Saturday, July 28, 2007
Polytheistic reality in Monotheism
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".
ReplyDeleteHow could Akbar be wrong?
Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.
ReplyDeleteI like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.
OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)
ReplyDeleteTraditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.
ReplyDeleteIt's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.
ReplyDeleteZeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.
ReplyDeleteIt largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.
ReplyDeleteSome Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.
This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.
Cheers,
Ethelred
This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
ReplyDeleteCatholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.
At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.
ReplyDeleteAs for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).
Cheers,
Ethelred
I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.
ReplyDeleteMay it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.
ReplyDeleteI see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.
ReplyDeleteOk, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?
ReplyDeleteNew King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.
ReplyDeleteIn the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.
There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.
The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.
Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".
Forgot Moffatt's translation :)
It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.
ReplyDeleteBut actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).
Cheers,
Ethelred
I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?
ReplyDeleteEthelred, your thoughts are interesting.
ReplyDeleteI think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference.
I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.
While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Ethelred
You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-P
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Ethelred
In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...
To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.
Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.
Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P
ReplyDeletePersonally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.
Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.
ReplyDeleteThe mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.
Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.
ReplyDeleteMer...
ReplyDeleteDo god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.
By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.
I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.
Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.
Salaam,
This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?
ReplyDeleteI prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.
ReplyDeleteIf we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.
Indeed I haven't got a friend who are called monkey, etc..anyway..aside from the joke..
ReplyDeleteYou see God is an absolute being, but when it comes to his name it's not absolute.
We usually think Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism, Lord is the name of God in Christianity, Allah is the name of God in Islam, Zeus is the name of God in Greek mythology and all are true.Allah means only one God so in Islamic countries there's no only one God other than Allah, probably therefore Christians in Islamic countries call their God Allah, did you know that? Allah is the name of God for Muslims and for Christians in Islamic countries. Likewise the case of the use of Zeus is similar to it.Francisco Xavier along with Ignatius Loyola formed Jesuit Order in 1534 and started a missionary worldwide. Xavier came to Japan in 1549 and started preaching work there. He is Roman Catholic and the name of God called among Japanese Catholic those days is Deus, phonetically changed but apparently derived from the word Zeus. In 1614, the preaching work of Catholic in Japan was totally banned but till that time the number of Catholic believers are 650,000, more than today's Catholic believers in Japan that is 450,000.The name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though.
As far as I know, there are three streams in Chinese religions. Taoism and Confucianism are very Chinese proper but Chinese Buddhism is of course from India. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Laozi, Confucious, Gautama had lived almost the same period circa 5 BC. The history of Hinduism is much older than them.
ReplyDeleteSo you think if there's only one God, it must be one. Correct? How do you think about this -if there's only one truth, it must be one?
ReplyDeleteI do not know why you would hesitate. Not too long ago - some 40 years - Latin was used exclusively in Roman Catholic churches world wide. We had to learn many phrases to be able to respond to the priest. And, since "deus" is Latin word meaning "god" - it would be quite proper to use it.
ReplyDeleteI think that we - that is people, Christians, believers etc - are getting too hung up on the name. If (a biggie!) we accept the Bible as the "Word of God", then by far more important is doing what it says - and "Lord" (the Hebrews used "Adonoi") should be permitted.
I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.
ReplyDeleteRa the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.
ReplyDeleteYup...
ReplyDeleteWell then.. of course. Absolutely. But If some body else think the others ways or even the opposite way... no problem. That's okay for me. No matter at all. We still can living side by side.
Original Chinese religion is much older - around 5000 years. Hinduism evolved in post-vedic times, and that means after 1200 b.c.e. I'm not sure when the experts start calling it hinduism instead of vedic religion; before Buddha, definitely.
ReplyDeleteAnd the word "deus" is STILL not derived from Zeus - which doesn't mean "god" in Greek and never did.
There isn't any. The Hindus have those three main gods. It's not a trinity in the Christian sense.
ReplyDeleteI am perplexed by the claim of Confucism as a religion. Kong Tzu had very little to say on religion, spirituality or god(s). He left it as enough to say that the proper rituals must be observed according the rules of propriety.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can ascertain, Kong Tzu would not have approved of Taoism, Lao Tzu being roughly his contemporary, and yet it is perhaps ironically easy to identify many taoist influences in post-Kong Tzu Confucian teachings. Kong Tzu instead would likely have approved only of the religion of "the ancients", just as all his other teachings focused on doing that which "the ancients" before him had done.
But the convergence of Taoism and Confucism didn't take long at all - even in the Analects, purportedly the work of his disciples, you already see a strong and frequent intermingling of the two. Either that or the uderlying principle of Taoism pre-dated Lao Tzu and were already deeply embedded in the Chinese psyche. It's not clear to me if Lao Tzu was merely formalizing that which had long been believe amongst the Chinese or developing something quite new. I'm rather of the opinion, not well substantiated I must admit, that Kong Tzu was doing just that - formalizing that which had long been an integral part of being Chinese rather than creating something new. Anybody have any insight into these things?
If religion is the sense that life has a goal or direction, with some practice for moving in that direction, then Confucianism is fully a religion. Confucius had a sense that all lives are related in one greater life, and we are on a path to realizing and honoring that. What else do you really need to call somebody a "believer" is something?
ReplyDeleteBut then how to reconcile the statement of Kong Tzu that one must observe the religious rituals of the ancients with the idea that Confuciams is a religion? Or do you propose that Confucism entails a religion within a religion?
ReplyDeleteAll religions drag along traditions from before their prophets lived. Jesus referred constantly to Jewish teachers before him, and never claimed to be starting a new religion. The Quran is full of references to the Old Testament and even the Christian scriptures. All these things are built on older foundations
ReplyDeleteI tried looking up the word Zeus in Wikipaedia, then I learned as you wrote the word Deus is not derived from Zeus. Many years ago when I was still in junior high school student, I took it for granted that the name of God in Christianity is Jehovah, I remember I feel really amazed to find the word 'Deus' in the document written by Japanese Catholics in 16 century. I must have mistakenly understood the word Deus is derived from Zeus in Greek mythology because of the similarity in its sound. Judging from Wikipaedia article, Zeus, Ju in Jupiter, Deus, etc are all related to God of sky also a supreme being, that derived from Proto-Indo European language 'diwa' so although Deus is not derived from Zeus, Deus -Ju -Zeus are all derived from the same root, diwa. As to your first part, Chinese religion or Indian religion, which is older? I will reply to you as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's not the same or rather different. I think trinity is more philosophical.I got curious, because I never thought about the similarity. This emphasis to three also reminds me of dialectics.
ReplyDeleteI asked a Hindu coworker of mine about his religion and if he felt it was monotheistic and he wasn't particularly keen on the idea. Granted, that's just one man's opinion out of hundreds of millions of Hindus, but I don't have any reason to think he's particularly radical in his approach to his religion either way, so I would guess that is a very common view.
ReplyDeleteConfucianism is not a religion. Confucius taught how to govern self, family, people basically. Thus his thought was required for bureaucrat-to-be to learn thoroughly, not for monk-to-be.The reason some people think Confucianism is religion is probably because of the fact that his mausoleum became the very famous shrine and gathers many admirers. I used the term 'religion' in much lighter sense and oughtn't to have used it in this sense. I understand the difference between Taoism and Confucianism is the former is more self-oriented while the latter more government-oriented. Usually the thought of Rao Tzu was supported by recluse.
ReplyDeleteEthelred's idea is one of good examples how Westerners grasp polytheism monotheistically. Personally I think Hinduism is like Greek mythology has many Gods multilaterally. Every God represents some supreme power respectively. As you did, recently I asked how Indians feel about their God to one Japanese who's been living in Nepal for a couple of years. He said they believe in Gods more than their population.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, original Chinese religion can trace back to 5000 BC. But this same Neolithic period there also appeared a bud of Hinduism in India. Hinduism based on tests like Rigveda started around 1200 BC. In a text based sense, Chinese religions started around 500 BC.
ReplyDeleteReligion is the sum total of a persons view of the universe, his sense of the goal in life, and his means of moving toward that goal. Of course Confucian tradition has all these things. To label their tradition as "not a religion" is quibbling over terminology. It's like saying that other people's systems of belief do not count a religion unless they have certain beliefs in common with my own religion.
ReplyDeleteReligion is derived from religio in Greek which means believe in something firmly. There is a fundamental difference between Confucianism and religions. In religions, usually we have to believe in something that is impossible for us to confirm its existence unless we believe it firmly. God and Buddha falls on this objective, but in Confucianism there's no such objectives. All his teachings are understandable in line with our ordinary daily life. Confucianism is ethics at best, it's far from religion. Religion is not merely the sum total over a persons view of the universe, his sense of the goal in life, and his means of moving toward that goal. But it requires objective of admiration. Some people use the word religion very roughly like thought, morals, ethics, so I am not in the least opposing to the use of the word in many senses.
ReplyDeleteThe English term "religion" may come from a Greek root word, etc., but this does not delimit the reality we are speaking of across the world. Everywhere people have beliefs, values, world-views and beneficial practices. These make up their religions. The question is not "whether" they have religion; it is only a question of what kind of religion they have.
ReplyDeleteConfucius believed firmly in his values and beliefs about the best way to live. He was strict in making himself an example of the way of life he felt was best for all. His values were based on a belief that all people are related in one community "under Heaven". And surrounding his core message was a whole cosmology concerning the origens and goal of human life. To deny that this is a religion is simple prejudice. What purpose does such hair-splitting serve? It reminds me of Muslims insisting that the world is divided between "people of the book" and "non-believers".
Wikipaedia articles related to Confucius, Confucianism states clearly that this thought is based on non-religious secular ethics, morals and I think so too. Of course any thoughts have religious aspects, but especially when it comes to Confucianism there's very scarce point that is regarded as 'religious'. Perhaps the term 'mandate of heaven' is religious if any. But it's too weak for us to call Confucianism a religion only pointing to this one point. The term 'religion' is used in 'religion' in Western values. Please examine again thoroughly to exclude any thoughts that is unnecessary for us to 'believe firmly'.
ReplyDeleteNext thing you are gonna get some textbook definition of "civilization", and by your understanding of that proceed to label certain cultures as having a civilization, and rest as having none. If Confucius did not "believe firmly", how many Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever "believe firmly" enough to fit your narrow definition?
ReplyDeleteIf - in a religion - you believe "firmly", then there is nothing that is "impossible" to confirm.
ReplyDeleteBelieving firmly in God, for instance, means that by the very life we have and by the creation all around, we are convinced and we have "proven" God's existence.
There are some who "firmly" believe in devil worship. Would you deny that theirs is a "religion"?
What of those who make money their "god", firmly believing in its mightiness and worship it. Is that not also a form of "religion"?
Considering the "religions" of today, they are based on what men have decided it should be. Ruled by miles and miles of decrees. That is what people who belong to that religion believe and follow.
By these definitions and your own of "firmly" believing, followers of Confucius have a "religion", for it has all the writings, decrees, rituals which belong to religions.
Sure -- your religion is whatever you believe in and hold to be the most important thing in life. So some worship power and will sacrifice every other principle for that. Others worship money, or their own ethnic tradition, or love. And these people would refuse any suggestion that they worship these things "instead of" God. They would argue that all power comes from God, or their ethnic tradition comes from God, or God rewards those He favors with wealth, etc, so that worshipping these things IS worship for God. And they probably believe it quite strongly.
ReplyDeleteWith these kinds of religion, the Confucianist worship for compassion, fairness, brotherhood and family love compare quite favorably. It seems to me that Confucious felt there is a goal of life, and that is to achieve universal compassion, regarding all lives with equal consideration as we consider our own. That for him, was the highest awareness, which he called "being one with Heaven". It you judge him as valuing less important things than your religion values, then that just means you think something else is more important
Now I realised fundamental difference between my scope of application defined in religion and other people's. I meant the teachings of Confucius have very few point that is regarded as particularly 'religious'. He himself didn't want to be called his teachings a religion. But the followers of Confucius have a religion, because they enthusiastically tried to learn, write down his words and edit a codex and practise his teachings, they went to far to make a temples and shrines so that they worship him. This is a religion.
ReplyDeleteI learned many basic notions of philosophy in minor ages. So I tend to think some philosophical concept rather narrower than ordinary use of word. So religion must be something that is believed firmly by their followers. Civilisation must be related to materialistic development in human culture and culture must be related to spiritual development in human civilisation. So according to my definitions, airplane, computer, tools are civilisation. Language, religion, are cultures. I cannot easily change my definition of religion in a similar way.I noticed one point in your post. Confucius doesn't have to believe firmly his thought, but the followers of Confucius, kind of Confucius-ians do. Of course they believe firmly his thought, idea, etc. The followers of Confucius formed a religion. What I was saying was his teachings themselves. I daren't deny we call the practice of the followers of Confucius a religion.
ReplyDeleteMostly agreed. His teaching were not particularly religious, though, his followers made him an objective of worship. So it's no wonder many people call his idea a religion.
ReplyDeleteI like Paul Tillich's definition of religion, as a person's "ultimate concern". Whatever you value most, and whatever you see as the true aim of your life, that is your religion. Another definition is that "religio" had a meaning of "to bind", meaning something which binds people together in a common aim of living. This is looking at it as shared "ultimate concern".
ReplyDelete