The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Isn't Theravada Buddhism essentially agnostic?

Generally, it's apatheistic meaning it's not concerned with gods. You can either believe in them or not, it's not important.

Buddhism usually does not require belief in gods or anything else, but this has exceptions in certain sects.

I was in China recently and got taken on a tour of a Buddhist lama temple by a friend. I was rather surprised to see how much praying and worshipping of various different "Buddhas" went on, since I had it in my head that Buddhism generally lacked prayer and worship, though I guess I was just familier with a different sect. I also found interesting how eager she was to invite me and my other European friends to take part in the prayers — I declined, thinking it'd be disrespectful to take part in a ritual I didn't really believe in, but some of my friends joined in. That may speak for some difference in mindset about religion and faith between the east and west.

I'd argue that, in the modern day, it is entirely legitimate to extend the "religion" label to non-theistic movements, so long as they are not characterized by a mere lack of belief, but rather with a positive belief in something other than the God(s). Whenever you have an ideal that cannot fail, but can only be failed, you're dealing with a religious sentiment. Whenever a group of humans take an idea and put it into a pedestal and make it greater than themselves and take pride in "belonging" to that idea and to that group, you are dealing with a religious sentiment. Whenever you have something that, taken to an extreme, can deserve to be called "fanaticism", you're dealing with a religious sentiment.

Religion is when people run with an idea or a story so far that it takes over their lives, and they approve of that.

Just my subjective opinion. My definition is fuzzy and unorthodox. Maybe I'm confusing with "cult", assuming a cult isn't merely a "religion we don't like".

By the way, how is the USMC different from a cult?

edited 4th May '16 9:09:13 AM by TheHandle

Eh, I really don't agree with you there. By that definiton almost anything can be a religion. It makes the very term "religion" murky enough to be near-meaningless.

Religion and murkmystery go hand in hand. If religions had clarity, they would be merely lifestyle choices.

edited 4th May '16 9:11:08 AM by TheHandle

Well, to be sure one can hold a secular belief to a fanatical or obsessive degree. But saying that such belief is automatically religious in nature is equating the concept of religion to the concept of fanaticism, which isn't really fair. One doesn't have to be an obsessive fanatic in order to be religious.

The term "cult" is mostly a loaded buzzword that just means religion we dislike. However, a definition I've read has some criteria:

-closes itself off from the rest of the world.

-rapidly shifting doctrine.

-keeps aspects of its doctrine secret.

-suspiciously self-serving towards its founders/leader.

-tends to be a heretical version of a more mainstream faith.

Maybe it's a result of my upbringing, but I tend to view religious people who aren't wholly dedicated to their faith's tenets to be inauthentic and unprincipled sinners, and would rather that they drop the whole thing rather than half-heartedly pay lip service to it.

I understand that my opinion is uncommon, and perhaps it might be unfair, but it is what it is. Of course, the entire nation I was raised in were hypocrites by their own standards. Even the taxi drivers there let their beards grow and suddenly feel qualified to tell you how you should live your entire life, from the first prayer before dawn, to the ablutions you should make after you had sex (with your wife).

Do the Pythagoreans qualify?

edited 4th May '16 9:33:48 AM by TheHandle

It depends on how we define "fanatic", but I would argue that worship by definition includes extreme dedication. This dedication can be good or bad. For example, the apostles allowed themselves to be executed for their ideals-a demonstration of their devotion.

How do we distinguish "fanaticism" from "abnegation"? Do terms like "socially acceptable", "healthy" or "sensible/moderate/reasonable" come into play?

Sorry, but I'm opposed to watering down definitions that traditionally are rather clear. I think thats moving backwards in understanding, the opposite of progress. If the belief system contains no supernatural element, then it's not a religion, no matter similarly it may function as one.

Demarquis' obligatory periodic link to the Lifton Criteria of what defines a cult. To wit:

• a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
• a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
• economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

edited 4th May '16 2:29:06 PM by DeMarquis

Foreign priests find a spiritual home in Shinto

What about things like the American Civil Religion? What would the correct expression be for "something that shows the patterns and rhythms of religion, but doesn't involve supernatural things"?

edited 4th May '16 3:32:42 PM by TheHandle

To play devil's advocate, it's probably not considered an actual literal religion per say.

I already that, it's an ideology.

Hakuin’s picture of Zen Buddhism

http://www.dw.com/en/sharia-police-who-patrolled-german-city-of-wuppertal-in-orange-vests-to-face-trial/a-19232300

So this Sharia Patrol thing. How bad is it in Europe and how Islam approved it? On a scale of Halal to Absolutely Haram.

Isn't there something in the Quran about respecting the law of the land and not doing stuff like the Islamic values police in Indonesia? I've seen the videos of some Muslim Patrols in Britain but they were also arrested and the local Imam criticized heavily the youths involved in those patrols.

I'm more worried about how this will strengthen Islamophobic rhetoric about a Muslim conspiracy to take over Europe, tbh

The preacher probably gave them the go-ahead. Islam doesn't have a centralized hierarchy of scholars, which allows for some leeway when it comes to interpretation of the Koran.

"Violating laws against wearing uniforms with political messages." Hmm, could charges be pressed for impersonating a police officer?

Were they? Most people could easily tell they weren't real police based on their uniforms. Cuz Germany doesnt have Sharia Police

They actually abused a legal loophole by printing an English name on their vests ("Sharia Police" instead of "Sharia-Polizei"). Had they used the German name on their vests, it would have been very easy to prosecute them for pretending to be a police force.

edited 8th May '16 9:42:34 PM by DrunkenNordmann

All that said, I think everyone can agree that going around telling people they can't drink or go to nightclubs is a pretty shitty thing to do. Honestly I don't know if these people actually thought anyone would listen to them?

Doesn't this amount to trying to take the laws into your own hands? You'd think that would be prosecutable.

Probably only if violence or threats thereof were used.