Defining Religion

[ZNPaaneah]

We have a thread defining the word of God. It seems important to also define religion, another very nebulous term.

I would suggest the following definition:

a. A system devised by man for a species that is not eusocial by nature to live in a way that is eusocial.

b. A system that is the result of sinful and fleshly man trying to live according to the laws of God.

[Cal]

I would say religion is attempting to serve God but without God.

[ZNPaaneah]

We have seen multiple examples of racism, bias, and a variety of behaviors that are perfectly acceptable in a tribe of primates, yet people today have come to realize they are not OK. Why is that?

I think it is the function of religion to teach us it is not OK because we live in societies of millions. That is something completely foreign to a primate.

This is why I think the definition pushed by WL is inadequate. There are many people who are offended by this behavior but it is not out of some attempt to serve God, they may not even believe there is a God.

If you take WL's definition then religion does not really serve any purpose, at best it is a failed attempt to serve God. Yet religion has been critical to the development of society. Some societies tried to outlaw religion, but that was a total failure. Therefore what purpose does it serve?

According to the theory of evolution it is a matter of "survival of the fittest". How does religion survive if it isn't fit, and if it is fit what niche does it fill? What function does it perform?

[Ohio]

Defining religion is like defining culture, endless nuance is necessary. Religion is a neutral term, positive for one, yet negative for another, all based on personal and cultural perspective. Religion can be kind and loving for some, or it can be brutal and dangerous for others. Jesus cut thru the mess, and said to love. Love God and love your neighbor.

Lee taught "Christ vs. Religion," and hence every LCer I know hates religion, yet what they live is a religion, yet I'm not saying that their life is bad. In his epistle James basically defines religion as good works. Each religion has its own commonalities. Outsiders comparing Catholic mass and LC Table meeting would say they are basically the same religion. Insiders would protest, saying nothing compares. Both are right.

Jesus, however, did not condemn "religion." At times He even positively portrayed Judaism. He did, however, oppose hypocrisy, deception, unbelief, corruption, etc. He exposed the evil of the heart, while dismissing nearly all externalities, eg. He exposed the hypocrisy of washing hands while having an uncleansed heart.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would say religion is attempting to serve God but without God.

I no longer find this easy to accept. How can I know someone's heart? What if I am loving or serving someone, yet I am not "in Christ?" How can I know when others serve God without God, when I am not even sure about myself? Lee basically used this definition to condemn all outside the LC. That definitely gave me a judgmental heart.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think we make a mistake when we include God in our definition of religion. The Bible only uses this term 5 times and it is clear that they either refer to Judaism as "their religion" or being a pharisee as a "sect of our religion". James gives the definition of religion and it has no reference to God or serving God. He also says that if you don't bridle your tongue your religion is vane. In Acts Paul tells the Pagans that he detects they are religious in all things. From this it seems to me that the term "religion" refers to everything that a particular society believes in. That may not be one God (pantheism) or even a God at all (Buddhism). Yet every society has a religion and often they are very religious (governed by these beliefs).

So I would define religion as a set of beliefs that governs a society.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I no longer find this easy to accept. How can I know someone's heart? What if I am loving or serving someone, yet I am not "in Christ?" How can I know when others serve God without God, when I am not even sure about myself? Lee basically used this definition to condemn all outside the LC. That definitely gave me a judgmental heart.

I didn't mean is as a way to judge what is religion in others. I meant it as a way to understand what it is in principle, specifically in ourselves. Religion is the opposite of grace, it's living according to a law.

How do you apply the principle? Just stick close to Christ. You don't have to be obsessive about it. But if your service is getting rote and tedious, it could be that you have slipped into serving by your own power. This is a rule of thumb, the point is not to be clear about every single moment, but just to have the right general approach.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't mean is as a way to judge what is religion in others. I meant it as a way to understand what it is in principle, specifically in ourselves. Religion is the opposite of grace, it's living according to a law.

Yes, but it is the royal law to love others as you love yourself. That is religion in its purest form.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would say religion is attempting to serve God but without God.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but it is the royal law to love others as you love yourself. That is religion in its purest form.

I'm somewhere in between these two, perhaps drawing from the best parts of each. Can we really love and serve others without God? Will He not be pleased when we endeavor to love our enemies?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm somewhere in between these two, perhaps drawing from the best parts of each. Can we really love and serve others without God? Will He not be pleased when we endeavor to love our enemies?

What do you do about the societies that don't believe in God. Is Buddhism a religion? How about Taoism? What about Confucianism?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What do you do about the societies that don't believe in God. Is Buddhism a religion? How about Taoism? What about Confucianism?

What can I do about these societies?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What can I do about these societies?

My understanding is that every society has a religion but they don't all have one God. I think it is critical for society to have religion because that is how we learn to live in a society. On the other hand the very sparse references to religion in the Bible do not seem to include any reference to God.

