homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Is the word 'religion' fit for purpose? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Is the word 'religion' fit for purpose?
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Concerning the use of the word 'religion', I am reminded of a passage from George Orwell's 1984:

quote:
"Don't you see that the whole point of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition*, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect."
(1984, Part One, Chapter Five. Bold emphasis mine. * of the Newspeak Dictionary)

The word 'religion' is used in a way that is not dissimilar to Newspeak. A vast and variegated range of ideas and practices has been forced into this one term, and by being confined within this simplistic category, all these ideas are considered to be related. It's "guilt by association". Hence this absurdity (as if to suggest that Christians or Hindus were responsible for 9/11).

Many of the current crop of vocal atheists tend to use the word 'religion' in a way that irresponsibly seeks to narrow the range of thought and consciousness: "Religion is responsible for this, that and the other", "Religion causes wars", "Religion is oppressive" etc... It's a kind of mind control, in which humanity is divided into two rigid categories, one right and true (anti-religion or non-religion) and the other false and foolish ("religion").

Frankly, at times I am not too sure what "religion" actually is. It's such a vague term.

Is it to be understood sociologically? If so, then atheists can be 'religious'.

Is it to be understood spiritually? But many theists would claim that they are not religious, or particularly religious (the latter claim indicating that there are degrees of 'religion').

As the (highly authoritative!) Wikipedia article states, in some cultures and languages there is no term equivalent to 'religion' as is commonly understood in the West.

The use of the word 'religion' and 'religious' in the popular media is, in my view, a form of linguistic attenuation, that does great disservice to an accurate analysis of the causal factors behind moral and social events and practices.

Do you think the word is fit for purpose?

Has it become effectively meaningless?

Is it irresponsible to use it without careful definition and qualification?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think you're probably right. Good post.

[ 07. March 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the distinction between religion and theism is important, since clearly there are non-theistic religions, and non-religious theists. But yes, people do confuse them.

[ 07. March 2013, 11:25: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Being "religious" means you:

1) Believe in something greater than yourself or pure materialism (the usual definition of spirituality).

PLUS

2) You express that belief in specific ways.

I think it was Bullfrog that once said religion is the language of spirituality. A way to speak. A way to express.

As for the word being streamlined into particular ideas in the current social arena - sure.

Get over it. Happens to all language.

Is it meaningless?

No.

Unless you're ashamed of your religion.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think religion has to involve beliefs at all. However, this is probably going up a cul de sac.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Is it meaningless?

No.

Unless you're ashamed of your religion.

I agree that the word is not meaningless in itself, but much of its usage is rendering it, perhaps not completely meaningless, but certainly extremely confusing and misleading. "Religion this, religion that, religion the other...", in my view, is an example of the reduction of meaning into buzzwords, that have an appearance of meaning, but which do more to obscure the truth than reveal it.

When, for example, the late Christopher Hitchens launched into his debates concerning the "poison of religion", the first thing his intellectual opponent should have asked is: "What the hell do you mean by 'religion'?" Maybe some of them did.

To say that religion is evil because it encourages, for example, FGM or suicide bombings, implies that mere belief in God is a sufficient cause of those vile practices. Anyone who bothers to think it through will, of course, see the absurdity of this, but unfortunately many people just go with the flow of the 'feelings' generated by the cunning use of language.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've seen debates where an atheist, launching into a diatribe about the evils of religion, was asked to define 'religion'. And it's a notoriously difficult thing to define, since it involves both theism and non-theism, ritual and non-ritual, belief and non-belief. I think one solution, if one wants to define it, is to adopt Wittgenstein's family resemblance idea, so that there are a collection of things which overlap, but which may not have one single thing in common.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Is it meaningless?

No.

Unless you're ashamed of your religion.

I agree that the word is not meaningless in itself, but much of its usage is rendering it, perhaps not completely meaningless, but certainly extremely confusing and misleading. "Religion this, religion that, religion the other...", in my view, is an example of the reduction of meaning into buzzwords, that have an appearance of meaning, but which do more to obscure the truth than reveal it.

When, for example, the late Christopher Hitchens launched into his debates concerning the "poison of religion", the first thing his intellectual opponent should have asked is: "What the hell do you mean by 'religion'?" Maybe some of them did.

To say that religion is evil because it encourages, for example, FGM or suicide bombings, implies that mere belief in God is a sufficient cause of those vile practices. Anyone who bothers to think it through will, of course, see the absurdity of this, but unfortunately many people just go with the flow of the 'feelings' generated by the cunning use of language.

You're targeting a fairly specific audience here that uses the word so derogatarily. I do not think most of the world thinks this way about the word.

Lots of people online tho - certainly.

Sheer strawmanism.

What can you do about it? Up to you.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think religion has to involve beliefs at all. However, this is probably going up a cul de sac.

How the hell do you have a religion if you don't believe anything?

Or is nihilism a religion in your view?

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think religion has to involve beliefs at all. However, this is probably going up a cul de sac.

How the hell do you have a religion if you don't believe anything?

Or is nihilism a religion in your view?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/0747538433

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Demystifies Buddhism by explaining, without jargon or obscure terminology, what awakening is and how to practise it.
This book believes:

1) Awakening is a good thing that leads to some sort of transcendence and is something to desire

2) There are ways you can practice to achieve it.

Buddhism may not be theistic but it is by no means without beliefs and practices.

Hence it is a religion.

[ 07. March 2013, 12:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848

 - Posted      Profile for blackbeard   Email blackbeard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we ditch the term "religion" we are going to have to invent another term, no less misleading, to mean more or less the same thing. Whatever that is.

Blackbeard, gloomy

Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Demystifies Buddhism by explaining, without jargon or obscure terminology, what awakening is and how to practise it.
This book believes:

1) Awakening is a good thing that leads to some sort of transcendence and is something to desire

2) There are ways you can practice to achieve it.

Buddhism may not be theistic but it is by no means without beliefs and practices.

Hence it is a religion.

Well, I think the same of football. Is it therefore a religion? Or gardening. Or making guacamole.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Charles Taylor has a nice definition in his book A Secular Age: religion is an understanding that there is some final good beyond human flourishing. Christianity and Buddhism would both qualify on this definition.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Charles Taylor has a nice definition in his book A Secular Age: religion is an understanding that there is some final good beyond human flourishing. Christianity and Buddhism would both qualify on this definition.

I know Buddhists who would not agree with that, as they would say that 'good' is a mental construct, and therefore an illusion. They would probably also question the word 'beyond', as it is also a mental construct.

Anyway, we are really getting into the meat and drink of Buddhism, so probably o/t.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692

 - Posted      Profile for Anyuta   Email Anyuta   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

Yes, I've heard this usage and it annoys me no end. I hear certain Christians use it derogatorily, claiming that THEY have no religion, and that any liturgical act, creed, or ritual practice that they disagree with is "religion" but those that they do themselves hold are "faith".

I always tell them that yes, if they have a set of beliefs (in their case about Jesus and usually the role of the bible), they have a religion. religion does not just mean "rituals and all that traditions of man stuff".

They are using the term "religion" to mean something much narrower than it's actual meaning, and are trying to force that definition on others. I see this as being just as silly as expanding the term to the point that it is meaningless, in the way that some atheists do (mind you, no atheist that I know personally does this.. for them atheism is simply an absence of belief, rather than belief in the absence of God)

Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Demystifies Buddhism by explaining, without jargon or obscure terminology, what awakening is and how to practise it.
This book believes:

1) Awakening is a good thing that leads to some sort of transcendence and is something to desire

2) There are ways you can practice to achieve it.

Buddhism may not be theistic but it is by no means without beliefs and practices.

Hence it is a religion.

Well, I think the same of football. Is it therefore a religion? Or gardening. Or making guacamole.
Why do you define it as a religion then? You said it was a religion without beliefs.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard
If we ditch the term "religion" we are going to have to invent another term, no less misleading, to mean more or less the same thing.

Why??

I, as a Christian, have no more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist. Therefore if a term needs to be invented to put me in the same category as a Buddhist, then there should also be a similar term to put me in the same category as an atheist.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard
If we ditch the term "religion" we are going to have to invent another term, no less misleading, to mean more or less the same thing.

Why??

I, as a Christian, have no more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist. Therefore if a term needs to be invented to put me in the same category as a Buddhist, then there should also be a similar term to put me in the same category as an atheist.

I'd say you have a great deal more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist. Would you say you had no more in common with a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, than you have with an atheist? If so, why?

"Religion" is a very useful term in sociology and anthropology, and while people who practise those disciplines might argue over the details of what they're talking about, they usually have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a religion. For instance, it's a bit old fashioned now, but have you read Ninian Smart's The Religious Experience of Mankind?

It's true that Buddhism is a slightly odd inclusion, but in my experience the objection "Buddhism isn't a religion" is really only true of "Western Buddhism". Buddhists in many other parts of the world are quite happy to include supernatural beings - gods and demons - in their worldview. Sounds pretty religious to me.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
I'd say you have a great deal more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist. Would you say you had no more in common with a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, than you have with an atheist? If so, why?

There are many areas where I would probably have more in common with most atheists than with many adherents of various other religions. For example, I believe in the use of reason; I reject superstition, such as astrology and other forms of divination; I affirm the reality of an external world; I believe in the interaction of the sacred and the secular.

To lump all "supernaturalists" into one seemingly homogeneous category is misleading. It obfuscates so many issues which divide 'religious' people and which also unite many religious people with the non-religious.

I agree with atheism that there actually exists an objectively real material universe, which is not an illusion or a projection of my mind or is not merely an extension in some way of oneself. Shall we call all those who believe this idea: "externalworldists"?

Now would you say that it makes sense to come out with comments like: "externalworldism has caused so many problems throughout history"; "externalworldism has caused so many wars"; "imagine no externalworldism - and therefore no 9/11".

"Externalworldism justifies war, because this belief system makes people really think that there really are real enemies out there, who need to be defeated. Externalworldism is certainly responsible for 9/11, because there had to be a belief that the WTC was actually really there, in order to destroy it. Therefore, all externalworldists are corporately responsible for 9/11!"

Of course, this kind of talk is all utterly absurd, but no more absurd than the outrageous sweeping statements made about what is termed 'religion'!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Before describing all "Non western Buddhists"
as "happy to include supernatural beings" you might want to read this quote from Ajahn Chah form the Thai forest tradition :
quote:
Good actions bring good results; bad actions bring bad results. Don’t expect the gods to do things for you, or the angels and guardian deities to protect you, or the auspicious days to help you. These things aren’t true. Don’t believe in them. If you believe in them, you will suffer. You will always be waiting for the right day, the right month, the right year, the angels, or the guardian deities. You’ll only suffer that way. Look into your own actions and speech, into your own kamma. Doing good, you inherit goodness, doing bad you inherit badness.
The "gods" that occur in Buddhism are subject to
the laws of cause and effect. So they are not "supernatural".

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Would you also get rid of the adjective "religously" as used, for example "I do my gardening religously"?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Demystifies Buddhism by explaining, without jargon or obscure terminology, what awakening is and how to practise it.
This book believes:

1) Awakening is a good thing that leads to some sort of transcendence and is something to desire

2) There are ways you can practice to achieve it.

Buddhism may not be theistic but it is by no means without beliefs and practices.

Hence it is a religion.

Well, I think the same of football. Is it therefore a religion? Or gardening. Or making guacamole.
Why do you define it as a religion then? You said it was a religion without beliefs.
No, I said that you can't define 'religion' in terms of beliefs. Well, I don't think you can define religion in any case, as it spreads out to cover all kinds of things. Hence the 'family resemblance' idea.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

I've usually heard it as "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relaaaaaaytionship!"

As if religion doesn't presume a relationship between the worshipper and the worshipped.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Before describing all "Non western Buddhists"
as "happy to include supernatural beings" you might want to read this quote from Ajahn Chah form the Thai forest tradition :

Adeodatus didn't say 'all' - he said 'many'. Theravada is a pretty austere form of Buddhism. (And not coincidentally, I see from wikipedia that Ajahn Chah is apparently instrumental in establishing Theravada in the West.) Tibetan Buddhism is, AIUI, at the opposite extreme. Perhaps comparable to the role of saints in South American Catholicism? And the parallels between Calvinism and Pure Land Buddhism in Japan are uncanny.

quote:
The "gods" that occur in Buddhism are subject to the laws of cause and effect. So they are not "supernatural".
The same would be true of the Greek gods and the Norse gods. That may just show the problems with the word 'supernatural'. (Although I suspect that the laws of cause and effect in question are not those that would be studied by a practicing physicist?)

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

I've usually heard it as "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relaaaaaaytionship!"
Good point. That's closer to what I've heard.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

I've usually heard it as "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relaaaaaaytionship!"
That's roughly what i was going to say before I got to your post.

In many ways, Christianity is AGAINST religion in the way that Jesus opposed/criticised aspects the religion of his day.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I, as a Christian, have no more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist.

I'd say you have a great deal more in common with a Buddhist than with an atheist. Would you say you had no more in common with a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, than you have with an atheist? If so, why?
It depends very much on the atheist. As has been said several times on these boards, there's nothing specific to atheism as such. But most atheists in Western Europe or the US have some form of ethical ideal that has its roots in Augustinian Christianity, such as an ideal of disengaged scientific reason, or a form of post-romanticism.

quote:
"Religion" is a very useful term in sociology and anthropology, and while people who practise those disciplines might argue over the details of what they're talking about, they usually have a pretty good idea of what constitutes a religion. For instance, it's a bit old fashioned now, but have you read Ninian Smart's The Religious Experience of Mankind?
Smart's conception, I see from wikipedia, is very much a family resemblance view, whether or not he saw it that way. That is, it takes something as a religion if it can be described under a number of aspects, not all of which may be important to any given religion. That is, there's no trait which is either necessary for being a religion, and probably no individual trait that is sufficient.
Other anthropologists would I think be more critical of the category as importing Eurocentric assumptions about what religion is.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

I've usually heard it as "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relaaaaaaytionship!"

As if religion doesn't presume a relationship between the worshipper and the worshipped.

But not all religions presume a relationship between 'God' or 'gods' and individual believers. I've never even heard Muslims talk about having a 'relationship' with God. That kind of terminology might not be appropriate in their religion.

In some religions, only the priests or holy men have contact with God/gods. God(s) may be understood as being fairly distant from human affairs and uninterested in worship and/or personal prayer, even if placatory rituals are required.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

I've usually heard it as "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relaaaaaaytionship!"

As if religion doesn't presume a relationship between the worshipper and the worshipped.

But not all religions presume a relationship between 'God' or 'gods' and individual believers. I've never even heard Muslims talk about having a 'relationship' with God. That kind of terminology might not be appropriate in their religion.

Any person who worships a deity has thereby a relationship with that deity. Even if it's not what you or I might call an intimate relationship, and even if it's not what the non-denom evangelical who typically utters that sentence means by "relationship". Taken in its grammatical sense, the dichotomy between "religion" and "relationship" is self-evidently false.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't buy this 'relationship' stuff - and for much the same reason that John Macquarrie dismisses the idea of prayer-as-communication in Principles of Christian Theology. To put it in basic terms, and as I've said here before, if it's a relationship, it wouldn't kill him to pick up the phone once in a while.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fr Weber

I suppose it depends on what we mean by a relationship. Each religion is different, and the connection deemed to be possible between an individual believer and their God/gods won't be the same in every religion. That seems obvious to me.

I do feel that the potential level of connection between God and the individual believer is one of the distinguishing and most attractive characteristics that Christianity offers. One could see it as the part of the individualistic 'me and God' aspect of Christianity. But I'm willing to admit that Islam, for example, may have greater appeal in other ways.

I agree that it's a bit pointless for some Christians to declare that Christianity is simply a relationship rather than a religion, though. Perhaps it's an attempt to make common cause with postmodern non-believers who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'. But I don't think any of them are fooled! Christianity has developed rituals, doctrines, codes of practice, priestly hierarchies and forms of institutional life that all mark it out as a religion by most definitions. Which of these elements are really necessary for faith is debatable, but the fact is that they exist and that they impact on the lives of huge numbers of believers.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Religions need adherents, and hence will typically mark themselves as religion in a way understood at least by the locals, in order to be joined as religion by them. So confusion about what may be called religion and what not is typically more theoretical and rhetorical than practical, I would say. Anything that has a clear focus on the spiritual / transcendental / supernatural on one hand, and seeks to establish a continuing socio-cultural base on the other hand, qualifies as some kind of religion.

Is it useful to have a general term indicating all the admitted variety of religion? Of course it is! Abusus non tollit usum. (Abuse is no argument against proper use.) The OP's concerns are strange. One might as well complain that some people have an overly narrow understanding of the term "music" and are not afraid to misuse it. So what? It remains true that "I like to listen to music" conveys useful information, in spite of the fact that what that precisely means depends a lot on the place, the time, and the person who says so.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Adeodatus didn't say 'all' - he said 'many'. Theravada is a pretty austere form of Buddhism.

My main point is that "non-theist western" Buddhism is not a radical departure from the original traditions in that respect. You make valid points in your descriptions of other Buddhist traditions and their similarities with Christianity, but it sounds as if you are minimizing the differences too much.
For example "worshiping deities" has never been the main focus of Buddhism, and its not what most Buddhist traditions share in common.

About the word "supernatural" I agree with you its problematic. My main beef with it is that it refers to something that does not exist.

To minimize the tangent nature of this post.
If "worshiping a deity or deities" is part of your definition of Religion, then what most Buddhist traditions have in common does not fit that definition.

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
The OP's concerns are strange. One might as well complain that some people have an overly narrow understanding of the term "music" and are not afraid to misuse it. So what? It remains true that "I like to listen to music" conveys useful information, in spite of the fact that what that precisely means depends a lot on the place, the time, and the person who says so.

Not strange at all.

In popular culture and discourse the word 'religion' is regularly used in a way that is inflammatory and ill-defined. Furthermore, there is an insidious tendency to associate people with others in a way that is both unjust and unjustifiable. I gave an example in the OP, concerning the cause of 9/11. It was not some vague phenomenon called 'religion' which flew those planes into the towers. I, as a Christian, am not some kind of distant accomplice to this crime.

Orwell's understanding of the use of language is perceptive. It is possible to narrow human consciousness and stifle the critical faculty through the use of loaded statements, that are left unpacked, and which exert considerable emotional force on the reader or hearer. Hence: "religion has caused so many wars"; "religion poisons everything" etc. Furthermore, I take exception to being associated with beliefs that I strongly oppose, such as divination. I am as opposed to certain supernatural practices as the most ardent of atheists is.

quote:
Is it useful to have a general term indicating all the admitted variety of religion? Of course it is!
Not really, no. It's useful to have terms which describe views of reality, such as worldview, philosophy, ideology etc. But a term that gathers together a variety of worldviews and places them all in one distinct category simply because of some vague notion of the supernatural, which they all may possibly share (though their understanding of it makes a mockery of such homogeneity), is nonsense, unless the term is used in a completely peripheral academic way that has little bearing on popular culture (we know full well that that is not the case!). I am much nearer to atheistic secular humanism, than I am to Wicca, for example. The idea that I have some kind of notional connection with Wicca that I do not have with atheism, is meaningless to me.

As I expressed earlier, why not have a catch-all term for all those worldviews that share an ontology of realism: 'externalworldism'? Well I suppose we could just use the word 'realism', I guess! So why don't the media start pontificating about the merits and evils of realism or externalworldism? Doesn't sound quite as controversial or inflammatory as 'religion', does it?

I tend to think that the use of the term 'religion' is just a lazy way of pretending that atheism is the legitimate null hypothesis, and all other viewpoints are merely contrived. It's pernicious.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Any person who worships a deity has thereby a relationship with that deity.

If I thought (say) Lady Gaga was a deity, and followed her every movement and worshipped her, that still doesn't mean I have a relationship with her in any normal sense of the term.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never even heard Muslims talk about having a 'relationship' with God. That kind of terminology might not be appropriate in their religion.

AIUI sufis are regarded with some suspicion by other groups within Islam. Nevertheless, sufism is part of Islam. A lot of sufi religious poetry is difficult to distinguish from non-religious love poetry.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But a term that gathers together a variety of worldviews and places them all in one distinct category simply because of some vague notion of the supernatural ... is nonsense

And yet you continue to lump all atheists together as one distinct category simply because they share a view on the supernatural.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There are many areas where I would probably have more in common with most atheists than with many adherents of various other religions. For example, I believe in the use of reason; I reject superstition, such as astrology and other forms of divination; I affirm the reality of an external world; I believe in the interaction of the sacred and the secular.

To lump all "supernaturalists" into one seemingly homogeneous category is misleading. It obfuscates so many issues which divide 'religious' people and which also unite many religious people with the non-religious.

Haven't you heard, EE? To many modern atheists, all religion - yours and mine included - is on exactly the same level as superstition, divination and astrology. You might claim to have something in common with these atheists, but there's no way they'll ever admit to having anything in common with you.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't buy this 'relationship' stuff - and for much the same reason that John Macquarrie dismisses the idea of prayer-as-communication in Principles of Christian Theology. To put it in basic terms, and as I've said here before, if it's a relationship, it wouldn't kill him to pick up the phone once in a while.

Quotes file.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It gives a little rallying point for people who like to say inane things like, "Christianity isn't a religion, it's Jesus."

Dear God, that is annoying. Some clown went viral on Boobtube doing that a year or so ago. [Projectile]

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EE:
quote:
In popular culture and discourse the word 'religion' is regularly used in a way that is inflammatory and ill-defined. Furthermore, there is an insidious tendency to associate people with others in a way that is both unjust and unjustifiable.
This is a general problem with the way words are used in public discourse and (some aspects of) popular culture, not unique to religion. Here's another example. Apparently British parents are simultaneously filling their children's lives with after-school clubs and leaving them unsupervised for hours to play on the Internet or watch TV. I'd be fascinated to learn how I can manage this: my own experience is that there aren't enough hours in the day to do both. But then I am not a government minister.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It was not some vague phenomenon called 'religion' which flew those planes into the towers. I, as a Christian, am not some kind of distant accomplice to this crime.

No, but a reasonable argument can be made that you, by virtue of being religious, are more prone to commit like crimes - which is the actual claim. Of course, a reasonable counter-argument can also be made. And unsurprisingly there are people who cannot be bothered with reasonable argument and resort to rhetoric. So what? I'm not aware of a campaign to remove the words "liberal" and "conservative" from the language, just because one can both reasonably and rhetorically attribute negative things to these labels.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Orwell's understanding of the use of language is perceptive.

And your reaction to Orwell's insight is to campaign for removing the word "religion" because it has too many shades of meaning and is ill-defined? That's pretty ironic.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, I take exception to being associated with beliefs that I strongly oppose, such as divination.

I'm sure somebody gives a shit. But probably not enough speakers to remove a perfectly serviceable word from the language. Here's another word that you must find totally offensive: "human". By calling you human, you get associated with an incredible array of the most horrific crimes and sins. Terrible, isn't it?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But a term that gathers together a variety of worldviews and places them all in one distinct category simply because of some vague notion of the supernatural, which they all may possibly share (though their understanding of it makes a mockery of such homogeneity), is nonsense, unless the term is used in a completely peripheral academic way that has little bearing on popular culture (we know full well that that is not the case!).

Sure, and while we are at it, let's remove the word "bird" from the language. After all, what has a penguin to do with a vulture and a nightingale and an ostrich? There is no point in having a word that describes such variety according to some vague biological notions. On the same principle, we can clean language of so many superfluous word. Like "vehicle". Or "art". Or "philosophy". Or "path". Or "star". Or "pants". Or "food". Or "shop". Or "doctor". Or "language". Really, every single thing should have its unique language identifier, and no more. On this principle, let me call your claim "reprablong". Once upon a time I would have called it "mind-boggling idiotic". But clearly every mind and every boggle deserves its own label, and who can doubt the near infinite variety of idiocy? So "reprablong" it is, and one damn fine specimen of "reprablong", if I may say so.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As I expressed earlier, why not have a catch-all term for all those worldviews that share an ontology of realism: 'externalworldism'? Well I suppose we could just use the word 'realism', I guess!

This is cutting-edge stuff, it sure is. I can't wait for further avant-garde insights on how we must change language for it to become functional.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So why don't the media start pontificating about the merits and evils of realism or externalworldism? Doesn't sound quite as controversial or inflammatory as 'religion', does it?

Indeed, because it isn't. And if your "religion" consisted purely in philosophical realism, then you sure could complain that the horrible media tarred you with the same "religion" brush as say Islam. But that's not the case, and the media is not tarring your religion or Islam for being philosophically realist.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I tend to think that the use of the term 'religion' is just a lazy way of pretending that atheism is the legitimate null hypothesis, and all other viewpoints are merely contrived. It's pernicious.

So your answer to a purported Orwellian attack by the media and Brights on the word "religion" is bringing your own Orwellian attack on the word "religion"? Brilliant. How about you simply use the word "religion" as you see fit, and defend that use publicly where necessary? And if in the end the struggle is lost and "religion" becomes a dirty word, you know what you can do with that word? Own it. Just as black people own the word "nigger" these days. Language always has another trick up its sleeve...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211

 - Posted      Profile for Laurelin   Email Laurelin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is nothing wrong at all with the word 'religion'. It's a perfectly good, serviceable word. Everybody knows what it means. The Apostle James uses the word!

I'm an evangelical Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord. I don't expect the world to clap me on the back for my beliefs. Jesus did warn us that following Him is not a magic passport to popularity. [Biased]

Neither will I throw a hissy-fit because I am lumped in with devout Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Pagans etc., under the umbrella of religion. Dawkins and his minions ranting about religion is no reason to throw out the word.

In any case, some religious people have committed atrocities, like 9/11. Needless to say, so have some atheists (e.g. Stalin, Mao).

I've heard some fellow evangelicals come out with ignorant and bigoted statements at times. All that proves is that they're capable of ignorance and bigotry, not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the label 'evangelical'.

Ignorance and bigotry are not the exclusive preserve of the religious. Sadly, it's a human thing. [Frown]

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
James certainly doesn't use that word. Some of his translators might.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250

 - Posted      Profile for irish_lord99     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
On this principle, let me call your claim "reprablong". Once upon a time I would have called it "mind-boggling idiotic". But clearly every mind and every boggle deserves its own label, and who can doubt the near infinite variety of idiocy? So "reprablong" it is, and one damn fine specimen of "reprablong", if I may say so.


[Killing me] [Overused]

--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When you say "fit for purpose" you have to consider what the purpose is. If the purpose is to denote what is sacred, what leads to salvation or enlightenment, that's one thing. If the purpose is to define the social function of a set of beliefs and practices, that's something else. For the latter, I think Clifford Geertz did it best:
quote:
a religion is:
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

(full essay here (pdf).)

I do think that Geertz doesn't quite address religion as a source of group membership and identity adequately.

EE's insistence that he shouldn't be classified with Buddhists, etc. is somewhat parallel to the objections of the Orthodoxen and RCCs to being called "denominations." From within their own ecclesiological frameworks, they are quite different from the various Protestant sects (i.e., they are the One True Church from which the others are, at best, splinters). However, from a sociological/anthropological POV, they're just another group claiming a unique identity.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If only there were a word to denote that a follower of Christ is not a Muslim, Jew or God Forbid a Buddhist.

[ 11. March 2013, 04:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Words pick up fresh associations in common use. Some of them may be prejudiced, cause people to pre-judge someone else. I guess there's some value in encouraging more precise use of language, but even that can become counter-productive.

The term "political correctness" was originally associated (inter alia) with an often-justifiable identification of the unconscious prejudice flowing from words in common use. Some of that has actually been helpful. But one consequence is that the term "politically correct" has itself become associated in some minds with a kind of zealous and aggressive self-righteousness.

I suppose that for a some people, the word "religious" has picked up associations of superstitious and irrational thinking, narrow-mindedness, "in-group" thinking. So have "Christian" and "Muslim". It's a kind of guilt by association, I suppose. I'm not all that fond of people who jump to conclusions about other people as a result of a label. But I've got a lot more sympathy with people who are wary of the religious because of previous bad experiences, or things they've heard. As a result, they will tend to check us out. Frankly, given the behavior of some religious, can you blame them?

I don't think there's anything wrong with being on the receiving end of a bit of checking out. It gives us some scope for "giving reasons for the hope that is in us"; also for demonstrating that some of the negative associations with the word religion aren't justified when applied to ourselves.

On the whole, I think that kind of wariness is more realistic than both a starry-eyed acceptance or a cynical rejection. The latter two are both examples of lazy thinking, really. But then, we can all be guilty of that sometimes. It's a good idea to be wary of any pre-judging tendencies of our own, caused by words that we use.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools