Religious Mosaic

[Nightpath]

“When I think of great religious art, the first thing I always think of is Islamic art.”

Then you think of nothing.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Orin

'

What of Catholic staues, shrines, and stations of the cross? More idol worship?

Actually, I think of idolatry as "vanity" or "veneration of an empty shell." (Which could go as far as to include sex for the sake of sex, without love.) {But that is only my own view, and I don't expect anyone else to agree with it.}

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by Nightpath

“When I think of great religious art, the first thing I always think of is Islamic art.”
Then you think of nothing.

Actually, I think of mathematical perfection, infinity and hence, Divine Creation.

Sharper pictures here - these are from Morocco:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/m...-ii-mosque.htm

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Actually, I think of idolatry as "vanity" or "veneration of an empty shell."

I see it as veneration for some aspects of the Created order (like objects or man-made systems) rather than for the Creator.


Sorry, now you're going to have to move this thread again - this time over to the Religious Studies Department...

[Nightpath]

Designed and built by a Catholic, now there is a great tribute to Islamic “art”.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

You question emphasizes wor;dview and the "way of life" aspects, which I don' consider a defining characteristics of a religion. Secular humanism, communism, and capitalism have these aspects as well, but they have no need of a Creator who transcends His creation.

Buddhism does include a world view and it has a very powerful "practice" component that provides guidance for navigating through life. But that doesn't make it a religion.

Oh, I would say that communism did make it to religion status under Stalin and Marx--the State became God. Secular Humanism can become a religion if they try to codify acceptable/unacceptable {sacred/profane} religious expression within secular institutions. As regards Capitalism--yes, there are those for whom money is their god.

Originally Posted by Vistor233

If you disagree with either if these positions, you could explain why. I've already explained why your own definition of religion does not work for Buddhism. If you neverthless want to maintain that it is a religion, that's up to you. But it if the idea is to avoid the impression of being merely dogmatic, it would help if you were to explain why you think Buddhism is religion even though the aspects you mentioned don't match your own definition.

Well, let's see about that.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com Unabridged

re·li·gion/
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

a set of beliefs concerning:

• cause of universe--see Pratitya-samutpada (interdependent co-arising)
• nature of universe--see previously referenced The Three Marks of Existence, The Five Skandhas, and The Six Realms
• purpose of universe--highly debatable, realizing and optimizing our part in the universe is stressed as is freedom and self-determination with good fruit.
• usually involving devotional and ritual observances--definitely present within Buddhism, but having a large variety due to the emphasis of freedom and self-determination within Buddhism
• often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs--see The Eightfold Path

Yes, I would say that Buddhism does, indeed, fit the definition of religion that I posted.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

I see it as veneration for some aspects of the Created order (like objects or man-made systems) rather than for the Creator.


Sorry, now you're going to have to move this thread again - this time over to the Religious Studies Department...

As you wish. I'll leave the mosaic-related ones here, and move the rest. How about "Religious Mosaic" for the new title? (I can always rename it if that name is unsuitable.)

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Oh, I would say that communism did make it to religion status under Stalin and Marx--the State became God.

ok, so you say that religion requires G-d? Where is G-d in Buddhism???

Pratitya-samutpada is not "supernatural" is it??? That's required by your dictionary definition, which involved a view of the world as being "the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." Pratitya-samutpada is really more like a mechanical system of conditionality than some transcendent "supernatural" Creator in action, isn't it? It doesn't require a leap of faith about a Creator in action either. So it doesn't even qualify as faith doctrine, does it?

I would say that Buddhism does, indeed, fit the definition of religion that I posted.

I would say it does not.

Also, you have yet to provide justification for going with that particular dictionary definition. I expect if you snoop around some, you'll find other dictionary definitions that have different criteria. But rather than go that route, why not find a decent comparative religion definition?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

ok, so you say that religion requires G-d? Where is G-d in Buddhism???

I did not say that a religion requires a god. Go back and check the definition I posted. Here is is, once again, for your convenience:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com Unabridged

re·li·gion/
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Pratitya-samutpada is not "supernatural" is it??? That's required by your dictionary definition, which involved a view of the world as being "the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies."

Nope. The definition I posted said "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." Last time I checked, "especially" did not mean "required," but "to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common."

Pratitya-samutpada is really more like a mechanical system of conditionality than some transcendent "supernatural" Creator in action, isn't it? It doesn't require a leap of faith about a Creator in action either. So it doesn't even qualify as faith doctrine, does it?

Where did I say that religion required a supernatural element to it? No where. Like I said earlier, you must be confusing religion with theism, or deism.

I would say it does not.

You need to pull your head out, again.

Also, you have yet to provide justification for going with that particular dictionary definition. I expect if you snoop around some, you'll find other dictionary definitions that have different criteria. But rather than go that route, why not find a decent comparative religion definition?

I went with the dictionary definition because that is where one usually goes to get the definition of a word, and the first definition I found is the more liberal one that I generally use. Religion does not necessarily mean theology. If you don't like it, complain to the writers of the dictionary! Deal with it!

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

IThe definition I posted said "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." Last time I checked, "especially" did not mean "required," but "to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common."

So the word "especially" allows you to ignore one third of your dictionary's three criteria, such that a G-d concept or a theory of superhuman cosmic creation process are not an essential feature of a religion.

I did not say that a religion requires a god.

Sure, let's dispense with G-d. Who needs Him?

So there's no need for G-d the Creator or supernatural agency. Now what else would you like to delete from your original definition of religion. How about this part: "usually involving devotional and ritual observances."

Tell me, what do Buddhists worship? And what is the role of prayer in Buddhism, if any?

Is Pratitya-samutpada the object of devotion? Do Buddhists pray to Pratitya-samutpada ? If not, what do they pray to?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

So the word "especially" allows you to ignore one third of your dictionary's three criteria, such that a G-d concept or a theory of superhuman cosmic creation process are not an essential feature of a religion.

"Especially" means "to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common." It means that it often seen in religion, but is not a required element of "being a religion."

Sure, let's dispense with G-d. Who needs Him?

Religion in the generic sense may not require God, but that does not in any way preclude God.

So there's no need for G-d the Creator or supernatural agency. Now what else would you like to delete from your original definition of religion. How about this part: "usually involving devotional and ritual observances."

I haven't deleted anything.
Buddhist devotional practices and objects

Tell me, what do Buddhists worship? And what is the role of prayer in Buddhism, if any?

Is Pratitya-samutpada the object of devotion? Do Buddhists pray to Pratitya-samutpada ? If not, what do they pray to?

Where did I say that prayer was a criteria for religion?

[NightMgr]

What of Catholic staues, shrines, and stations of the cross? More idol worship?

That accusation has been made against Catholics by Protestants here in America.

When it comes to great art, Islam is unique in that it is the only religion you don’t think of when it comes to great art.

That's sad, but I'm afraid it says more about your knowledge that it says about Islamic art.

Designed and built by a Catholic, now there is a great tribute to Islamic “art”.

Ever notice that naked man painted up on the ceiling of the Vatican? Christian or homo-erotic? Would the sexuality of the artist make a difference?

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by NightMgr

That's sad, but I'm afraid it says more about your knowledge that it says about Islamic art.

I think it's sad that you feel a need to pass judgment on others' tastes and preferences. It's also sad that you see a need to engage in flippant characterization without making any effort to explore other's tastes and preferences. I think that says something about your interpersonal style.

By the way, I'm interested in what you consider great art.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Religion in the generic sense may not require God, but that does not in any way preclude God.

Ok, so G-d is optional.

Buddhist devotional practices and objects

What are these people doing? Buddha never said he was divine and to be worshipped as a deity or that his image has any special significance.

Where did I say that prayer was a criteria for religion?

Isn't prayer a common form of devotion? Criteria #2 from the dictionary definition was about devotion.

Based on our discussion so far, and based on the definition in question, I would say Buddhism is about as much a religion as capitalism.

[rachel]

vistor, pay attention. I'm sure you've noticed that there are two posters in this forum who's monikers begin with the word, "Night". Go back, reread the posts...did you get them confused?

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by rachel

Islam is the only religion I know of whose adherents have gone so far as to attempt to banish what they deem "idols" constructed by those of other faiths.

Tell me, where did you take your American history classes? Did they forget to tell you about the Catholic spaniards who spent years engaged in cultural genocide agains native American Indians, destroying their temples and libraries?? The same thing happened in Latin America. Aboriginal cultures were considerered evil.

Check this out:

"St. Martin’s mission was to complete the destruction of paganism, which had been driven from the towns by the martyrs but remained up to his time master of vast territories removed from the influence of the cities. All of Gaul heard from him. In all its provinces he overthrew the idols one after another, reduced the statues to powder, burnt or demolished all the temples, destroyed the sacred groves and all the haunts of idolatry. Martin, consumed with zeal for the House of God, was obeying none but the Spirit of God.

"Against the fury of the pagan population Martin’s only arms were the miracles he wrought, the visible assistance of the Angels sometimes granted to him, and, above all the prayers and tears he poured out before God, when the hard-heartedness of the people resisted the means by which Martin changed the face of the country.

"Where he found scarcely a Christian on his arrival, he left scarcely an infidel at his departure. The temples of the idols were immediately replaced by temples of the true God.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD...artin11-11.htm

THe church made good people like this "saints."

Your attempt to portray Christians as being tolerant of idols and other forms of religion is not happening. Recall that the Crusades were directed against pagans as well as Christians who departed from doctrinal dogma. Historically, Christians have been anything but tolerant.

[NightMgr]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

By the way, I'm interested in what you consider great art.

Ohhh, you know. I like NASCAR die-cast minitatures, and Skoal used to run cartoons on their packaging, and I collect that. I have a wall of John Deere gimme caps surrounding my framed and signed Britney Spears posters. In the back yard, my cousin helped me weld a three times lifesize sculpture of Elvis made of beer kegs, old mufflers, and hub caps.

What do you enjoy?

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by NightMgr

I have a wall of John Deere gimme caps surrounding my framed and signed Britney Spears posters.

Whoah!! Where did you get those posters? I'm a Britney fan myself.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

Ok, so G-d is optional.



What are these people doing? Buddha never said he was divine and to be worshipped as a deity or that his image has any special significance.

Explained at link.

Isn't prayer a common form of devotion? Criteria #2 from the dictionary definition was about devotion.

Prayer isn't the only form of devotion.
While we're at it, let's look at devotion.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com unabridged

de·vo·tion
–noun 1. profound dedication; consecration.
2. earnest attachment to a cause, person, etc.
3. an assignment or appropriation to any purpose, cause, etc.: the devotion of one's wealth and time to scientific advancement.
4. Often, devotions. Ecclesiastical. religious observance or worship; a form of prayer or worship for special use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME devocioun (< AF) < LL dévōtiōn- (s. of dévōtiō), equiv. to L dévōt(us) (see devote) + -iōn- -ion]
—Synonyms 2. zeal, ardor. See love.

Based on our discussion so far, and based on the definition in question, I would say Buddhism is about as much a religion as capitalism.

I would have to say that there are Capitalists who have made capitalism their religion in their devotion to the Almighty Dollar. Those who profess God are more likely to acknowledge their religious behavior to be a religion. Those who do not profess God are probably less likely to acknowledge that their religious behavior is a religion. Zeal and ardor (devotional behavior) is still involved.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Explained at link.

I know. What I'm saying is Gautama Buddha would wonder why people who are ostensibly his followers are doing practices that he would likely have considered completely irrelevant.

Those who profess God are more likely to acknowledge their religious behavior to be a religion. Zeal and ardor (devotional behavior) is still involved.

I agree with all the above.

Maybe I'm just too traditional in my thinking, but to me devotion that does not involve commitment to some transcendental order of things is by definition idolatry -- as defined previously -- i.e., the worship of something about creation to the exclusion of the only true object of worship, the Creator.

Those who do not profess God are probably less likely to acknowledge that their religious behavior is a religion.

In fact, they may refer to what they're into as "religion" in jest - tongue in cheek - indicating that they know very well that it's not really religion in an complete sense.