On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:35:25 EDT, "Anna L. Abrante" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>In a message dated 7/8/99 3:09:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
>writes:
>
>> My definition of religion is "your world view"
>>
>> Paleos had a world view.
>>
>> It also is relevant since everyone, even
>> an avowed secularist or athiest, has a world view.
>>
>>
>> R. Keene
>>
>
>With all due respect to you, your first line says it best...
>...YOUR DEFINITION....I have a different definition of religion.
>As I am sure most people do.
religion (rī-līj“en) noun
Abbr. rel., relig.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized
system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.
[ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. ]
SO, in a strict sense, you are correct, the word religion excludes someone with
an atheistic point of view.
HOWEVER, from the point of view of someone who experiences God, atheism is
simply a relationship with God, merely a relationship of denial (in the same way
that a divorced person is not "married", but yet has a relationship with their
ex-spouse, namely that of ex-spouse).
Admittedly, such a viewpoint falls outside the strict literal definition above.
> My original comment is in
>regards to "modern" religions, that is those that have existed
>only 5000yrs at most, and some much less. Why do people
> put those values on
>something so far before it's time as to not even be related.
>
>Regardless of what you believe, I am hard pressed to believe
>that any biblical reference, however beneficial to man kind, has
>any relevance to what was going on 40,000+ years ago.
The thread is about the ethical aspects of diet for people who live TODAY.
Some people today eat certain things or don't eat them, based on the teachings
of the religion they adhere to.
The original thread starter, who like all thread starters on the Internet, has
vanished :-), wanted help on being paleo while still adhering to the dietary
proscriptions of his religion.
None of this should be hard to keep track of - since it is all in the Subject
header ! :-)
So, when you said:
"Were there any modern religions 40,000 years ago?
Why do people on a PALEOFOOD list insist on bringing
in modern deities/gods? Seems to me they are as
neolithic as grain. "
the answer is because that was what the ORIGINAL question in the thread was
about.
PS You said "I do not believe that god and evolution are mutually exclusive."
and in fact the Pope has said just that (that they are not mutually exclusive).
--
Cheers,
Ken <*>
[log in to unmask]
|
