Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <5220@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 15:54:44 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5220
Posted: Tue Mar 12 15:54:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 15:54:44 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <5135@utzoo.UUCP>, <617@pyuxd.UUCP> <5176@utzoo.UUCP>, <641@pyuxd.UUCP> <5199@utzooRe: Response to Laura - whatTue, 12-Mar-85 15:54:44 EST
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 105

Rich, your definition changed. Last week you said that all religions
have a belief in a creating deity which is external to the world. This
week we have:

	a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" or non-physical
	entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate
	controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that
	will.

This is not the same thing. Indeed, a lot of Christians would not buy
this definition of their God, since they don't think that God
``controls'' anything.

[this assumes that ``controlling'' binds to ``power''. If it binds to
``ultimate'' instead, and the or is an xor, then thI think that all
Christians would admit that this describes their Deity.]


On the other hand, I am quite happy to profess a belief in willed,
non-physical, supernatural entities. Not all members of other religions
would agree with me, though.

What I am trying to do is to get you to admit that your definition of
religion excludes a good many things which are already known to be
religions. I don't find your definitions any more congenial than those
of the Ba'hai -- they claim religious eclecticism while firmly
insisting on monotheism, and you are insistant upon theism.

There are words for what you have defined which are in common usuage.
Theism corresponds to your definition of today, and Judeao-Christian
corresponds to your definition of last week (though what you are
describing may be a larger set that happens to include Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.)

I am sorry that your exposure has been limited to people who either do
not know of eastern religions, or are so misconceived about them that
they might lead you to believe that your definition of religion is
anything like that used by the world at large. However, there is
nothing that I can do about it -- except to suggest that if you go
about telling every potential Buddhist that you meet that Buddhism is
not a religion, it is small wonder that they do not seek you out to
clean up your misconceptions.

Buddhism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. There are lots more
pagan religions. If you want a word which only gives you those
religions which believe in a creator-deity, the word
``Judeao-Christian'' is often appropriate, and the phrase ``Western
religion'' is perhaps moreso, and is more inclusive. The belief in a
creator-god can be traced through all cultures which have had contact
with the metaphysics of Aristotle, so it may be that it is the
mataphysics of Aristotle that you are actually interested in, or
perhaps how that influenced the development of religion.

If I had decided to continue studies in the philosophy of religion I
would have gone for a Masters on that very subject -- it is very
interesting.

	If you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with
	me.  I'm not debating the merits or non-merits of such systems
	(at this time).

Horrors. I recall Christians who were discussing the various
differences between one sect of Protestantism and another react the
very same way to you plowing in and arguing about Christianity. This is
what I want to argue about, so I guess that you are stuck with it this
time.

	Can't you please stick to the topic?  Go back three or four
	iterations and witness the numerous points in my earlier
	articles that have gone unanswered because of this straying
	from the original topic!!!

Ah, but Rich, I *am* on topic. This began with your ``logic based on
different assumptions'' article. I am working very heavily on one of
your assumptions - that Eastern religions, and pagan religions
generally, are not religions. This faulty assumption influences your
logic to a very great degree -- indeed, it makes you prefer to think
that I am avoiding the argument rather that meeting it head on. *your*
*concept* *of* *religion* *has* *no* *room* *in* *it* *for* *my*
*religion*. This shows how very attatched you are to your false concept
of religion -- you would rather believe that your interpretation of the
definition of a general purpose dictionary is correct rahter than ask
any religion, philosophy of religion, or theology student or
professor. I suspect that if you did a house to house poll, even in New
Jersey you will find that most people think that Buddhism is a religion
and that Hinduism is a religion.

But you *still* cling to your concept. I it almost amusing that
clinging to his concept of God is what you are accusing Paul Dubuc of.
Again, I say, that both you and the Christians have missed the whole
thing by confusing your concepts with reality. If you do not understand
what I mean by this, consider -- if Buddhism and Hinduism are
religions, then you have confused your concept of religion with what a
religion is, and are so confused you *still* defend your belief.

	Your avoidance of the original questions almost made me think
	that maybe you had converted to ...  (No, I won't say it.)

If you think that, then you have imposed *another* concept of my
behaviour upon my behaviour. But I am trying to get away from that.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura