Brittany Bellevue REL2300

September 04th, 2011 Professor Balzora

Part I: Defining Religion

I believe religion is a way of life that consists of and involves a belief system for how one should live their life and make decisions that set them apart from others while hardly distinguishing them all at the same time. Religion is based on a relationship with the mind and soul connected to a higher source that can only be defined as pure, holy, and love. This of course, is my belief.
1.

Ballpark definition Limitation: Too inclusive; there are religions that don't really follow a belief system, but something else. Also some religions doesn't even acknowledge a higher source.

2.

a. Viviana Garcia - "I believe that religion is mainly based on faith. It is the belief of a higher being and guidelines to living your daily lives. It is a bond that you have with that being and the commitment to follow certain rules."

b.

Ballpark Definition

c. Limitation: Too inclusive. She based religion on faith, belief, and rules.

a. Marie Macome - "Religion is having faith in an upper being"

b.

Specialized Definition

c. Limitation: Too narrow. Can be criticized because it's Macome only defines it as having to deal with an "upper being".

3.

Chelsea Eugene:Definition of religion - "Something you follow you don't got to hell."

Question: Is religion responsible for causing most of the deaths by violence and wars fought in history? Answer: "No, people think what they want they just let religion be the back ground for what their doingbut it's not really."

Hasaan: Definition of religion: "Something that brings people tougher. Something that gives them hope, love, and the strength to live in a natural world while still believing in the supernatural."

Question: Is religion responsible for causing most of the deaths by violence and wars fought in history? Answer: "No, although religion is widespread, there are still those out there would need to place the blame somewhere and religion fall snug into that place. In some places, religion is shaky and has it's faults. However, people don't understand, we created those faults. Man created those faults. There for death in violence in our history is and has been

cause by man and his selfish ways. His corrupt ways; selfish and glutinous."

Part II: Discussing Religion

1. I think (and I could be completely wrong if there is a wrong answer) than religion is definitely to blame for most of the deaths by violence and oppression in the 20th century. Of course there's greed, there's politics and government, and the never ending fight of control; however, I think religion can be traced to the root of it all. People don't like other people who are different from them; people who think differently than them. There are so many religions out there that separate individuals. And that of course can and does leads to war, conflict, and unfortunately sometimes death.

2.

Arab Conquests 632-732 Crusades 1097-1291 Reformation Wars Al Qaida Terror War

As it turns out, religion was hardly the reason for almost none of the death and violence that has conflicts and war amongst peoples.

3. a. The author, Ken Wilber, does use rather strong words to blame religion for the cause of disturbance and war in our history. However, he uses no credible sources to back up his findingsor rather questionable opinions. Then again, if you feel a certain way, that is just how you feel. I made the same accusation before, but that doesn't justify playing the blame game blindly. So no, I don't think one could come to the conclusion Wilber did without accurate, credible sources.

b. No, not at all. Some wars happened years and years apart. Some lasted more or less than others, and doesn't quite lines up with his statistics. And even those that were strongly religiously affiliated were sometimes centuries apart.

c. I'm not sure I actually understand the author's definition of religion. Yeas, there are several definitions (who knows which is right and or wrong), but his definition ended up seeming more like a grammar lesson than a theological explanation. For this, I don't think it can qualify as being religious--is "integral approach". It doesn't find common ground to link people to one another or to what ever power, whether that link being to God, nature, the universe, or other people. It feels more like a way of thinkinga way being.