Needs a like or +1 button.

In part, the point I was making is that it is semantics whether buddhism religion or not. There are strong elements of mystcism, karma, death an rebirth that are inherent in buddhism, and to me it is mysticism underpinning a philosophy that makes it a religion. Understandably, I can see why bhuddists would want to distance themselves from what the west interprets as religion – ie Abrahamic, as it is very different. But it is all semantics.

Tbh I have a feeling that buddha would not care about labels and be more interested form.

I’ve wondered this for a while.

It’s been posited here before by Ro5ey and others that one of the primary things they get out of ‘religion’ is a sense of community. To my mind, that should still be achievable without all this messy ‘god’ business. Essentially, you cross out “church” and write “community centre” or “social club.”

Indeed, it’s been done. There’s an atheist “church” sprung up in, I think London, which is doing all the things that churches traditionally do, getting people together and socialising as a community, without all the insincere praising and joyless hallelujahing.

If the question is “can you be a christian but not believe in god” the answer is seemingly no; but if we rephrase this as “can you live a lifestyle with christian values but not believe in god” the answer is yes, of course you can. Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on moral code, despite what some of its flock would have you believe.

Atheism (the opposite of theism, the belief in a god) is not just shrugging about religion but actively disagreeing with it.

Whilst that’s probably true for me and many others, I’d argue that it’s not true for everyone. It’s perfectly possible to be atheist and just not give a toss. You don’t have to be an active atheist to be an atheist.

Seems and odd question. Why would you want to?

IMO you can be a ‘christian’ which is about morals and how you act to others and not believe in God, but not a ‘Christian’, which is about believing in God from a bible perspective.

I don’t think this is right. Labelling a certain set of morals as ‘christian’ is unfair, when those morals existed before Christianity, exist outside Christianity and could well exist after Christianity. It implies some sort of ownership over those morals, as though other beliefs didn’t also come up with them, and didn’t or don’t follow them. That in itself seems quite un-Christian.

Roper, I would disagree with our definition of your religion. You are simply defining a theist religion. Buddhism is a non-theist religion. Having said that, it doesn’t matter as the separation between religion and, say, philosophy post-dates Buddhism and is irrelevant to them/their religion anyway!

Just got in from a dog walk and tried Ro5ey’s contemplation exercise – felt quite close to Buddhism in many ways. Very relaxing walk!

olddog, very early aspects of Buddhism were written over 2500 years ago in a very religious area. It is normal that some of the early followers there, adapted their understanding of it with their own culture. Sometimes for their own survival. This has been true when it travelled to China, Japan, Vietnam and more recently through North America Australia and Europe. Buddhism in modern Japan or North America is very different to Buddhism in Tibet or Sri Lanka, though the basic philosophy is the same.
As far as I know you can not be a Christian and a Muslim, for example but you can be a Christian and Buddhist or Muslim and Buddhist. You can be an atheist or Agnostic or Jedi and Buddhist as well.

How much emphasis there is on “mystcism” depends on which school you are looking at.

That in itself seems quite un-Christian.

Just by using that phrase, you are suggesting that there are a defined set of “characteristics” or “values” of being Christian.

Which is exactly what you were saying they shouldn’t be able claim in the previous part of the post.

I think that a smallush subset of Quakers are non-theists, which would be an interesting view to get.

On morality, I think it is hard to deny that UK society morals (and their formal sibling, law) are based on a view of Christianity. It was the predominant moral force in society until late in c20. Progressive thinking is now un picking some of the madder bits eg the progressive changes around homosexuality decriminalisation, equal age of concept, marriage.

I do think that as the need for mysticism for an explanation of nature diminishes and progression of morality beyond the drag of 2000 year old belief systems will progressively weaken power in the established churches – maybe it is the beginning of the end of big religion as we know it?

Neal – glad it wasn’t just me who spotted that!

There does not seem to be any harm in identifying particular morals as being Christian. The harm comes when you try to claim that they are exclusive to Christianity or any religion, surely?

There does not seem to be any harm in identifying particular morals as being Christian. The harm comes when you try to claim that they are exclusive to Christianity or any religion, surely?

Bingo. These traits we call morality existed before Christianity, like all religions they assimilate what exists to become part of the woodwork, so to speak.

Neal – glad it wasn’t just me who spotted that!

It was in there very deliberately. What you didn’t spot was that it was a bit of a dig at what Christians perceive their own morals to be. I guess it should really have read ‘un-modern-CofE-interpretation-Christian’.

Just by using that phrase, you are suggesting that there are a defined set of “characteristics” or “values” of being Christian.
Which is exactly what you were saying they shouldn’t be able claim in the previous part of the post.

Yes, there are a set of morals you have to follow to be a Christian, along with believing in God/Christ etc. However, following those morals is not exclusive to Christianity and doesn’t make you Christian.

I have some opinions, but I’m avoiding the naughty step because I’m notorious for, well – having them, apparently.

Apparently – you still have doubts about whether your views are on the entrenched end of the scale.

The definition of religion is to follow or belive in a supernatural god or gods (or there abouts) so Buddhism is not a religion. There are no gods to follow.

Well there is a guy called Buddha who achieved enlightmenment and left some insturctions as to how you can escape the cycle of life and death and achieve nirvana. You can call it what you want but it is more than a philosophy even if you do consider it to be less than than a religion as it is about salvation of my eternal soul

Junkyard, I think you might be confusing a few words there.
There is good and bad in Buddhism but no sin or evil.

Are we not juts splitting hairs now – I assume sin and evil is bad – it tells me not to do things like say cause suffering but its not about right or worng _ FWIW I do get your broader point but I think you are misrepresenting it [ as am I as it is a [ from a western perspective] a confusing message]

Sin and evil tend to be judgments, often with the power to punish by a god. In Buddhism there is no one to judge or punish in this way.
Karma is not a person or supernatural being who can punish, blame or judge.

So I can ignore then as it does not “punish me”? It does the same as a god so I dont understand how you say it does not “judge” me. If it/something did not judge me I would not be trapped in reincarnation

The basics of Buddhism is to accept there is pain and suffering, then to try a reduce it. If you cause pain and suffering you will also experience it, Karma (a very basic description).

lets stick to simple here as it is immensely complicated and I am no expert.

It’s an ancient set of moral precepts and rituals based in mysticism with a concept of heaven. Monks, nuns, temples. Religion, no?

Not getting your point it has all of those as does Abrahamic faiths but still you dont class it as a religion
TBH anything that claims to offer me salvation is a religion and it clearly offers me a path to this.

FWIW It is clearly more philosophical than any other religion and far more flexible than others. I do reallyvalue it and of all the religiosn I dabbled in and explored it is the only one I carry with me.
It is a religion nonetheless though it has differences from others

Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Wiki which i think is a fair description
OED is far narrower

noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

It probably does not meet this standard
I am not sure you need gods to be religious you need to have salvation and it does offer that.

My experience of buddhism is through cycling in Sikkim. The guide was a buddist, we talked a lot about buddhism and visited lots of important sites. (btw Sikkim is a great place for a cycling holiday as long as you like hills).

I did some further reading when I came back as well. The buddhism I experienced did have the outward form of other religion – prayer, temple, icon, text, mysticism – what are prayer flags if not a belief that the writtem word so presented has a mystical impact? I understand the underpinning philosophy is around thought rather than blind faith, however if through thought and contemplation the conclusion is different to that presented by buddha then is one still a buddhist? I do like buddhism as a thought concept and my understanding aligns with chunjs of it, but equally does with bits of teachings of Christ, or Marx fir that matter. But is belief in a set of core principles is reqd to be acbuddhist? No?

Also, the modern form of ancient religion is probably little like the intended . I’m pretty sure christ didn’t envisage huge golden palaces headed by old celibate men in silk handing down unquestionable law in the name of god.