They do refer to Judaism as "their religion" but Judaism is also where the Jews are taught how to live in their society.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My understanding is that every society has a religion but they don't all have one God. I think it is critical for society to have religion because that is how we learn to live in a society. On the other hand the very sparse references to religion in the Bible do not seem to include any reference to God.

They do refer to Judaism as "their religion" but Judaism is also where the Jews are taught how to live in their society.

There's enough religion in the world for people to hate each other, but not enough for them to love each other.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have a thread defining the word of God. It seems important to also define religion, another very nebulous term.

I would suggest the following definition:

a. A system devised by man for a species that is not eusocial by nature to live in a way that is eusocial.

b. A system that is the result of sinful and fleshly man trying to live according to the laws of God.

Do you mean religion from a Christian perspective, as mentioned in the Bible? Or religion from the perspective of mankind in general?

If mankind in general, I would say something like "religion is a set of beliefs and practices that provide principles by which to live and conduct yourself toward others, a way to connect to a spiritual realm, and an explanation as to the purpose or meaning of life."

If from a Christian perspective or as referred to in the Bible, ignore my post and carry on.

P.S. after I wrote my definition, I looked up the definition. Wikipedia says there are about 10,000 distinct religions worldwide - wow! It also claims there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. That is really something if you think about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Do you mean religion from a Christian perspective, as mentioned in the Bible? Or religion from the perspective of mankind in general?

If mankind in general, I would say something like "religion is a set of beliefs and practices that provide principles by which to live and conduct yourself toward others, a way to connect to a spiritual realm, and an explanation as to the purpose or meaning of life."

If from a Christian perspective or as referred to in the Bible, ignore my post and carry on.

P.S. after I wrote my definition, I looked up the definition. Wikipedia says there are about 10,000 distinct religions worldwide - wow! It also claims there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. That is really something if you think about it.

I think that your definition is quite close to what I view. I find it very strange that there is no consensus on the definition. One reason could be James word about "pure religion". This implies there are many versions that are not "pure".

Imagine if you wanted a different definition for water depending on the minerals that are dissolved in it. You would have a different version of water for every locale on earth. But when boiled down to its' purest form it can be defined as two hydrogen atoms bound to a single oxygen atom. Even though we know there is no such thing (water always has minute amounts of hydronium, hydroxide, etc.)

Likewise, if we boil religion down to its fundamental components "religion is a set of beliefs and practices that provide principles by which to live and conduct yourself toward others". Not all include a spiritual realm and perhaps not all rise to the level of the purpose of man.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think that your definition is quite close to what I view. I find it very strange that there is no consensus on the definition. One reason could be James word about "pure religion". This implies there are many versions that are not "pure".

Imagine if you wanted a different definition for water depending on the minerals that are dissolved in it. You would have a different version of water for every locale on earth. But when boiled down to its' purest form it can be defined as two hydrogen atoms bound to a single oxygen atom. Even though we know there is no such thing (water always has minute amounts of hydronium, hydroxide, etc.)

Likewise, if we boil religion down to its fundamental components "religion is a set of beliefs and practices that provide principles by which to live and conduct yourself toward others". Not all include a spiritual realm and perhaps not all rise to the level of the purpose of man.

Religion, as commonly understood, that people have a belief in God and have activities, practices, etc that will connect them with God in some fashion. There are various levels to this. Some cultures want "to stay on His good side" so they can have a good harvest, for example, and other things for a pleasant life on earth. Some others want to have mystical experiences with God.
As has been pointed out, religion can be to have a belief system, such as Buddhism and Leftism.

For years, I limited the definition of religion to Lee, that of worshipping or doing things for God without Christ. Yet James mentions pure religion which he says is before God, to care for widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. So according to James, pure religion does have a place in our interaction with God.

Yet we were taught that we were not like degraded Christianity with all its dead works, but whatever we do can be living if we touch our spirit, and so forth.

As one who through the redemption of Christ, is reconciled to God, I will do activities such as prayer, confession to Him, calling on Jesus' name, and so forth in order to connect and commune with Him. Some times, this may include following His direction to do something. Could this be my religion, but hopefully, in a pure sense?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Yet we were taught that we were not like degraded Christianity with all its dead works, but whatever we do can be living if we touch our spirit, and so forth.

Interesting that the Bible talks about faith without works is dead and WL instead talks about dead works. That was taken from Revelation:
“I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead."

Interestingly the Lord refers to the works of each of these seven churches saying "I know thy works" so it is clear that "dead works" if that is a valid interpretation, is a symptom and not a cause.

Rather "And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations" keeping the Lord's works until the end is a condition for us to rule over the nations.

Also, the work that Abraham did that James is referring to is offering up His son. That was the work that proved his faith was living. When WL was faced with the same dilemma (the discipline of WN for adultery) he balked and instead manufactured a phony baloney keystone cops narrative for the elders in Shanghai. That proved WL's faith was dead.