Defining "Religion"

[Erebos]

I found this video, which I thought was really interesting. Professor Goldenberg is a scholar of religion who got her PhD from Yale University and now teaches at the University of Ottawa in Canada specializing in women in religion. She talks about "religion" in India, saying there are no "native religions" there, which seems like a strange statement at first, but as the video goes on, she discusses how the word "religion" is not appropriate for these traditions, as Christianity informs our sense of what religion is and how it is structured. It's particularly interesting when she talks about Greece and Rome, and applying the word "religion" in the modern Christian sense, to ancient indigenous worship, which was woven into the culture. I also really like when she talks about breaking down these limiting categories of what religions are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2XObD1AkY

[David19]

Interesting video, thanks for posting it :).

I guess, in one sense, it's true that ancient cultures didn't have a word for religion, and it was involved in every part of life, but, in another sense, I'd say that a religion can either involve the worship of a God, or Gods, bringing the community together (e.g. in ancient Hellas, and Rome, it was a sacrifice, where the meat would be shared, in Christianity, it's Church, etc), usually providing a sense of ethics and also of identity.

So, in a sense, Hinduism, Hellenismos, Asatru, Religio Romana, etc are religions. Although, saying that, I'm not a member of any of those religions, so, it'd be interesting to see what others think.

Also, in another sense, it's alot easier to say "my religion is Hellenismos", than "I'm part of the cultural identity of Ancient Greece, who worship the Olympians, but, saw no distinction between religion and everyday life"!.

Interesting post too :).

[IanCorrigan]

...She talks about "religion" in India, saying there are no "native religions" there, which seems like a strange statement at first, but as the video goes on, she discusses how the word "religion" is not appropriate for these traditions, ...


I think this is a pretty pointless direction for thinking about the human effort to build relationship with the divine.
It's certainly true that in the tribal world 'religion' was identical with 'culture', and there was little opportunity for those with limited interaction with other cultures to plainly define their ways. However, as far as I know the term religion was invented by Pagan Romans, not by any Christian thinker, and was used by pre-Christian thinkers to refer to the rituals and practices that maintained the bonds between mortals and the divine.
Perhaps this is because the Romans developed a more cosmopolitan society, in which various systems of practice competed for adherents, thus making it necessary to have a term for the thing.
I think moderns (even including modern people in traditional societies in India) are in that same boat. We are almost all aware that there are other people who have ideas and practices very different from our own, and that we have a choice of which of them we practice. If there are cultures in which practices for divine relationship are as unexamined as what kind of clothes to wear, I suspect they won't last long, and I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.
I hope we're moving past the place where people can live and die in a system without realizing that they are free to simply leave their parents' ways, leave the village, leave the morality of their grandparents, and take up some other way of life. In a situation like that we need vocabularies for 'wearing pants' as well as for 'wearing kilts', and we need vocabularies for competing ideologies and religious systems as well.

[The Black Elf]

Religion = slavery

India has some of the most authentic & intact religious systems available in the Hindu system everyone parachutes into.

Does she want to dumb down these peoples views & self sovereignty so as they can more easily be controlled?

The caste system sucks & treatment of women is deplorable(lack of opportunity,want & persecution).

Some of the ancient Hindu Temples record amazing events,the Hindu alligns very well with pre-sect-arian Buddhism which is not exclusively Tibetan.

Indian religion deity & the satani's are perfectly authentic,just these guys have never bothered going down the *empire* route.Later Mediterranean empire's & dynasties such as the Egyptian,Hebrew,Greek & Roman are all cheap copies of the Hindu deities/system.

Christian adopted Hebrew Angel & archangel pantheon which mirror's Roman Deity(as amended) & Greek Pantheon as well as Germanic Nordic Celtic Pantheon,hence the *immediate acceptance* of the new religion(christianity)

[Erebos]

I think this is a pretty pointless direction for thinking about the human effort to build relationship with the divine.
It's certainly true that in the tribal world 'religion' was identical with 'culture', and there was little opportunity for those with limited interaction with other cultures to plainly define their ways. However, as far as I know the term religion was invented by Pagan Romans, not by any Christian thinker, and was used by pre-Christian thinkers to refer to the rituals and practices that maintained the bonds between mortals and the divine.
Perhaps this is because the Romans developed a more cosmopolitan society, in which various systems of practice competed for adherents, thus making it necessary to have a term for the thing.
I think moderns (even including modern people in traditional societies in India) are in that same boat. We are almost all aware that there are other people who have ideas and practices very different from our own, and that we have a choice of which of them we practice. If there are cultures in which practices for divine relationship are as unexamined as what kind of clothes to wear, I suspect they won't last long, and I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.
I hope we're moving past the place where people can live and die in a system without realizing that they are free to simply leave their parents' ways, leave the village, leave the morality of their grandparents, and take up some other way of life. In a situation like that we need vocabularies for 'wearing pants' as well as for 'wearing kilts', and we need vocabularies for competing ideologies and religious systems as well.

