Saturday, March 11, 2006

Why is 'Religion' different?

For me, the word 'religion' connotates an idea which incorporates a deity/ies of some sort.

If you took out the 'deity' part, what would it be? Even with it in, it is still an 'idea'. Some may say 'no, it's not an idea, it's a fact'. But even if for some it's a 'fact' , it's still an 'idea' , vis. there are 'beings' other than ourselves that play a part in some peoples' lives.

Someone said today that one of the problems is that the word 'religion' is used as a verb, not a noun. It seems to be used to indicate an 'active' phenomenon, over and above 'idea's. Is it? Is it a phenomenon which needs not be taken as an idea, but as a 'process' which exists , a fait accompli?

So, when the question is asked " is one influenced by different religions; why is it, hmmm, left there?

In terms of being influenced in ones' beliefs, one could be influenced by a book on architecture, an ordinary book of fiction, a dictionary or phonebook, a painting, the way the light hits the trees at sunset and generates a thought in one's mind - an idea.

It's hard to articulate, but to me, a religion would be part of one's makeup, not a separate thing, so anything that adds to the person's knowledge and experience adds to their 'religion'.

So why is there this big separation between 'religion' and other 'idea's? Why do we 'change our tone' when we speak of it?

Template by - Abdul Munir | Daya Earth Blogger Template