The Nature of Religion

[Der Steinadler]

To settle some debates, i'm going to propose people muse upon on the nature of religion in the hope people can articulate an appropriate description.

In answering, some things are worth considering.......

* reasons for religion
* what makes something religion
* components of a religion
* religous history
* examples of religion
* the social implications of religion

[GeistFaust]

I think the causes for religion are different and imply different ends for different peoples. Generally speaking I think the concept of religion usually deals with the individual's and communities nature in light of some divine or abstract being or group of beings. This is it deals with with a range of feelings, emotions, and passions which attempt to grasp the concept of the divine and abstract and fix it to the individual and communities identity.


These feelings, emotions, and passions are expressed through a certain code of conduct namely that constituted and found in certain rituals and superstitious practices.


The nature of these rituals and superstitious practices align themselves with the specific nature of the cause of that religion, which is dynamically changing. The way in which each individual approaches these rituals and superstitious practices will differ in accordance with their specific attitude towards the specific cause and causes of a specific religion.


I think the causes for religion are various in accordance with both the nature of the individual which attempts to accord himself with the collective understanding of a certain religion. The collective understanding is a strictly cultural or anthropolgical affair which is dynamical in how it approaches the content of religious matter.


In my mind that which qualifies as religion can be broadly understood as a combination of many perspectives all of which are attempting to unify themselves to a certain code of dogma. The code of dogma which is presented and supported in accordance with the nature of the religious institution, organization, or framework which we speak about. This question depends on the timeframe and the region in which this question is specificed.


From a broader perspective the content of this question can only be understood in detail through the specific ways in which people accord them to specific religious dogmatic structures. You could say that religion is constituted on a certain core of beliefs and values which attempt to ground themselves in matters of dogma and doctrine.


The dogma of a religion attempts to prescribe to a particular doctrine and to ground the framework of a particular doctrine into a core of belief. This core of belief is perpetuated in the dogma which is found in religion. The doctrine of religion projects its imagery through chuch institutions, organizations, and structures.


It is within this framework that the dogma of religion takes effect in the rituals and practices of religion. This is when dogma manifests its totality which is to strive to posit its conjunctive position which it takes with doctrinal matters, by grounding them in a certain code of rituals and superstitious practices.


The components of religion tend to be made of a hierarchy which oversee the dogmatic and doctrinal matters of religion as they are effected. That is in so far as they are effected within the context of a religious institutions through certain rituals and practices which abide by a certain code of conduct. This hierarchy tends to have different layers and different individuals to administer to the needs of different matters concerning dogma and doctrine.


In most cases the majority of individuals that belong to this hierarchy tend to oversee those matters concerning effecting doctrine through prescribed dogmatic codes. Then there is a minority of individuals who develop the dogmatic codes as they best see it fitting with a certain or specific set of doctrines, which they claim to be historical givens. In a large context I would break up the components of religion in the West into three specific categories and with multiple other categories existing within it.


The first category are the ethical overseers of dogmatic and doctrinal concerns as it applies to the effecting of dogma. The second is those who effect these commands which are deemed as imperative within the context of the codes whether they be dogmatic or liturgical. This means that generally there are certain presumptions made on the basis of certain arbitrary commands by the first category.


The third category is the participatory units of religion who merely receive that which is given by the first category through the mediation of the second. They constitute the dogmatic and doctrinal concerns in their full and is that which all the specific means and ends of religion are concerned.


The masses of the lay in religion tend to have an unspoken voice which is "powerful" in its own right concerning the effecting of doctrine through dogma and the "dogmatic" sketch and undertones of doctrine. That said their role is of least importance, because they merely imitate that which in full is arbitrarily given.

I will answer the other three questions later. Also my account given here usually is understood from a more Western angle. That is reflecting on a good deal of that which is found in the Christian religions to some extent and to a lesser extent to Islam and Judaism.


This is also just a general framework, since I don't care to reflect over all the petty details and such that belong to the dogmatic and doctrinal concerns of a specific religion in its totality. The more Eastern religions tend to be less strigent then more Western religions in some regards.


While in others, especially in the secular West, they tend to be more conservative. The nature of a religion changes along with the different causes of it which in part affect and are affected by the different perspectives and interpretations of religion.