Is it possible to be a follower of multiple religions?

a reply to: Astyanax

define cultural tradition; or try nietzsche and zara.

You wanna use etymology, its latin. Moral and ethics is taught by religion, by forcing a dogma.

Morals = Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

Ethics = The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.

Many say the etymology of religion lies with the Latin word religare, is it defined ? No.

The Oxford English Dictionary points out, though, that the etymology of the word religare is doubtful.

Earlier writers like Cicero connected the term with relegere
, which means “to read over again” (perhaps to emphasize the ritualistic nature of religions?).

Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration),which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

You just think we put a word just because?

When you understand religion for what it is, please come back.. In your world it means bind, in my it means play and repeat.

a reply to: rajas

You really are enthusiastic about your hobby, aren't you?

Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

If morals are prescriptive how can they be a compass? A compass doesn't tell you where to steer, it just tells you where north is. The compass is ethics.

Ethics = The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.

Wrong again. Ethics are not rules. They are the principles from which moral prescriptions are formulated.

Many say the etymology of religion lies with the Latin word religare, is it defined ? No.

Whatever you think that statement means.

Earlier writers like Cicero connected the term with relegere

No, only Cicero did. The reason why this became popular is that Christian commentators don't like the much better-established derivation from 'religare' because they don't want to admit that religion is 'binding'. As I said earlier, a false etymology, talked up by Christian scholars for propaganda reasons.

When you understand religion for what it is, please come back.. In your world it means bind, in my it means play and repeat.

Meaning, 'when you agree with my ideas about religion, please come back.'

When you understand that linguistics and philosophy don't exist to serve your belief system, please come back.

a reply to: Astyanax

no i really meant, when you understand religion for what it is.

How do you think laws were made?

Not a hobby

a reply to: rajas

no i really meant, when you understand religion for what it is.

I understand religion as Philip Larkin understood it.

That vast moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die.

The use of religion to reinforce existing social structures is probably as old as belief in the supernatural. However, it was consensual, possibly mediated by shamans and tribal elders; but shamans and tribal elders, too, were subject to the same rituals and taboos as everybody else. If they flouted them, they ceased to be respected and obeyed.

The use of religion to enforce obedience over large populations is a product of the agricultural revolution. Communal rituals became mass gatherings. A priestly caste emerged and allied itself with the rulers; religion was turned into an instrument of the State. Obedience to authority was sold to the people as obedience to the gods. That is where the alliance between religion and morality comes from. A Devil's bargain between faith and power.

All that is well understood. However, none of it would work unless religion supplied individual men and women with some kind of benefit. It is these benefits — and they are many — which give faith its value. That value, as everyone knows who has ever been religious themselves, is personal.

The personal benefits of religious faith are well expounded in the Twenty-Third Psalm:

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

One benefit is not mentioned, although it is implicit in every line of the psalm: religious doctrine helps the believer find his place in a confusing, unfair and dangerous world.

The Twenty-Third Psalm is the expression of a faith that demands exclusive loyalty: a sheep cannot follow more than one shepherd. But the benefits listed are not exclusive to any single religion, and there is absolutely nothing to prevent people from obtaining them from several belief systems at once. In fact, it is the human norm.

It is allegiance to a single belief system only that is unusual, even perverse, and it is always what causes the trouble. Fanatics are believers in one way and one way only.

Syncretists and polytheists don't start religious wars, torture heretics or bomb abortion clinics.

How do you think laws were made?

Laws were made by rulers to control the people. Religious sanction is useful because spies and policemen cannot be everywhere. If you make people believe that the gods see what they are doing even when other men cannot, you bind their hearts as well as their limbs.

a reply to: Astyanax

Amen

a reply to: Astyanax

Problem with religion isnt religion, in world war I and II, a mere ten percent of the people fighting did the slaughter, the rest were bystanders forced into it. The ideals of choice, if you wonder if im a religious fanatic, no. Im a naturalist.
All empires has an expansion date of about threehundred years, then the benefits outweights the obligations required to make it sustainable, it implodes on human instincts, but it was built on religious foundations.
Fear is what keeps humanity in check, not freedom. You are always bonded by your instincts and a slave to them..
Do i wish we didnt need religion to be human, of course.

People will agree with you, cause you feed their needs.
But they wont share anything that they believe is their right.

I would say NO. Paul is the chief pattern of God’s grace to all, he is the foremost example. We need to understand that even though Paul was saved, Paul still considered himself to be a sinner. Paul understood the word: Sin. And Paul understood that word meant to come short of the righteousness belonging to God himself. Paul is the foremost example of the impossibility, the total impossibility of gaining righteousness before God through the performance of the flesh.

Religion is all about working to get saved, but Paul wants us to know how a person is saved. He wants us to understand the basis by which God provides eternal security, not only has provided the gift of salvation; but provides eternal security to all those who place their faith in what the sacrifice of his son accomplished. It is our faith in the accomplishment of Jesus Christ’s faithful sacrifice that is the means whereby God acknowledges that we have accepted the gift his son purchased.

Religion is all about works of righteousness. To walk after the flesh, is to assign righteous credit to your fleshly conduct, from Adam onward, people have been doing what seems right to a person in regard to having a relationship with God. Not one member of the entire human race has ever lived up to any system of rule-keeping for righteousness. Yet, how many are attempting today, to do what humankind before us was totally unable to do? How many people think they are measuring up to God’s standard today?

a reply to: newnature1

Your three posts are totally off topic. Did you just see an opportunity to testify or something?

All you're saying is that your personal idea of religion is exclusive. Yes, we know some people are like that.

But that does not make it impossible for others to follow, say, both Buddhism and Taoism.