Classification of religions

[madviking]

So my dad and I were discussing the features of "organized religion", and its application to Egyptian and Greek 'religions'.

We ran into vocab hell with the classification of the religions: sects, cults, beliefs, mythology and even religion itself. Here were the discussion points.

1. Characteristics of organized religion

2. Mutual exclusivity, or lack thereof, of mythology and religion

3. Classifying Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity [Catholicism and Orthodoxy separated for this discussion], Judaism, Islam [Sunni and Shia separated], Chinese religions [Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism], Greek belief and Egyptian belief as the following: religion, cult, organized religion, philosophy and mythology.

Let's go!

My classifications.
Organized Religion-- Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Shia Islam, Egyptian [all have church structure and hierarchy]
Religion -- Judaism, Sunni [lack of structure, but still 'religious' (see philosophy category)]
Mythology -- Abrahamic religions, Egyptian, Greek [all have potentially apocryphal stories and tales]
Philosophy -- Chinese, Hinduism and Buddhism [these focus on order and spirituality, rather than salvation, which I characterize as a 'religious' aspect]
Cult -- Hinduism [no structure, no single authority (founder, book or otherwise)]

 

[Ajidica]

Interesting list. You list Abrahamic religions under Mythology despite all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) being under different catagories.

I would probably remove Hinduism from being a cult, because although they don't have a specific holy book, they do have the Baghavad Gita and a couple other ones like the Avedas. (Or are those Zoroastrian? I forget.)
Hinduism could also probably be considered part of the 'salvation' group or religions because although Moksha/Nirvana aren't 'salvation' in the Christian sense of the word, it is when your atman leaves this world to be one with Brahman which could be viewed as a form of salvation because you have to work your way up through progressive levels of existance through karma.

 

[madviking]

Interesting list. You list Abrahamic religions under Mythology despite all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) being under different catagories.

All of them have numerous events (Judaism -- Exodus; Christianity -- the whole crucifixion ; Islam -- Mohammed's travels) which aren't part of the holy text, but are still part part of canonical law.

But now, since I've thought about it more, it almost seems unavoidable to have these little quests and tales in your religion. Hinduism has a large mythology in the Bhagavad Gita. But since Buddhism and the Chinese religions deal less with the supernatural, or not have gods at all. (Tho I am not too sure about the relationship of Buddha and Confucius in their religions; whether they are treated as deities or not.

I would probably remove Hinduism from being a cult, because although they don't have a specific holy book, they do have the Baghavad Gita and a couple other ones like the Avedas. (Or are those Zoroastrian? I forget.)

Hinduism is, from what I know, incredibly decentralized. Even more so than Buddhism or Judaism. Each temple it seems to act independently. Hinduism is also a religion without a distinct founder, allowing for multiple interpretations. My view of Hinduism is that it is not a religion, per se, but a collection of people with similar faiths.

The issue of holy texts in Hinduism is pretty interesting. I think there is no "official" text, but a choice of the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, Upanishads, etc.

Hinduism could also probably be considered part of the 'salvation' group or religions because although Moksha/Nirvana aren't 'salvation' in the Christian sense of the word, it is when your atman leaves this world to be one with Brahman which could be viewed as a form of salvation because you have to work your way up through progressive levels of existance through karma.

That is a good point, but the feature which distinguishes moksha and nirvana, personally, is reincarnation. If you are Buddhist or Hindu, it's not a 'one and done' sort of deal. Your soul may have been a king or an ant (at least in Buddhist tradition) in your previous life, while in the Abrahamics, your soul is your soul, and if you don't achieve salvation you go to hell. In Hinduism/Buddhism there is no concept of hell *as far as I know*.

Another point is that my definition of salvation necessitates of a heaven and a hell. I know that this is a narrow Christian definition, but in Hinduism and Buddhism, your soul isn't exactly "saved" (from going to hell), but more "elected" and goes to join Brahmah and Buddha.

But my knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism is rudimentary...so I probably made mistakes/misunderstood some concepts...

 

[Fr8monkey]

I think Judaism and Christianity should be in your 'Mythology' category. Most of the stories in the related religious writings are borrowed from other cultures or are allegories.

 

[madviking]

I think Judaism and Christianity should be in your 'Mythology' category. Most of the stories in the related religious writings are borrowed from other cultures or are allegories.

The Abrahamic religions are Christianity, Islam and Judaism... So I have those covered.

 

[LightSpectra]

I think Judaism and Christianity should be in your 'Mythology' category. Most of the stories in the related religious writings are borrowed from other cultures or are allegories.

Some of the stories are hypothesized to have been so.

 

[Ajidica]

That is a good point, but the feature which distinguishes moksha and nirvana, personally, is reincarnation. If you are Buddhist or Hindu, it's not a 'one and done' sort of deal. Your soul may have been a king or an ant (at least in Buddhist tradition) in your previous life, while in the Abrahamics, your soul is your soul, and if you don't achieve salvation you go to hell. In Hinduism/Buddhism there is no concept of hell *as far as I know*.

Another point is that my definition of salvation necessitates of a heaven and a hell. I know that this is a narrow Christian definition, but in Hinduism and Buddhism, your soul isn't exactly "saved" (from going to hell), but more "elected" and goes to join Brahmah and Buddha.

But my knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism is rudimentary...so I probably made mistakes/misunderstood some concepts...

My knowledge of Hinduism is a tad rusty, but I'm pretty sure I still have all the concepts right.
Basicaly in each of us we all have an 'atman' which is like our soul but is part of Brahman. We constantly go around the wheel of Samsara accumulating 'karma points' until we 'move up a level' (go to the next caste) until finaly get enough karma points as a brahmin (hindu priest) and acheive mosksha. Once Moksha is achieved you are in Nirvana with Brahman and your atman is reuinited. Eventualy, the whole system gets destroyed in the end by Shiva.

As for Buddha, the Mahayana school believes he made salvation (nirvana) easier for the rest of us, while the Therveda school believes the Buddha simply shows the most effective way.

As for the Abrahamic faiths, you already have them covered in different catagories, so why do you need a special catagory for all of them.

Some of the stories are hypothesized to have been so.

The creation in Genesis and Revelation are generaly considered to be allegorical and not literaly true. While some may argue Genesis is literaly true, almost every person will agree Revelation is entirely symbolic.

 

[North King]

Some of the stories are hypothesized to have been so.

Wait, what? You don't think things like Noah's Flood were borrowed?

 

[LightSpectra]

The creation in Genesis and Revelation are generaly considered to be allegorical and not literaly true. While some may argue Genesis is literaly true, almost every person will agree Revelation is entirely symbolic.

I'm aware. I was responding to the "borrowed mythology" part of his post.

Wait, what? You don't think things like Noah's Flood were borrowed?

The Judaic portrayal of creation and the Deluge are given almost to be a unilateral refutation of how their neighbors viewed these events.

 

[Fr8monkey]

The Judaic portrayal of creation and the Deluge are given almost to be a unilateral refutation of how their neighbors viewed these events.

True. The creation was from Egypt and the flood from Babylon.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm aware. I was responding to the "borrowed mythology" part of his post.

Are you asserting that Christianity/the OT didn't borrow bits and pieces of its mythology from other mythologies? The Zoroastrians already had a pretty well defined concept of hell and punishment, the Jews didn't. IT would make sense for Christianity to have been inspired by Zoroastrianism given their proximity. Heck, the idea of Hell didn't even reach Judaism until their contact with Zoroastrianism.

 

[Masada]

The Zoroastrians already had a pretty well defined concept of hell and punishment, the Jews didn't. IT would make sense for Christianity to have been inspired by Zoroastrianism given their proximity. Heck, the idea of Hell didn't even reach Judaism until their contact with Zoroastrianism.

Can you prove that? As I understand it, there's no direct incontrovertible proof that the one necessarily came from the other. It might seem logical but it might as easily be an indigenous development or come from another source entirely. I'm not even all that sure we know what Zoroastrians from that day and age did if modern Zoroastrian confusion is anything go by.

 

[LightSpectra]

True. The creation was from Egypt and the flood from Babylon.

It's likely that Jewish legal concepts are a hybrid of Egyptian and Babylonian jurisprudence, but I, as well as a large amount (not sure if it's the majority) of professional anthropologists, are not of the opinion that the Israelites "copied" their neighbors' creation myths.

Are you asserting that Christianity/the OT didn't borrow bits and pieces of its mythology from other mythologies? The Zoroastrians already had a pretty well defined concept of hell and punishment, the Jews didn't. IT would make sense for Christianity to have been inspired by Zoroastrianism given their proximity. Heck, the idea of Hell didn't even reach Judaism until their contact with Zoroastrianism.

Jews don't believe in hell, especially not in the same manner Zoroastrians do. So this is completely off, unless you're erroneously referring to the resurrection of the dead, which has roots in the older Jewish texts, so it's not a foregone conclusion that this belief originated entirely from Persia.

 

[Tee Kay]

Philosophy -- Chinese, Hinduism and Buddhism [these focus on order and spirituality, rather than salvation, which I characterize as a 'religious' aspect]

Well... nirvana/nipana in Buddhism is kind of like salvation, just not in the Abrahamic sense. You're not "saved" but rather "liberated" from the cycle of rebirth.

Also, Buddhism has the monastic order (or, rather, several), which I think should count as a church or religious hierachy.

Cult -- Hinduism [no structure, no single authority (founder, book or otherwise)]

That doesn't make it a cult. Not my definition of a cult, at least.

But since Buddhism and the Chinese religions deal less with the supernatural, or not have gods at all. (Tho I am not too sure about the relationship of Buddha and Confucius in their religions; whether they are treated as deities or not.

I think reincarnation is pretty supernatural.

For Buddhists, Buddha is not a god. He's treated like a very, very wise teache. Same with Confucius. When people bow down to Buddha statues, that's an act reverence rather than worship. And while both (especially the Buddha) are believed to have supernatural powers, that doesn't mean they're gods.

For Hindus, Buddha is a diety. An avatar of Vishnu, IIRC.

The way I see it, Buddhism is a religion, Taoism is a philosophy masquerading of a religion, and Confucianism is not a religion. Chinese religion is a blend of all three, plus traditional Chinese gods.

In Hinduism/Buddhism there is no concept of hell *as far as I know*

There's a Buddhist hell, at least (Neraka/Naroka). It's not like an Abrahamic hell though; the Buddhist hell is not eternal, and is simply part of the cycle of reincarnation, merely in another plane of existance. You get sent to hell (or, rather, reborn in hell) as a result of your actions/karma, not because of a God, and you live and die in hell just as you would on Earth, though time in hell and on Earth do not necessarily match. A year on Earth might be hundreds of years in hell.

Likewise, there is a heaven (or several) and that's not in the Abrahamic sense either. Like hell, it's merely another plane of existance. You may be in heaven but you're still in the cycle of reincarnation.

 

[Cynovolans]

Cult -- [no structure, no single authority (founder, book or otherwise)]

Ancient Egyptian goes here.

 

[Masada]

Also, Buddhism has the monastic order (or, rather, several), which I think should count as a church or religious hierachy.

It goes further than just that though. You have national level religious groupings in Buddhism. In these, the religion is basically subordinated to the interests of the monarchy and the state. It becomes in essence a national religion rising and falling on the back of the success of the state. You usually find that the King becomes exalted not just as a head of state but as a major religious figure of his own. Over time the bond between the religious establishment and the monarchy develops to such an extent that they become dependant upon each other. The King is honoured and exalted which bolsters his legitimacy and increase his personal merit which serves to support his bolster his rule and increase his spiritual authority. In exchange for supplying this the Sangha gets much the same thing in return, the King legitimises their exalted position against all comers and bolsters their claim to spiritual power through him. Eventually it becomes impossible to differentiate the two and the religions outlook dependant upon the state withers to the territories inside the borders effectively 'nationalising' it as a spiritual force. Thailand and Burma are strong examples of this. Even Hinduism has historically been able to go down this path.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'd say these days it's more nationalism rather than religion, though the latter is still very important.

 

[Cynovolans]

Ancient Egyptian goes here.

I changed my mind, Egyptian fits everything.

 

[Masada]

Historically, no. Currently, yes. But even so its kinda telling that a major indicator of 'Thainess' is adherence to Thai Buddhism. If your not a Thai Buddhist then its up to you to prove how 'Thai' you are. With Burma I'm willing to go so far as to suggest that being 'Burmese' requires you to be a Burmese Buddhist. Its a far more potent symbol of being 'Burmese' than it is in Thailand. The current regime still draws upon all the royal symbols to legitimise its rule: the recent furore over White Elephants is a good example. The whole interrelationship between the regime and the Sangha is still there.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would question the accuracy of labelling ancient religions "mythology", partly because the term is not simply a label for "obsolete religion", and partly because many ancient religions have been revived by Reconstructionist Pagans (as well as having certain non-practical elements adopted by non-reconstructionists) and so cannot properly be considered obsolete. Mythology is, rather, a body of stories and ideas which are utilised by a religion, but are not equivalent to the religion itself.