from: "What is a Religious Belief?'

http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-is-a-religious-belief/


1. Many problems. ��not only in philosophy but in other areas such as religion, ��result from the imprecise use of language. A prime example is the debate about what constitutes a "religious belief."

2. What exactly makes a belief a religious belief? In order to make that determination we must first define the term in such a way that it is neither too broad nor too narrow by listing all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs.*

3. We should also expect to find that a minimally precise definition will have exposed the fact that some beliefs that we might have considered to be religious really are not, while finding that others are actually more religious than we might have imagined

4.Clouser uses this common element to formulate a precise definition: A belief is a religious belief provided that it is (1) a belief in something as divine or (2) a belief about how to stand in proper relation to the divine, where (3) something is believed to be divine provided it is held to be unconditionally nondependent.

=====================================================


It is always interesting to me what people will shrug off as being 'religious' belief

like, why is an opposition to homosexual lifestyle a 'religious' belief

but an opposition to stealing or lying just sound reasoning?


why is defining marriage as a union of male and female strictly 'religious', but defining a father as the male parent just a sound definition?


I would believe clearly that things like believing in Gods is religious, or believing in the concept of 'sin' (as opposed to just 'wrong') is religious, or believing in heaven or hell or purgatory, to be religious beliefs.

I don't understand though how VALUES become so clearly defined as religious or just,,,,secular, or normal, or personal?




why do you think certain values are shrugged off as merely 'religious' (and therefore not valid)?

Even though everything in the first place is a choice, I do believe they place say being against homosexual into the religious category to ease their conscious on the decision. It places it more on a "belief" level rather then a way it's ment to be sort of thing.

It makes it to where people can just live as they personally choose or wish to live without any form of restrictions, minus the things that have immediate effects such as breaking man's law. Because we aren't punished here and now, they feel they will never have to account for one did.

Generally because certain positions are religious based with no other support.
1. Same-sex marriage- every argument against is religious based
2. Creationism- this is religious based as there is no accepted science behind it.

I don't see why the obvious is so difficult to see

TB, IM surprised that you believe this to be true

'every' argument against same sex marriage is found STRICTLY in religion? I strongly disagree

no more than arguments against divorce or polygamy or incest or promiscuity are STRICTLY religious,, they are certainly personal values that can come from a number of cultural values and priorities and beliefs,,,,


people can just believe that the foundation that creates family (union of man and woman) is the foundation of marriage

and religion didn't dictate or make it so that life cant be created except with a man and woman,, NATURE did,,,,and people interpreted that into their personal values and beliefs

creationism I would agree is religious based, as is deity, and beliefs about life before or beyond this one,,,,

Perhaps you should study comparative anthropology? We are in an age of Post-Modernism, where traditional Western values of social cohesion are no longer valid. Modernism officially died in 1974, try to keep up with the times

who decides whether a value is valid or invalid?

how can values, which are inanimate, 'die'?

this has nothing to do with modernism , but is instead about how personal VALUES are labeled as 'religious' by so many liberals when they don't agree with something that they happen to be able to find in a religious book,,,


does one need to study comparative anthropology to understand how organizations thrive and survive?

I could start an organized religion that believes that states it is ok to lie with animals(with protection of course,,lol), but I doubt it would gather much following or last thousands of years of its own initiative,, but because there were already enough who BELIEVED this value ,, who organized to commune together and reach others with similar beliefs...


'organized' religion didn't facilitate out of the air, but by speaking to the values people must have already held on some level from some source,,,,

so the idea of a value being strictly 'religious' is shallow and illogical,,,

a 'belief, however, like that there is a deity or an afterlife, could be attributed to religion

a 'value' (whats right/wrong) really cannot,,,,

but people now often use 'belief' when describing personal values,, which is what leads to the labeling that so annoys me,, personally

I have done many sessions of Values Clarification, a cognitive-behavioural technique, when doing therapy with individuals. What is meaningful to you and why? But you brought up homosexuality (a reaction formation?); I don't understand how opposing two people who love each other is a value? Then you have to ask: why? exposed to bad science? past trauma? indoctrination? odd definition of a family (did you see Al Franken correct a pastor who was misquoting the government study on families?), etc.

Science is a religion though.

