It seems there might be more clarity about the subject of Religion, if someone were to properly define what it is...and what it isn't. Some time back, when I was reading "Nostic Gospels" and other material relating to the groups which originally formed as a result of a very inspiring person with the name, Jesus. Much of that material made a case for what happens when a group of people come together for a particular topic. They say that a kind of communication is set up between heaven and earth, which has more power than if we were to meditate by ourselves. They also imply that there is a Gestalt that takes place where the whole equals more than the sum of its parts.
I'm fairly certain that the early Gnostic Christians had this in mind, when they assembled to go over some of the wisdom and mysteries that Jesus imparted to his followers. One of his teachings was that assembling together to discuss the mysteries was extremely valuable. "Where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them." - Matthew 18:20. I'm not absolutely sure that Matthew wrote the actual words of Jesus; nor am I implying that I've suddenly become religious. But, rather, that it is possibly a psychic experience.
When one examines the etymology of the word "Religion", one begins to understand that it really is a word that formed with a practical purpose in mind. Here's a quotation for those who enjoy academic presentation:
"Religion is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "
to reconnect
,"
So, strictly speaking, if a group of people wish to "reconnect" with Victor Hugo, they are having a "religious" meeting. As an interesting sidenote, there actually was a religion in Vietnam that was made up of Victor Hugo followers.
When one goes into a building that is made up of symbols and relics, marble statues and ornate designs; and everyone joins in to read and reconnect with someone's famous words; does one call it a church? In fact, what I just described is the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. I could have also described a Masonic Temple in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or a World War II memorial in France.
So, what Stardis described was a real sensation of awe, reverence, and inspiration. I get the same feeling when visiting the Museum at West Point in New York State. One could call it a "religious" experience; and there is nothing wrong with that.
For some people it is a mystical experience, that enriches the soul and inspires the mind.
The only problem with any organization is that somewhere along the line, someone is put in charge, who will change things and destroy the purpose for which the organization was established. Instead of perpetuating the truth, the organization will sometimes become an instrument of control. And, because they are holding all the cards, plaques, honors, real estate and treasury; people are forced to "toe the line" and further enhance the holdings of the organization. Such has happened not only with religious organizations; but also fraternal organizations, governments, and professional groups.
Whenever we take issue with some things, it is difficult to separate them from their original intent. Sometimes, when people disagree about one's stand on a particular issue, it may be a result of words that merely require just a little more definition.
-Nightrain