rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/08/85)
> Rich, > your personal definition of ``religion'' implies a worship of a deity, > and your personal definition of ``worship'' implies the existence > of a deity -- or deities, I suppose. [LAURA CREIGHTON] It would be "my personal definition" if I took it from "my personal dictionary". Sorry, but I haven't published "The English Language According to Rich Rosen" yet. (Hell, I haven't even finished writing... uh, I mean TRANSLATING!!! (whew!) the Book of Ubizmo!!!) I would think that the dictionaries I utilized do not contain "personal" definitions. > Unfortunately, you are in Humpty Dumpty mode again. Everybody else > (yes, I am sure you could drag up people who agree with you, that > wasn't meant to be taken literally) just doesn't use words that way. I could (and with more substantiation, given the dictionaries) say the same thing back to you, Laura. > This definition of religon is true for Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- > though I know Gnostics who consider themselves Christian and who don't > ``worship God'' (according to them, Jesus was *not* God, and worshipping the > Demiurge [sp?] is a mistake) (as opposed to the Yezidees who have a similar > world view and who are proclaimed Satanists) and I am not sure how to > characterise Sufism. You seem to have left out Hinduism (though some Hindus > do ``worship'' as you understand the term) Buddhism, Taoism, and a great many > ``primative religions'' found in Malasia, Africa, and the Americas. > The european pagan tradition (assuming that you believe that there > was one, and that it is connected to current paganism, the point > being hotly debated in anthropological circles today) would be very > divided into worshippers and non-worshippers by your standard -- all > depending on what and how one takes to be symbols. > > That is a lot of people who consider themsleves ``religious'' and who > have designed ceremonies, and build statues, frescos and temples > and in general gathered together to express a common belief and > practice which they considered religious whom you are not recognising. There are also a lot of people who consider themselves "scientists", who hardly fit any reasonable definition of the term. Must we adhere to their self-labelling just because THEY say so? If the definition of religion implies worship of a deity (as I think I've shown that it does imply), then the philosophies/belief systems you mention simply do not fall into the category of "religion", and another word would have to be used to describe them. > Why must we all adopt your definitions? It seems that you are only > willing to discuss what are called ``Judeao-Christian religions'' > (the authority centred, God creator ones) and, at that, I can't > remember you discussing Islam ever, or Judaism much. If what you > want to discuss is Christianity, then, you are in the wrong newsgroup, > even if ``religion'' is synonymous with ``christianity'' to you. Gee, Laura, are you now back to telling me TO post to n.r.c? I'm confused. Religion, by definition, implies worship of a deity. Other belief systems or philosophies that do not engage in such worship are thus not religions. This does not make them "bad" (certainly not in my eyes), rather it simply means that another word should be used to describe them. Again, these are not MY definitions: there are commonly accepted definitions. The fact that a movement runs around calling itself a religion (or a science) does not make it so. Why such a movement would WANT to get lumped in with belief systems it is fundamentally different from in that regard is beyond me. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/10/85)
Rich, there isn't a university in the world that I know of which will give you a degree in comparative religions which will let you ignore Buddhism, Hinduism and various shamanistic religions simply because they do not believe in the sort of God that is believed in by Jews, Moslems and Christians. Ask around -- do people consider Hinduism a religion? Do people consider Buddhism a religion? What about Taoism? There is one school of thought that says that physics, biology and chemistry (with astronomy) are the only scientists, and ``computer scientists'' aren't. Yet I know a lot of computer professionals who really think that they are doing science. Is the opinion of the ``physics, biology and chemistry only'' crowd to be taken over the word of the computer scientists? I suspect not. What we need is a definiton of science and then we can figure out if computer scientists are doing it. It is wise to notice that if our definition of science ends up concluding that biologists are not scientists, then, no matter how initially appealing that defintion is, it is not useful as a definition of science. Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of it now. Too many of the world's great religions do not fit. It may be that most North Americans that you have come across would accept your defintion, (though I actually doubt this -- I think that they would accept that Hinduism is a religion as is Buddhism) but a simple plebiscite is not enough -- or astrology is a science, again. You must deal with the experts in the field - and I don't think that you will find any religion student or professor who will be happy with your definition. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/12/85)
> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of > it now. Because you say so? Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. If you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Can't you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because of this straying from the original topic!!! Your avoidance of the original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ... (No, I won't say it.) > There is one school of thought that says that physics, biology and > chemistry (with astronomy) are the only scientists, and ``computer > scientists'' aren't. Yet I know a lot of computer professionals who > really think that they are doing science. Is the opinion of the > ``physics, biology and chemistry only'' crowd to be taken over the > word of the computer scientists? I suspect not. What we need is > a definiton of science and then we can figure out if computer > scientists are doing it. I've heard it said that any "science" that must include the word "science" in its name (as if to justify it being called a science), such as "computer science" or "creation science", is by it very name NOT a science. Maybe this is one step in producing such a definition. :-? -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/12/85)
Rich, your definition changed. Last week you said that all religions have a belief in a creating deity which is external to the world. This week we have: a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. This is not the same thing. Indeed, a lot of Christians would not buy this definition of their God, since they don't think that God ``controls'' anything. [this assumes that ``controlling'' binds to ``power''. If it binds to ``ultimate'' instead, and the or is an xor, then thI think that all Christians would admit that this describes their Deity.] On the other hand, I am quite happy to profess a belief in willed, non-physical, supernatural entities. Not all members of other religions would agree with me, though. What I am trying to do is to get you to admit that your definition of religion excludes a good many things which are already known to be religions. I don't find your definitions any more congenial than those of the Ba'hai -- they claim religious eclecticism while firmly insisting on monotheism, and you are insistant upon theism. There are words for what you have defined which are in common usuage. Theism corresponds to your definition of today, and Judeao-Christian corresponds to your definition of last week (though what you are describing may be a larger set that happens to include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.) I am sorry that your exposure has been limited to people who either do not know of eastern religions, or are so misconceived about them that they might lead you to believe that your definition of religion is anything like that used by the world at large. However, there is nothing that I can do about it -- except to suggest that if you go about telling every potential Buddhist that you meet that Buddhism is not a religion, it is small wonder that they do not seek you out to clean up your misconceptions. Buddhism is a religion. Hinduism is a religion. There are lots more pagan religions. If you want a word which only gives you those religions which believe in a creator-deity, the word ``Judeao-Christian'' is often appropriate, and the phrase ``Western religion'' is perhaps moreso, and is more inclusive. The belief in a creator-god can be traced through all cultures which have had contact with the metaphysics of Aristotle, so it may be that it is the mataphysics of Aristotle that you are actually interested in, or perhaps how that influenced the development of religion. If I had decided to continue studies in the philosophy of religion I would have gone for a Masters on that very subject -- it is very interesting. If you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Horrors. I recall Christians who were discussing the various differences between one sect of Protestantism and another react the very same way to you plowing in and arguing about Christianity. This is what I want to argue about, so I guess that you are stuck with it this time. Can't you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because of this straying from the original topic!!! Ah, but Rich, I *am* on topic. This began with your ``logic based on different assumptions'' article. I am working very heavily on one of your assumptions - that Eastern religions, and pagan religions generally, are not religions. This faulty assumption influences your logic to a very great degree -- indeed, it makes you prefer to think that I am avoiding the argument rather that meeting it head on. *your* *concept* *of* *religion* *has* *no* *room* *in* *it* *for* *my* *religion*. This shows how very attatched you are to your false concept of religion -- you would rather believe that your interpretation of the definition of a general purpose dictionary is correct rahter than ask any religion, philosophy of religion, or theology student or professor. I suspect that if you did a house to house poll, even in New Jersey you will find that most people think that Buddhism is a religion and that Hinduism is a religion. But you *still* cling to your concept. I it almost amusing that clinging to his concept of God is what you are accusing Paul Dubuc of. Again, I say, that both you and the Christians have missed the whole thing by confusing your concepts with reality. If you do not understand what I mean by this, consider -- if Buddhism and Hinduism are religions, then you have confused your concept of religion with what a religion is, and are so confused you *still* defend your belief. Your avoidance of the original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ... (No, I won't say it.) If you think that, then you have imposed *another* concept of my behaviour upon my behaviour. But I am trying to get away from that. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/13/85)
In article <657@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen in disguise) writes: [quoting Laura Creighton] >> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of >> it now. > >Because you say so? Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined >in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" >or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate >controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. If >you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not >debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Can't >you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness >the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because >of this straying from the original topic!!! Your avoidance of the >original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ... >(No, I won't say it.) Christianity? [I told you not to say it!] :-) Rich has edited out precisely the part of Laura's original article in which she presents the authority for her claim: > Message-ID: <5199@utzoo.UUCP> > Rich, there isn't a university in the world that I know of which > will give you a degree in comparative religions which will let you > ignore Buddhism, Hinduism and various shamanistic religions simply > because they do not believe in the sort of God that is believed in > by Jews, Moslems and Christians. Ask around -- do people consider > Hinduism a religion? Do people consider Buddhism a religion? > What about Taoism? > Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of > it now. Too many of the world's great religions do not fit. It may > be that most North Americans that you have come across would accept > your defintion, (though I actually doubt this -- I think that they would > accept that Hinduism is a religion as is Buddhism) but a simple > plebiscite is not enough -- or astrology is a science, again. You > must deal with the experts in the field - and I don't think that > you will find any religion student or professor who will be happy > with your definition. The problem is, Rich, that Buddhism, for instance, has a radically different view of the cosmos from the one you espouse; yet it has no deities. Belief in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God. The fact that your dictionary definition demands belief in a single god indicates that it is so heavily popularized that as a TECHNICAL definition it is worthless. [By the way, Rich, I find it amusing that you have cut the heart out of an article you quote, in precisely the way that you invariably accuse me of.] Charley Wingate
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/14/85)
Look, Rich. Several dictionary definitions of "religion" have been pointed out that do not mention deity in any way. Would you care to respond to them? So far, all you've done is pointed out that they do not EXCLUDE deity. That is not sufficient to show that they necessarily INCLUDE deity, and in fact Buddhism meets several of them while remaining completely atheistic. I've got a fun idea. Is there a university near where you live? If so, how about going down to the admissions office and telling the person there that you want to study Buddhism but you aren't sure what department such classes would be in. After the laughter subsides, go down to the university library and see what classification books on Buddhism are filed under. Then I suggest contacting Chogyam Trungpa and asking him how he got tax-exempt status for his organization. When you're done with all this, buy any book on the "World's Great Religions" and see if Buddhism and Taoism are listed there. After you do these things and report the results on net.religion, then I will be happy to continue this discussion with you. Of course, you are free to use a definition of "religion" different from that of virtually every expert in the field if (for some emotional reason) you so wish. But language is based on consensus, and if you flout the conventions, you can't expect much communication to happen. Still, if it's any solace, I WAS once criticized by another ceremonial magician for calling Magick a religion... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/16/85)
From pyuxd!rlr (Rich Rosen): >> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of >> it now. [LAURA CREIGHTON] > >Because you say so? Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined >in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" >or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate >controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. If >you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not >debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Can't >you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness >the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because >of this straying from the original topic!!! Well, if you can't appeal to God as an ultimate authority, there's always the dictionary :-). Seriously, though, I would be at least a little curious what dictionary it is that contains the rather restrictive definition of religion cited above, and no others. Others submitting articles on this question have already quoted dictionaries showing that the term "religion" is much broader than Rich wants it to be. Rich, aren't you at *all* bothered that the definition you give above excludes many branches of Buddhism and Taoism (no God), Deism (no controlling power), pantheism, and probably others that I'm overlooking? In any case, the question of what constitutes "religion" is a side-issue. You and the Christian apologists have been discussing the "whys" (or lack of them) of existence, and Laura has offered ideas that don't fit with either side's point of view. You can call them "speculative philosophy" if you don't want to call them religious, but they *are* responsive to the questions being addressed; this is hardly "straying from the original topic". If Laura's points are of interest to you, I think you should respond to them with something more substantial than quibbles over whether they are religious by your definition. And if they are not of interest, there is no need to respond at all. You are free to continue your debates with the proponents of anthropomorphic ideas of deity, and ignore the rest. But however you subdivide the territory, it remains a fact that there are opinions about the ultimate nature of reality (there's a grandiose phrase!) that are not atheistic, but also do not require a belief in supernatural manlike creatures with long beards who work miracles at will, and keep track of any and all sparrows that fly by. And neither you nor the Christian apologists have a special charter guaranteeing that only your viewpoints are appropriate to this discussion. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/16/85)
>>> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of >>> it now. [LAURA CREIGHTON] > >>Because you say so? Sorry, Laura, I'm talking about religion as defined >>in the dictionary, meaning a system involving beliefs in "supernatural" >>or non-physical entities (whatever that means) of some higher or ultimate >>controlling power with a will and the means to exercise that will. If >>you're talking about other systems, then don't argue with me. I'm not >>debating the merits or non-merits of such systems (at this time). Can't >>you please stick to the topic? Go back three or four iterations and witness >>the numerous points in my earlier articles that have gone unanswered because >>of this straying from the original topic!!! Your avoidance of the >>original questions almost made me think that maybe you had converted to ... >>(No, I won't say it.) [ROSEN] > Christianity? [I told you not to say it!] :-) Ahem. *YOU* said it yourself. > Rich has edited out precisely the part of Laura's original article in which > she presents the authority for her claim: >> Rich, there isn't a university in the world that I know of which >> will give you a degree in comparative religions which will let you >> ignore Buddhism, Hinduism and various shamanistic religions simply >> because they do not believe in the sort of God that is believed in >> by Jews, Moslems and Christians. Ask around -- do people consider >> Hinduism a religion? Do people consider Buddhism a religion? >> What about Taoism? >> Okay. You have proposed a definition of religion. We must dispose of >> it now. Too many of the world's great religions do not fit. It may >> be that most North Americans that you have come across would accept >> your defintion, (though I actually doubt this -- I think that they would >> accept that Hinduism is a religion as is Buddhism) but a simple >> plebiscite is not enough -- or astrology is a science, again. You >> must deal with the experts in the field - and I don't think that >> you will find any religion student or professor who will be happy >> with your definition. As I've repeated several times in several places (which is why this part was excised, not, as "charley" the kettle-calling pot says, in an effort to "cut out the heart of an article", but rather in an effort not to repeat points made elsewhere). Anyway, as I've repeated several times in several places: if 50 million people say that a tomato is a vegetable, must we change the botany books or alter the definition of vegetable? Not at all. The people who say that the tomato is a vegetable have simply mislabelled it. Lots of things get mislabelled, and get stuck with the erroneous classification for all eternity. That doesn't make the tomato a vegetable. > The problem is, Rich, that Buddhism, for instance, has a radically different > view of the cosmos from the one you espouse; yet it has no deities. I can't imagine how you'd "know" that... > Belief in the supernatural in no way implies belief in a single God. Belief in and worship of a superior so-called supernatural entity (-ies) = ... (Fill in the "...") > The fact that your dictionary definition demands belief in a single god... It doesn't, and what's more I never claimed that it did or that such a limitation was part of the definition of religion. > ... indicates that it > is so heavily popularized that as a TECHNICAL definition it is worthless. Since it doesn't, I'd say the definition is still worthwhile. And I'd say that another, more accurate word, perhaps a new one (that happens, you know--- new words...), would be more suitable to describe belief systems like Buddhism. But let's say I gather 50 million people together and we all agree to claim, for the rest of our lives, that Buddhism is not only a religion, it is a sect of Christianity. By "our" definition. We don't wish to be limited by usage of the language or definitions of "christian". In fifty years time, will it be so? Because we say it's so? If we convince the rest of the world that Buddhism is a sect of Christianity, still retaining the definition of Christianity being belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the son of god, would THAT make it so? Or would we have mislabelled Buddhism? Once it's so, and Buddhism is taught as a form of Christianity (whatever that means), is it likely to get "unlabelled"? Does THAT make it so? > [By the way, Rich, I find it amusing that you have cut the heart out of an > article you quote, in precisely the way that you invariably accuse me of.] I'm glad you find it amusing. The reason the "heart" was cut out was because all the points I've made, which answered Laura's comments, had been redundantly addressed elsewhere. Why is it, though, that I "invariably" have to accuse you of same? -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/17/85)
