's much less funny if you've ever worked on a committee.

[Radrook]

That would surely be reasonable if religions kept a change log. Using the Christianity example, it's been 2 to 3 to 6 thousand years or more (depending on which divine revelation you choose to use) since the religion was "God-given". This allows plenty of time for us to muddle it up.

Which is totally irrelevant to whether it has been or hasn't been muddled up.

The question still remains: How do we mere mortals know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?

Immortality isn't a requirement to acquire accurate knowledge. Neither is your doubt in the accuracy of the scriptures universally shared.

(BTW, I don't expect you to have an answer. Short of divine intervention, there is no way for us to know.)

In certain individual cases that might be true.


But the concept of "just war" has been a part of Christianity since Augustine. I doubt you'll find a Christian today who will not defend himself when attacked, physically or verbally.
Except the Amish, maybe. That is one amazing group of people once you get to know them.


Jesus told Christians not to be part of this world and first century Christians understood that to be neutrality in wordily affairs. Actually, prior to Constantine Christians were persecuted because they refused to offer incense to the emperor and take part in the worlds military and political conflicts. So what you are referring to is the apostasy which has absolutely NOTHING to do with original first century Christianity and much less with Christ himself.


BTW
I accross the street from an Amish Farmer's Market.

[Upchurch]

Which is totally irrelevant to whether it has been or hasn't been muddled up.
Sorry, I don't understand. What is irrelevant to whether religion has been muddled up?

Immortality isn't a requirement to acquire accurate knowledge. Neither is your doubt in the accuracy of the scriptures universally shared.
It doesn't have to be universally shared. All that matters is discrepancies in human understanding of a set of scriptures. (I know you are speaking specifically about the Bible, but it could be true of any religious text.)

In certain individual cases that might be true.
It may or may not have been true in individual cases, but without the ability to peer inside someone's head we have no way to determine whether or not they have genuinely had a divine intervention or if they just think they have.

So what you are referring to is the apostasy which has absolutely NOTHING to do with original first century Christianity and much less with Christ himself.
So you say based on your understanding of the relevant texts. Others say differently based on their understanding of the relevant texts. Which one is correct and how would you determine that?

[Brian-M]

The question still remains: How do we mere mortals know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?

Immortality isn't a requirement to acquire accurate knowledge. Neither is your doubt in the accuracy of the scriptures universally shared.

You seem to be missing the point of his question. Let me rephrase it for him...

How do we mere mortals know which form of the God-given religion is its original form?

Can you answer this, please?

[Upchurch]

You seem to be missing the point of his question. Let me rephrase it for him...
Oooh. Sorry.

Damn me and my flowery language. I'll try to keep it more concise in the future.

[blobru]

... Anyone disagree?


Let me try... 'disagree' for 200, Upchurch. :D

I think religions are all of what you list: syncretic "onions" of founder, text, belief, institution, ritual, and community. A sketchy definition:

At the core of a religion is its founder. That doesn't change. It's also worth noting that every religion considers its founder/leader a "perfect" exemplar: either godlike or god. Ideally, followers of a religion agree that the exemplar is infallible and look to his/her words and deeds for inspiration.

The next layer is the transmission of the exemplar's words and deeds. These may be from the exemplar directly, or passed on secondhand. Any direct records of the exemplar are guaranteed sacred; less direct records are sacred if subsequent leader(s) agree to their authenticity, or orthodoxy.

Any confidantes of the exemplar take on special status. Successors who inherit that status will use it to sort out doctrinal matters, as authority figures in lieu of the exemplar. This is the institution of the religion.

From the words and deeds of the exemplar come the rituals of the religion. Rituals are a metaphorical imitation of the exemplar, conceived as a way to share in and gain strength from her/his perfection. Ritual practices also reinforce orthodoxy and belief.

Next up are the words and deeds of exemplary predecessors, peers, or followers of the exemplar. Once elevated to exemplary status by popular avowal and authority consent, their records are added to the religion's canon: second only to the founding exemplar's.

Then are the followers' interpretations and understanding. These of course tend to change over time, as the followers' concerns change with society. (If enough followers believe a certain text or reading of a text or ritual, practice, conduct, or exemplary follower or current leadership is not valued enough or too much or just plain wrong, the religion schisms.)

Finally, is the followers' conduct. This may be based on extensive "knowledge" of the inner layers, or superficial familiarity; strict adherence and devotion to tradition, or pragmatic negligence of all but convenient and useful aspects. And here again, followers' interpretations of what is convenient and useful, and/or what is tradition, will vary with the person.

Some argue, as you do in the OP, it's this outermost layer that defines the religion, that the way the most sensible or sensitive or radical followers behave is all that matters; others, that a religion is defined by its core, by its founding beliefs, by its exemplar. I think the whole onion should up for grabs when one discusses religion -- as long as one is careful to distinguish which layer is being peeled away for discussion (minimizes the inevitable tears). :cry1

[Ron_Tomkins]

What defines a religion?

* Arguments from Authority
* Either-Or Fallacies