Needless to say I have the same problems with abrahamic religions in particular you do. I hold them in very low regard and specifically the institutions that have formed around them and the acts committed in there name. Like most people I have certain ideas I like to get across and I use these topics to try and educate people on buddhism as most people in the west are fairly ignorant of it, I do feel its a religion and therefore don't think religion as an idea should be attacked. I would be ignorant of the ideas as well if I wasn't into bad kung fu movies, bad kung fu and samurai.
Of course it has always been a problem defining buddhism as a religion, it does classify but only just. If you look at the definition of the word:
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
While the buddha claims no specific religous favour or intervention he can be viewed as a leader as his ideas are the most pervasive although later scholars such as the dalai Llamas (
) and dr suzuki may also be considered leaders in themselves for the worth and guidance of there teachings. As a study it requires concientious devotion but it is missing what for most people is the key elements of a religion which is the first two points in red.
Of course the reason the first two points are so important to people when defining the word is the widespread nature of the abrahamic religions to the point where this religous system comes to define and characterise the word religion when in fact there are many other types it just shows the level of ignorance we have due to the prevalence and enforced dominance of said western religion. The emergence of religion in african cultures was and still is comprised of ancestor worship and shaminism, to what extent you label this religous worship and where you draw the line between spiritualism and actual religion is debatable. There is and still exists today the anthromorporphic religions where the forces of nature take on a human aspect, and are not neccessarily worshiped but feared and placated. Especially true in the ancient world like Rome and Greece. The higher religous form would be hinduism, it is pantheistic with many gods but each one resembling a certain natural function.
A really interesting religion is Shintoism, it is pantheistic and doesn't even remotely resemble monotheistic or even the dualistic or polytheistic religions. I would describe it but I don't really understand a great deal about it myself. Just that there is no developed theology and hundreds of kami (gods) it is truly strange.
You can also have specist deities, or momentary deities. A malignant force usually that momentarily or permenantly inhabits objects. Water sprites, tree gods etc. and naturism as an idea that predates the emergence of religion itself.
I am rambling and regurgitating a lot of things that aren't relevant I guess my point is a set of beliefs classifies to me as a religion. The idea that you have to worship is a peculiarity that has dominated religion since the onset of the major religion though the idea of a divine creator that requires worship is not neccessarily a prerequisite to religion though it would seem that way considering what we see today in the west.
Why so much black and white, little minded ways of thinking?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ramtha
). 