Okay Rich, we have a problem. Do you know why people think that tomatoes are vegetables? I know an apocryphal story, and i can't vouch for its correctness, but it seems that the Food and Drug Administration classified them this way to make it easier for the farmers who raised vegetables and tomatoes. 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. Now, look around. See how many people have a problem with this definition. The only people I know who are seriously upset by it are those who are objecting to Ronald Reagan calling ketchup a vegetable. Are there any others that I have missed? I suspect that having tomatoes reclassified by the FDA will not fix Ronald Reagan in such a way that everybody will go home happy to sleep tonight. I think that the whole thing doesn't matter very much. If you want to fight the FDA I can tell you about a lot of other things that they are doing which could use more fighting than the definition of tomato, but I suspect that fighting the FDA is not what you really want to do. Now it is interesting that the botanists and farmers and gardeners who use tomatoes in their work might conceivably want the definition of tomato as a vegetable scrapped. I don't see them doing this, but one could see why they are interested. Now, is it the religious writers, religion professors, clergy, and gurus that object to people classifying Hinduism and Buddhism as a religion? On the whole, no -- there are some zealots who object to anything other than their religion being called religion, but I think that we can excuse them. Is this because they think that Buddhists worship a deity? Nope -- they argue like crazy over whether yoga is a form of prayer, so I think they are rather aware of the distinction. 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. 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. 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)? Laura Creighton ps I think that we spell Ken Arndt's name wrong because the ending ``dn't'' is common in English. Also, I have no idea how to pronounce that name -- in my head it is a homonym for ``aren't''.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/21/85)
> 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
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/21/85)
Rich, People in religion departments all over the world are very interested in religion. Christians have found that they have something in common with Buddhists and with Hindus. The complement is also true. Suppose you were able to forbid everyone to use the term ``religion'' unless they believed your definition. Immediately the religion departments have a problem. They are going to have to call themselves something else! But picking a new word is a hassle. It should have been easier to convince Rich Rosen that the word ``religion'' has been used to describe Buddhists and Hindus for centuries, and that if he wants a name that excludes them we have a wide variety from which he can select. ``Theism'' is a good one, as is ``Judeao-Christian'' or ``Western Religion'' or even ``Aristotelian Religion'' (if you want to use a phrase that the philosophers sometimes use but that the religion departments, on the whole are not pleased with.) If you don't want to use the technical words that religious scholars have come up with, you may have to invent your own. What you cannot do is take a word that already has a technical meaning and say ``wow! some people don't believe this! you can't have that meaning any more! what's more, you can't want it! How can you be so crass as to let yourself be confused with those people?'' This is akin to telling the botanists that they can't call tomatoes a fruit because some people think it is a vegetable. After all, if you call it a fruit then somebody will think that you are ignorant because they ``know'' that a tomato is a vegetable! How can you know that the botanists are correct, and that the religion scholars are wrong? I maintain that you can't. You simply accept one definition and do not accept another. But you still haven't given us a reason to change our beliefs to suit yours -- just more opinion that your beliefs are somehow better. But I can gets lots of opinions that you are simply obstinant in not either defining a new word, or finding an existing one that means what you want to talk about. Why do you assume that the people of various religions do not themselves see they have something in common for any other reason than to confuse and be obscure? Isn't this a paranoid assumption? Maybe, just maybe, they know something about religion that you do not. Maybe, just maybe, you could find out about it and then learn why it is that it is necessary to have a word which encompasses both the theistic and non-theistic religions. It isn't a big secret. If you spend even a short time at any religion department of any university I know you will find people who are willing to explain this to you -- assuming that you are willing to listen and don't keep arguing with them all the time about whether they should be allowed to use words as they have always used them. While you are learning, I am sure that someone could point out to you that ``divine'' does not mean the same as ``god'' (at least to all people) and that ``worship'' does not imply a god that is the object of worship, or any object of worship distinct from the self at all. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura