Personal - #501 - #07 – What’s a “religion”?

Everybody is “for or against” one, but what is “it”…. exactly?
For thousands of years people have killed each other over the “right religion”.
Whose “God” is the right one?
Which “book” is the only, correct one?
Which standards are the only, acceptable ones?
If you believe in the wrong one, will you come to a good “end”?
What is “the” correct “end”?

We sure have a problem! We are supposed to avoid even the discussion of religion. Religion is such a powder packed subject that the mere discussion of it is dangerous. Yet, this is supposed to bring us peace and harmony!…. Yeah, but which religion is supposed to bring us peace and harmony?
I’ll kill you until you believe as I believe! I’ll make war on you so I can give you “peace”!!
Does this make any sense? … any sense at all??
What are we talking about … exactly?
Are we talking about a particular group who has a name? A particular group that is guided by some written or orally handed down set of rules or standards? As a matter of fact, who interprets these standards? Who chose “these interpreters”? What are “their” particular characteristics? Because they are human, they have a limited lifespan. Then, who takes “their” place? Who chooses “them”? Are they exact duplicates of the ones that went before “them”? If not, what about the “newer” interpretations? What about “exact continuity”?
Could it be that each person may have his own idea of what a religion is to them? …. Of what a religion means to them? … Of what the “meaning and use” religion is to them?
Could it be that “many people” are different? “Many” have different interpretations of their religion? So how come a large group gets together and uses war to make “others” believe the same as they do when “they” even have different ideas about what “they” think? (And, also, the ideas may be slightly different from decade to decade.)

First, is there any rational, any understandable reason how one group gets united about differing ideas?
Second, without having exact duplicate ideas, how can you act in a united fashion?
Thirdly, is this really “one” religion or is it just a “group name”? …generally calling itself something?

We have not addressed the root question of a “definition” of a religion!
Let’s try! It’s not for you to agree or disagree with. If you can do better, please be my guest!!!

Here goes….
A “RELIGION” is:
1. An oral or written group of ideas that are presented as a label called “religion”.
2. In most cases a religion tries to give an answer for the “infinite” questions of life. (At least not understandable from the finite human mind’s restricted point of view. It is a restriction that makes the understanding of the “infinite” incomprehensible. Words like “nothing”, “all”, “every”, “none”, “life” (it’s beginning and it’s so called medical “end”), space, vacuum, nothing, never, etc. These are all “infinite” concepts.)
3. These questions of “infinity” are troubling to the human mind, because it perceives everything with a boundary of some sort. “Space” is bounded by ….? …. “Never”? ....in what time period? ….. “All” meaning in what time period or in what “space”? …. And on and on! (We could have a separate chapter on each of these “infinite” words…)
4. Each so-called “religion” has it’s own way of trying to resolve these questions. To accept and believe these answers without scientific or sensory fact, is called “faith”. You simply must accept certain ideas on “faith”. These “faith” answers are the basis for “religions”. “The happy hunting ground”, “the sun”, the “after life”, the “river Jordan”, the “soul”, etc. all focus on the same general human concern. What’s at the “end”? These “ideas of faith” are possible answers to this queasy feeling we all have about our inability to answer “infinite” questions.
5. Can it be that the various and individual answers to these “human unanswerables” are the basis of thousands of years of killing and misunderstanding? Is this what we mean by “religions”?

And now a “story”….

Some people live at the very edge of a large, deep, black hole. In fact, some are hanging on the very edge from a fragile branch by a finger. Some are at the edge of the black hole looking in. Some others live a mile away and are aware of the black hole, but aren’t deeply concerned. And some live thousands of miles from the black hole and hardly are aware of its existence, or, as a matter of fact, do not care about “not knowing” about the black hole, altogether.
For those who are concerned to one degree or another, there should be something they can think about that will make their distress more tolerable. It really doesn’t make a difference as to what that is, providing it is consistent, living, and believable to them. It relieves their stress. It might even take their stress away. It’s not what they think, it’s what happens when they think a certain thing.

And now…. About the “rules” and “standards”…….

When a name is given to a group, and the group can accept a certain way of answering the “human unanswerables”, there is usually a description of some sort that is also accepted by the group. This “story” or “description” tries to weave the “unanswerables” into something that is easy to recognize, easy to remember, easy to teach and easy to pass on. Words like a “god’, a “Happy Hunting Ground”, a “being”, a “soul”, etc. begin to be related to the “story”. They begin to have a “group meaning” which is derived from the “group accepted” story. It begins to make sense to the people who have the same “story”, the “group story”. If it works to the benefit of the individuals in the “group” it is successful.
But what if “my” group has a different “story”? What if “my” story works for “my” group? Is one a better “story” than the other?
So we have a war so that I can force you to accept my “story” as the “only” one! ….Great, isn’t it?
Shouldn’t it occur to a thinking person that the story only works for the “believer” of the story because of his “belief”. …..it works for him …. It’s his faith!!!

Therefore, isn’t a religion a “personal belief”?? ……….
Call the different groups what you will, the fact remains that a “religion”, in the context of what is written here, is a collection of “stories and ideas” which help make people feel better about the “human unanswerables”.
I hope this is not too simple! Heaven forbid!


Note: The “moral rules” and ethics that are included in the “religion” (but are not directly connected to answering the “human unanswerables”) are not often the same. They are an attempt at rules of human and social conduct that are supposed to make living together easier and more worthwhile. Each environment may need slightly different rules. Values may NOT be the same either.

Could it be that we really want to force our “rules” on others and not our answers to the “human unanswerables”?

Could “rules” and ethics be the problem, the real problem?Do we really want everyone to have “our standards”? Do we have a tolerance for different standards?

Perhaps in “my” house, in “my” land”, I wish to have “my” standards. What about in “your” house? Do you want my “standards”. Should I force you to have “my” standards?

How do I handle the question of different standards in different houses, in different lands?


Perhaps “standards” are the real issues!

The discussion of “a religion” will “never” be the problem!