Dear Nathan,

David F. is correct in saying that "Yuyutsu and I don't agree on what can be called a religion".

The reason for that is that I claim that being a religion requires certain qualifications and David seems to believe that none are needed.

Suppose someone throws on your plate some dog morsel with an old rotten banana and therefore claims to be a chef, then I would dispute that title - but someone else could still disagree with me and agree with that self-claimed "chef" that just the fact they prepared a dish for you does make them a chef.

Not anyone who mentions the word 'food' is a chef, nor anyone who mentions the word 'God' knows what they speak about, let alone has any will or skill to lead people towards God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You distort my words. I don't claim there are no qualifications for stating what is a religion. My classifications are different from yours. In a previous post you claim that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not religions. Most people would see them as religions. You don't. There is no reason that anybody should accept your idiosyncratic definitions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religions vary very much. Theistic, non-theistic, ancient, recent, hierarchical, communal etc. They vary so widely that it is difficult to define them. However, there is one common criterion. A religion is what most people think of as a religion. Somehow, you don't define Judaism, Christianity and Islam as religions. You're entitled to your own definition. However, that would limit your discussion of religion to those who would agree with your definition. Would you care to make explicit your definition of a religion rather than make metaphors which attack me?

Hi Yuyutsu,

A fair question is to ask you to name those organised groups you consider to be religions? If its not, maybe, Buddhism, Taoism etc etc.

Dear David F.,

«In a previous post you claim that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not religions. Most people would see them as religions. You don't.»

Most people also see certain industrial poisonous junk as "food".
It may provide calories and taste, but does not nourish anyone in the true sense of the word.

Now I am not saying that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are as bad and never nourish the soul because there still are individuals who are able to digest what they provide, get the nutrients out of them and discard the rest.

It is therefore extremely difficult to blanket call any group or organisation "religious" - for those who can digest what they provide it is, for the others it is not.

Now on the balance, you please tell me according to your own view: does Christianity, Islam and Judaism on the whole spiritually nourish more people or poison more people?

«Would you care to make explicit your definition of a religion rather than make metaphors which attack me?»

A group/organisation is religious to the extent it helps, teaches and supports its members to come closer to God.

I know of no such group or organisation that wholly does that for all its followers and at all times, thus we truly can only speak of a group in relative terms, as "relatively religious".

«Most people would see them as religions.»

Yes, that popularity bar is not high enough for me, just as I wouldn't accept any plate as "food".

Dear Paul1405,

I should not have let Yuyutsu's distortion of my words upset me. I should not have risen to the bait. My advanced age is not always accompanied by wisdom. I didn't have to respond. I should have remembered: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."