Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Laura - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <732@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 22:23:20 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.732
Posted: Wed Mar 20 22:23:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:15:09 EST
References: <5199@utzoo.UUCP> <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <4012@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <706@pyuxd.UUCP> <5267@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 51

> So we have overloaded a word, and in a funny sense -- one meaning of vegetable
> is the same as the other meaning of vegetable with the addition of the tomato.

As one meaning of "religion", you would have it, is the same as the other
meaning with the addition of...  But have the actual definitions actually been
changed?

> It is interesting, in that they want to distinguish between religions which
> worship an external deity and those which do not. This is the ``eastern
> religion'' ``western religion'' split. They *aren't* campaigning for
> anotehr word that describes both western and eastern religion -- they
> think that ``religion'' does quite well. Considering the effort that
> they put into defining ``what is a cult'' I am sure that if they were
> unhappy with the definition I would have heard about it by now.

I agree.  As we all already agreed,  the actual meaning of the word cult is
a belief system that is contrary to the belief system of the person saying
the word.  The word "cult" has a meaning, a definition, but where that word
gets used will depend on who is saying it.  You're right, "they" aren't
campaigning.  If you want clarity and understanding of what your beliefs mean,
it becomes up to you to campaign.  If you choose to, I for one would be more
than glad to make use of such a word (obviously---provided it's better by leaps
and bounds than the ones I've been offering you, like "menglopism"...).

> Why are you unhappy with the word, Rich? I keep going back to the same
> thing -- Rich is unhappy about what the word ``religion'' means because 
> he is very attached to his definition of the word religion. He presumes
> this definition of the word religion when he used the term, and it is
> WISHFUL THINKING on his part that the rest of the world is going to
> accept his definition.

First, by definition I think the "world" has accepted the existing definition
of religion as I have.  (Calling it "my" definition is an abusive argumentative
tactic.)  Could it possibly be that YOU are unhappy that your beliefs, if
labelled properly, would not fall under an umbrella called religion that
offers respect, tax shelters, etc.?  Is it wishful thinking on your part to
make it suddenly adhere to the definition via magic, or to suddenly change
the definition to make the erroneous inclusion more palatable?  One bland
assertion (or two) deserves another...

> So Rich, why is your attatchment to your definition of the word religion
> (the one you find in your dictionary) any better than a Christian's
> definition of the word God (the one he finds in his Bible)?

There's a *definition* of "God" in the Bible?  I don't think that's a book
that contains definitions of words.  The book does describe a specific
belief about what certain people (there I go again, Tim) believe to be a (the)
god.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr