Dear david f,

Somebody said that there were 300 different definitions of religion. I myself know a few. I often referred to Geertz’s anthropological definition (see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816&page=0#124645).

Rodney Stark in the book “Discovering God: The Origins of the Great religions and the Evolution of Belief” I have also mentioned here a couple of times, writes

“Durkheim dismissed belief in the supernatural from any acceptable definition of religion on the grounds that many primitive religions, as well as some advanced faiths including Buddhism and some Eastern religions, not only are entirely Godless, but even reject the supernatural. This was a howling error. No one can credibly identify a primitive group devoid of supernaturalism. As for Buddhism, although a few Buddhist intellectuals and monks pursue a relatively Godless Buddhism, popular Buddhism abounds in Gods of many sizes and shapes, as a visit to any Buddhist temple reveals.”

Stark offers the following definition:

“Religion consists of explanations of existence (or ultimate meaning) based on supernatural assumptions and including statements about the nature of the supernatural, which mey specify methods or procedures for exchanging with the supernatural.”

He adds that “By use of the term supernatural this definition of religion leaves room for Godless religions, Gods being defined as supernatural beings having consciousness and intentions.”.

Dear David,

Would you believe politicians who promise heaven-on-earth if elected?

Then why believe everyone who claims that their way is a religion?

Yes, my view of religion is strict and my standards are high: I don't care what people say, what they believe or how much they praise their own religious skills. I don't even care if they are able to perform miracles, see spirits and the like - sorry for those who feel excluded, but what matters, the final and only test, is the actual results of their doctrine: does it bring people closer to God, or does it not.

On the other hand, others may be very religious without even knowing it or consciously naming their spiritual path.

Mainstream/Science..Finally Recognizes
*The*..Consciousness..of Animals
http://intellihub.com/2013/08/22/mainstream-science-finally-recognizes-the-consciousness-of-animals/

After over a century,..mainstream scientists finally got around to acknowledging something..that has been completely obvious..to most ..*animals..*are conscious beings.

Graham Hancock..found himself under attack..from the scientific community..and censored..by the TED organization..for his talk,

The War..on Consciousness

his major crime..against established consensus
was to reject the materialistic view..which relegates consciousness to nothing more than the product*..of electrical impulses in the brain rooted entirely in our physiology,

..and suggest's..that the use of shamanic visionary plants
can teach us..that we are immortal souls*..temporarily incarnated in these physical forms..to learn and to grow.

Given the inability..for any form of consensus on the nature of human consciousness,..it is little wonder that the scientific community has taken so long..to concede that animals,..particularly birds and mammals,..are conscious too.

Another problem derives from cultural values.
Historically throughout the West,..non-human creatures have been relegated....to the status of “dumb beasts” incapable of love or happiness,..thus..nor oof pain or suffering.

Aristotle viewed the function of animals..as serving human beings as “natural and expedient”,..and the Bible states..that animals are there to be used by mankind –>>>?

no not really
the 4th eon*[day]
when the beasts were created

when god spake,,:..from..the skeptics bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

<<1:19..And the evening..and the morning
were the fourth day.

1:20..And God said,
Let the waters bring forth abundantly*..he moving creature that hath life,..and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21..And God created great whales,
and every living creature that moveth,..which the waters brought forth abundantly,..*after their kind,..and every winged fowl..*after his kind:and God saw that it was good.

1:22..And God blessed them,..saying, Be fruitful,
and multiply,..and fill the waters in the seas,..and let fowl multiply*..on the earth.

1:23..nd the evening*
and the morning..were the fifth day.>>..[eon*]

back to..*article ..<..while this..was originally not intended as a license for abuse,..history has demonstrated that as a species humans have failed to adhere to the proverb,..”A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,..but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

WE..cannot serve..two masters/fairly/equally

one=light/love/logic/life/living..etc
the other..darkness/death/fear/hate/greed/envey..etc

REFERENCES:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-finally-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings

http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/6/847.full

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions

http://news.discovery.com/animals/rats-empathy-111209.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3818833.stm

ifth day.
1:24 And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth..*after his kind,
and cattle after..*their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: and let them have dominion*!*!..

..over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion!*!

do·min·ion

1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty:

eg.."The devil..has their souls in his possession,..and under his dominion" (Jonathan Edwards)...soul=ego/works..

[yet our life GIVING spirit belongs to god]

2. A territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm.
3. often Dominion Abbr. Dom. One of the self-governing nations within the British Commonwealth.

from Latin dominium, property,
from dominus,lord;

dominion
n
1. rule; authority
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
the land governed by..one ruler or government
3. sphere of influence; area of control

collectively..we [life]..own the lot
thus are held responsible..see we each..are the living material*..heirs..[inheritors/trustees]..*of all created..of the immortal eternal/living good..light..sustaining life..via logic to love

[ye to whom ,much was given..somuch more is expected]

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have your own idiosyncratic definition of religion. Your definition of religion is not strict nor are your standards high. Your definition simply excludes many religions.

George is a religious man. However, he does not claim that religion is restricted to his belief nor does he insist that religions must conform to his type of belief. Although I do not share his belief I can discuss religion with George. I can learn from him because he is knowledgeable in that area.

You will probably continue to repeat your limited definition that excludes many religions. However, your definition neither has high standards nor is it strict. It is just unreasonable.

You have a right to define a word in any way you want to. However, your communication is then limited to those who define it in the same way that you do. That excludes those who have some knowledge of different religions.

I think I have just wasted both our times.

Dear David,

George certainly gives me the impression of a religious man. We can agree on that.

I also do not claim that religion is restricted to my belief or insist that religions must conform to my type of belief.

My definition only excludes such organisations that call themselves 'religious' without actually being so.

Whether and to what extent someone is religious does not change by beliefs - theirs or mine.