Science - something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

Religion - a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

They just are a study of two different things. Both taken on faith, unless you're the one that did specifically the research to figure out whatever it is that may be on the subject at the time. But any "knowledge" personally accepted from another is taking something on faith.

way to oversimplify,, another surprise from you today,,,


opposing people 'in love',, is much more an issue of opposing what 'in love' manifests as


why do people oppose incest? not the pedophile kind, but the kind between consenting adults? is that strictly a 'religious' value?


if they are in love, after all, why would anyone oppose it?

it has nothing to do with 'bad science' or past trauma ,, at least not on my part

its just the general feeling of how inappropriate it is to be lying down with someone that has the same parents or is a parent,, no matter how 'in love' you are

how socially destructive the potential is to eradicate familial labels like FATHER and UNCLE, in favor of daddys who are also granddaddys, or uncles,,,,,


there is a social DISRUPTION in what one is comfortable with as a FAMILY relation and a FAMILIAR relation that has no exclusive Religious base,,,

I didn't define 'family' either, I said that the only way for a family to be STARTED, is for a male and female to first unite

people who adopt a child are that childs family, but it couldn't have been started without that child, which couldn't be there without a male and female union of some sort,,


except in the strange cases of impersonal implantations from strangers, which still have to be an opposite sex deal,,,,

Funny I do find bans on incest in many "holy texts"- incest can cause extreme mental/physical damage. So the point you are making is -you feel uncomfortable around homosexual families? I feel uncomfortable around Ohio State fans ( I went to Ohio University), but I don't try to ban or kill them.
I feel uncomfortable around most of my clients (esp- the dementia ones, they are always taking off their clothes, why do they do that and I mean one lady I walked down the hall to the dining room and eight times she dropped her pants- remember, I am pretty much prudish). Social disruption is the cause of post-modernism. So, there is that..... just saying. Plus I just did a double shift and I am tired

Homosexuality isn't secluded to love. I can love another man and not be homosexual. Homosexuality is the action of two people of the same gender having sex. Which there is not productive outcome of for what sex is about and the reasoning people have sex eg., reproduction.

It's not about anybody being uncomfortable with homosexuality or anything foul in their eyes of specifically homosexuality. It's about again there is no reproduction done through homosexuality. Thus it's pure a fleshly pleasure, thus it's sinful. As again the pure entire reasoning for sex is for reproduction.

TB wrote: Funny I do find bans on incest in many "holy texts"- incest can cause extreme mental/physical damage. So the point you are making is -you feel uncomfortable around homosexual families? I feel uncomfortable around Ohio State fans ( I went to Ohio University), but I don't try to ban or kill them.
I feel uncomfortable around most of my clients (esp- the dementia ones, they are always taking off their clothes, why do they do that and I mean one lady I walked down the hall to the dining room and eight times she dropped her pants- remember, I am pretty much prudish). Social disruption is the cause of post-modernism. So, there is that..... just saying. Plus I just did a double shift and I am tired








I also find murder being forbidden in many texts, doesn't make it a 'religious value' though

there is correlation between incest and mental/physical damage of CHILDREN,, not nearly as much in CONSENTING ADULTS,,,,and good luck defining whether disturbed adults choose the relationship or the relationship causes the adults to be disturbed,,,


I do feel uncomfortable with the idea of my daughter having physical intimacy with her brother or another female

yet I don't try to 'ban' homosexuality as I would never support a law making that an illegal activity,,,,,

I do , however, refuse to support the GOVERNMENT or social mandate to support, encourage, and/or promote those activities,,,


social disruption is also the cause of chaos and genocide,, just saying


few things are all good or all bad, most things can be manipulated towards either


and I woke up too early, so Im tired too

There is a difference between homosexual behaviour and homosexuality

there is also a great grey area of what that is,, and the acceptance or recognition of any of the grey area that could be actually

'bisexual'

Typo- I DO NOT find bans on incest....

Who is promoting homosexuality- just because they want to legalize it on equal footing, does not mean promoting it, it means equal rights- familiar with that term? Sexual orientation follows a Bell curve- few people are 100% homosexual and few are 100% heterosexual, most are in-between.

See Cowboy says its a "sin"- ergo religious belief. Maybe I miss your point?

And a man loving another man isn't homosexual behavior, it's loving a fellow person. Homosexuality is PURELY physical. Before anything physical is done, there is no "homosexuality".

its already 'legal' to have homosexual relations,,there is nothing BANNED about it

what is new is requiring the government to teach about the lifestyle, to ban open disagreement or disapproval of the lifestyle or exclusion of those activities,,,

equal rights and civil rights are familiar terms tossed around to get support for any political issue,,, one day Im sure which will include incestuous marriage between consenting adults

you do miss my point.

that something is a 'sin' is a religious qualifier, as 'sin' is a religious concept

but believing something is 'wrong' can be a matter of abiding by mans laws or Gods laws, both of which tend to overlap because they originate with HUMAN BEINGS and cultures,,,

a 'value' is not a strictly religious thing, whether one labels it semantically as 'sinful' is a religious equivalent of labeling it semantically as 'wrong' or 'unlawful'

I don't catch your meaning behind what you said in reference to me. I'd like to make another thing clear first "sin" isn't secluded to religious beliefs. Sin is disobeying a set of laws given to oneself. This could be from God or even from man eg., government. It's just as culture changed through time, people don't refer to general disobedience as "sin". And on top of that, don't even know what I was referred to in your post lol, you didn't quote something I said.

I now many celibate homosexuals, if you know what I mean