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