I’m not sure christian or muslim faith makes room for buddhism – they have a jealous god

Pleader, spotted the dig, just ignored it.

JY, perhaps they should take Buddhism out of the GSCE RE syllabus!! 😉

Junkyard – I was pointing out that I thought it was a religion because it was mystical, temples, monks, heaven etc…and to say it isn’t because of non-abrahamic form was semantics [edit]

I think it got lost in the quotation

Yes if we are going to force folk to study it lets just tell them about the one true god as it is written in scripture 😉

Sorry oldog my error for being confused , forgive me 8)

Sorry JY, my typo, my question wasn’t meant to be directed at you!

Junkyard, …as a non-theist, I forgive you… but if you need redemption you’ll have go elsewhere 😉

I think it is hard to deny that UK society morals (and their formal sibling, law) are based on a view of Christianity.

Or possibly that the UK version of Christianity is based on a view of social morals. Or bit of both.

Or a roman view of christianity filtered through the needs of the english/british ruling class perhaps. But anyway I think that whatever the starting point, society drives ahead of religion now in setting it’s own morality and religion trails behind or risks becoming less and less relevant.

Christianity does not teach that you go to hell if you sin.

I suggest you need to read the bibles again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Why are some atheists so determined to criticise religion? why not live and let live?

Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children’s genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few). And of course because, in stark contrasts to the speil, Christianity has and is often and far apart from what is morally right as is it possible to be.

Tolerance is a crime when applied to evil.

Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children’s genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few).

Absolutely completely incorrect.

People are responsible for those things. Sometimes the reasons for them get wrapped up in religious beliefs. But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I’m afraid.

But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I’m afraid.

Yes but it really wouldn’t be STW if Tucker didn’t bring up exactly the same point at every (semi relevant) opportunity would it.

to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I’m afraid.

It’s a good thing s/he didn’t say that then. The word that would need to be in there for your point to make sense would be “solely”.

“I am responsible for chopping onions. If I did not exist, onions would not get chopped”.

People are responsible for those things. Sometimes the reasons for them get wrapped up in religious beliefs. But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I’m afraid.

Or a slightly different take –

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion. ”

http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

Good/bad relative terms based on prevailing morality. You will not find many people who think slavery is not a terrible thing, but it was normal part of lots of societies through history, did they consider themselves evil?

Doesn’t take religion to drive society to do what we see as “bad” – mass murder and re-education camps in the name of peoples communist revolution?

My morality, shaped by my experience, leads me to believe these things are wrong. In 100 or 1000 years what will the prevailing morality find shockingly terrible about our current society?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil, that takes religion

What, like in say, WWII?

I hate that quote – it’s stupid, glib, smart arsed and just wrong.

It’s a good thing s/he didn’t say that then.

It certainly reads like it:

Because religious beliefs are responsible for…

“Responsible” in this case meaning ‘the cause of’

To answer the OP, organised religion is about abiding by the rules that suit your lifestyle whilst getting self righteous about those that make different choices. So yeah, no need to actually believe in anything so long as you make people feel bad about thinking differently. If you can cream some money out of the whole thing then you get to become a religious leader. Win.

But to imply that they would not exist without religion is total bollocks I’m afraid.

The implication is yours. These things would still exist, sure, but they’d arguably be encouraged a whole lot less. The point you’re picking up on was badly phrased perhaps, but something can be responsible for “some” events without being responsible for “all” of them.

Religion teaches people how to live their lives; it’s kind of it’s raison d’etre. If you look to your religion for guidance on how to behave and, perhaps, how to think, and your religion tells you that (for instance) women are second-class citizens or masturbation is evil and dirty, then it’s fair to say that religion is ‘responsible’ for that, in those cases.

I’m sure that without religion, things like circumcision would still exist. Aside from religion, other reasons cited include “we want him to look like his dad / lik everyone else,” “we’ve always done it this way,” and various misguided beliefs that it’s cleaner or prevents disease. But ceremonial surgical operations by religious leaders (who aren’t surgeons) would obviously decline, which would be no bad thing.

I’m sure that without religion, things like circumcision would still exist.

I’m not so sure.

The major players in the child genital mutilation stakes are Jews (religion), Muslims (religion), certain parts of Africa (from the Christian Missionaries – religion), and the US (deeply religious in places). Now, although the Catholic church recently denounced child genital mutilation as not part of Christianity, many in the US disagree:

“Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake.”

The US don’t all do it for religions reasons.

Also female genital mutilation is traditional in undeveloped tribes in Africa afaik. Not influenced by religion. Along with the neck, lip and ear stuff some tribes do.

If you look to your religion for guidance on how to behave and, perhaps, how to think, and your religion tells you that (for instance) women are second-class citizens or masturbation is evil and dirty, then it’s fair to say that religion is ‘responsible’ for that, in those cases

Hmm. Not entirely. If women are looked down on in a given society, then that society codifies its culture into a religion (like Judaism for instance) then the religion is merely mirroring culture, not the other way round. Therefore people would be responsible, not religion. I think it’ll turn out to be pretty difficult to separate the two. Especially with attitudes towards sexuality or women.

Does circumcision predate Abrahamic religions?

The US don’t all do it for religions reasons.

No, in a lot of cases it’s habit; see my earlier post.

If women are looked down on in a given society, then that society codifies its culture into a religion (like Judaism for instance) then the religion is merely mirroring culture, not the other way round.

Assuming that to be true, it’s still an obstruction to change. Look at the same-sex marriage debate right now; who are the most vocal anti- group?

no

Because religious beliefs are responsible for mutilation of children’s genitals (even to this days by some Christians), the subjugation of women, and homophobia (to name but a few).
Absolutely completely incorrect.

Its not absolutely incorrect unless you want top argue religion does not support circumscion, poor treatment of women – at least in the being a minister stakes and has a fairly low vioew of homosexuals
There is no implication there that it onloy hap[pens becaus eof them
Hitler was bad man who encouraged folk to do bad things does not suggest that all bad things would have stopped had Hitler not lived

I admire your defence of religion [ well sometimes] but dont just do it blindly. Like everything it has done some bad things , often due to what it says in their religious texy

People are responsible for those things.

People following a book are responsible.
Islamic terrorists commit terrorism in the name of religion. It is not reflective of their religion but it is impossible to argue their faith plays no part in their actions. Saying this does not mean I think terrorism would end but for religion or that only the religious can be terrorists.

TuckerUK- I have read the Bible and studied Orthodox Christianity, which does not teach that you go to hell if you sin. In any case, the concept of ‘hell’ is simply the absence of God, not some eternal fiery furnace.

So I can sin relentlessly and it has no impact on my ooutcome re heaven or hell – awesome I might sign up to this version.

I quoted the Bible to you but you believe as you wish

Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15).

(3) Hell is conscious torment.

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

Hell in the Bible is a place of future punishment and the final destination for unbelievers. It is described in Scripture using various terms such as eternal fire, outer darkness, a place of weeping and torment, the lake of fire, the second death, unquenchable fire. The most terrifying reality of hell is that it will be a place of complete, unending separation from God.
http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/Hell-In-The-Bible.htm
loads more biblical quotes such as

Matthew 25:46
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV)

so it is a punishment not just the absence of

ok, well I don’t have much to write everything I would like to, and explain myself fully. I am talking about Orthodox Christianity, which follows the apostolic tradition from the beginning of Christianity.
Orthodox teaching certainly does NOT suggest you can just sin with impunity and all will be well. We are expected to make regular confessions, and are encouraged to examine our conscience, truly repent, and strive to be better in future. Orthodoxy considers the worst outcome for a Christian to be denied the glory of God, and this is a torment worse than any actual, “material” fire. The Bible uses a lot of imagery and allegory, and we Orthodox don’t pick and choose what to take literally; the teachings have been handed down with tradition over the centuries.
I hope that is a little clearer?