Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm always interested in your views as they tend to look at things from another prospective. There are several issues here; What do you define as being "religious"? What is the relevance of a god(s) when defining ones "religioness"? What part do/should organise religions (churches) play in all this?

Something of interest, what Buddha had to say about the existence of god, I'll post it again, and I would like you to comment, its interesting to me.

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

Religion is hard to define. The root of the word is the Latin word, religio, which means ‘I bind’, and religions bind people together. Religions may be connected with a god, many gods or no god. There are examples of all three cases. People tend to think of religion in terms of the religion they are most familiar with. Looking up ‘definition of religion’ on the net I find “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” That definition does not encompass most of Buddhism, humanistic Judaism, Unitarianism, animism, polytheistic religions or many other forms of religion. I regard Scientology as a scam. However, in some jurisdictions it is recognized as a religion. In the end we can only define religion by usage. A form of social connection which a number of people agree can be called a religion is a religion.

I have a sense of wonder that there is anything here at all, at the beauties of physics and mathematics, at the beauties of life and matter in its manifold forms, of artistic creations and social organizations of humans and other life form. Religion is one of these forms of social organization that I look at with wonder. However, I do not identify with any religion and do not feel it is necessary.

Dear David f

I deliberately selected influential theologians from different periods and intellectual traditions to illustrate that OzSpen’s views are not representative of a good deal of modern theology. In fact, about the only thing these scholars would agree on is that a literal historical reading of the bible is inadequate.

For context, I’d rate Schleiermacher as the most influential c19 theologian. He was the founder of modern liberal theology and his most influential work - On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers – was addressed to people very like yourself who rejected religion for its contradictions and apparent absurdities.

Barth was undoubtably the giant of c20 theology. Initially a liberal and follower of Schleiermacher’s school, he rejected theological liberalism when he saw many liberal theologians embrace German nationalism during WW1, and became liberalism’s most effective critic. He founded what became known as the neo-orthodox school. OLO columnist Peter Sellick is a great admirer of Barth, and his writing reflects that.

Thomas Merton was a Roman Catholic monk with an intense and gentle spirituality that speaks to all Christian denominations and beyond. He was influenced by Buddhism (I suspect Yuyutsu would enjoy his writings).

John Dominic Crossan is a controversial scholar of Jesus’ life and times and was a leading figure in the Jesus Seminar. He and his school think that very little of the Gospels reflect what Jesus actually said and did.

If you want a single coherent overview of non-literalism I’d recommend Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible Again For the First Time. Borg was a well-respected professor but I find his writing clear and approachable.

https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Again-First-Time/dp/006060919

Dear Paul,

«What do you define as being "religious"?»

In the most general terms, anything which brings one closer to God.

However, while the drive towards God applies to all creation, it's not too practical to describe a butterfly as religious, so we usually reserve this attribute to the conscious choices of people, any choices that result in them coming closer to God.

For example, eating a banana could be a religious act for those who are weak and hungry, because we need a strong body to worship God and it is quite difficult to think of God or pray when one is weak, sick or dead. Yet for a person whose stomach is already full, that same act of eating a banana would make them tired and sleepy, thus not inclined to think of God, so for them eating a banana would not be a religious act.

«What is the relevance of a god(s) when defining ones "religioness"?»

Believing in and worshiping god(s) can be used by many people as a very effective religious technique. It helps them to focus and purify their minds and hearts, and pure minds and hearts are extremely important when approaching God.

But again, if a belief in god(s) causes one to harm others, as can happen, then their heart and mind would become even more dirty and set them further apart from God. In such situations, it's best they never came to such beliefs.

«What part do/should organise religions (churches) play in all this?»

1) Educational. To teach devotees and their children about God and how best to approach Him(/Her/It).
2) Encourage good company, so that devotees can support each other, discuss God together and avoid as much as possible the counter-religious influence of others who are not interested in God.
3) Provide a safe and relatively distraction-free environment for devotees to turn their attention towards God, such as in prayer, songs and meditation.
4) Provide opportunities for selfless service to others, because it helps to purify one's heart, making it more ready for God.

Your video about Buddha is no longer available.