It's not a question of building a relationship with the divine, as this comes from academic discussion, which does not presume the existence of God(s), but studies the phenomenon of religion itself and the development of these traditions and what in society causes them to form.

"Religion" is not appropriate term for non-Christian traditions because it implies a degree of uniformity in belief and practice, and is a separate identity than one's culture or ethnic heritage (which is not the case for Jews, for example). Hinduism varies greatly depending on the region, and some rituals and customs are unique to certain localities. I'm sure many people already know, "Hinduism" was a label given to the indigenous religious traditions of India by the Christian British, and Indians themselves did not define themselves this way.

Then you have ancient traditions, which had a lot in common with Hinduism in terms of being made up of local indigenous traditions rather than a universal body of beliefs and practices shared by all. Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians wouldn't have defined themselves in terms of religion and wouldn't have recognized themselves as practicing a different "religion", as they often equated foreign gods with their own (Greeks saw Hathor as being Aphrodite, and Egyptians saw the Phonecian Astarte as being Hathor, giving Hathor the title of "Lady of Byblos", as Astarte was the patron goddess of that city). Modern distinctions of "religions" based on Christian definitions don't really apply to most non-Christian traditions, especially indigenous ones.

Also, the term Roman term "religio" is the predecessor for our word "religion", but it doesn't mean exactly the same thing. It refers more to piety and conscientious behavior, in contrast to "superstitio", which is similar to our word, "superstition", but stronger and more serious, referring to ideas commonly thought to be false and dangerous to society.

[David19]

It's not a question of building a relationship with the divine, as this comes from academic discussion, which does not presume the existence of God(s), but studies the phenomenon of religion itself and the development of these traditions and what in society causes them to form.

"Religion" is not appropriate term for non-Christian traditions because it implies a degree of uniformity in belief and practice, and is a separate identity than one's culture or ethnic heritage (which is not the case for Jews, for example). Hinduism varies greatly depending on the region, and some rituals and customs are unique to certain localities. I'm sure many people already know, "Hinduism" was a label given to the indigenous religious traditions of India by the Christian British, and Indians themselves did not define themselves this way.

Then you have ancient traditions, which had a lot in common with Hinduism in terms of being made up of local indigenous traditions rather than a universal body of beliefs and practices shared by all. Ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians wouldn't have defined themselves in terms of religion and wouldn't have recognized themselves as practicing a different "religion", as they often equated foreign gods with their own (Greeks saw Hathor as being Aphrodite, and Egyptians saw the Phonecian Astarte as being Hathor, giving Hathor the title of "Lady of Byblos", as Astarte was the patron goddess of that city). Modern distinctions of "religions" based on Christian definitions don't really apply to most non-Christian traditions, especially indigenous ones.

This is kind of OT, but, I've recently learnt that equating a God with another wasn't always the norm, and among Platonists, it wasn't believed that "Zeus = YHWH = Jupiter = whoever" or "Aphrodite = Inanna = Hathor", but, what could describe their believes was something called Polycentric Polytheism, each God was distinct and individual, that the Gods could be all in all (like, if you worshipped Zeus, you could experience all the Gods in him, or Isis would have all the Gods in her, etc).

If you want to learn more, definitely check out the work by Edward Butler (http://henadology.wordpress.com/), especially his article 'Polycentric Polytheism and the Philosophy of Religion' (it's on the Theology section of his site), and you can download his dissertation in the Philosophy section (that said, I'm still trying to work through it, as it's not easy-going, but, he is really helpful, if you email him).

[pLeOaVcE]

the word religion in my opinion is just ridiculous, i don't use it unless that's what other people refer to their belief system as because i see it as just another idea that someone had at some point in time to de-unify humanity, i know it sounds dramatic but one of the biggest issues in the world is religion. sometimes you cant date people because of their religion, parents prohibit, you were raised not too, um, people kill each other because of god, i personally don't believe in god. if i go to some countries id be killed on the spot for that one reason, religions huge. it affects our way of thinking, our way of being, our very freedom. religions just an idea someone had, a fictional word- something passed around and got altered like a rumor because someone didn't like the story being told.

[The Black Elf]

the OP seem' to lay the foundation's for a *desmond war* divide & conquer type classic scenario,as used throughout the aeons & ages by empire builders manipilation of media etc.

As I am spiritually aware,any (man made)religious label I tag on to my spirituality is fractual.

Can give you some fine examples of the Desmond Wars.Basically you have 2 manufactured *warring factions* in one country,where the *people* would really wish that the both of them would depart until everyone get's sucked in unless they are cool enough to keep their eye upon the cosmic pendulum & wait for this to swing into their favour.

Mumbai bombers(manufactured label muslim) actions failed as Indians & pakistani are generally cool,what we need is christians in to be persecuted terrorised then freak.

If I was to be Semantic,Goldenburg sounds jewish for the purposes of *escalation* :)