Religion Thrēskeía

religion |riˈlijən|

noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

James 1:27
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

What a tough subject..."religion."  A subject that has been very important to me and a subject I spend the majority of my life studying and involved/immersed in.  It was always a "love/hate" kind of relationship.  Above you see the English definition and then a Bible verse.  Below I want to give an explanation of the Greek word "Thrēskeía" that was translated in English for readers as "religion."

"The Greek word thrēskeía denotes properly both cult and piety. It has a curious history in Greek itself. According to Van Herten thrēskeía was applied only to foreign cults; whereas in fact, in the Augustan period, the word may designate every cult, whether indigenous or foreign. The word is ancient. It appears for the first time in Herodotus and then disappears completely from the tradition to reappear in the time of Strabo. From then on examples multiply both in texts and in inscriptions. The word is properly Ionic, and it did not find its way into Attic, but it later became popular because it was the most convenient term to designate a complex of beliefs and cult practices.
The first uses, two of thrēskeíē and two of the verb thrēskeúein, all in Herodotus in his second book, relate to observances:

“The Egyptians, the neighbors of the Libyans, did not tolerate the regulation of the sacrifice and especially the prohibition of the flesh of the cow” (II, 18).

Elsewhere Herodotus refers to the rules of physical purity to which the Egyptian priests subject themselves. Then he adds:

“They observe a thousand other thrēskeías” (II, 37): these are practices imposed on priests.

Such is also the meaning of the verb thrēskeúō (II, 64; 65) “to follow minutely religious prescriptions,” and always with reference to the Egyptians.

The idea is thus that of “observance,” a notion of practice rather than belief. Thanks to scattered testimony we can reach further back into the history of the word. The substantive thrēskeía derives, curiously enough, from a present tense in -skō which we have in the form of a gloss in Hesychius: thrḗsko: noô and also thráskein: anamimnḗskein “cause to recollect.”
Thrḗskō in its turn is susceptible of analysis: it goes back to a verb *thréō which is attested by enthreîn: phulássein ‘guard, observe’.
We can add a further link to this chain of words: *thréō presupposes a root *ther-, and this enables us to attach to it the adjective atherés which is glossed anóēton ‘senseless’ and, what is more interesting, anósion ‘impious’. Finally, atherés lies at the base of the Homeric present tense atherízō ‘to neglect, make light of’.

All these data link up and are complementary to the notion which the word thrēskeía itself evokes: that of “observance,” “rule of religious practice.” It links up with a verbal stem denoting attentiveness to a rite, preoccupation with being faithful to rule. It is not “religion” as a whole but the observance of the obligations of cult." [Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society] -
Aryan Hyperborean Heritage

The idea of "observance" is very profound.  I struggle with idea because for a long time I thought it was about "beliefs."  Even though I think "belief" is important, I also think "beliefs" are very personal.  Religion becomes a HUGE PROBLEM when beliefs are argued.  Belief forges its beginnings in experience.  Experiences forge their beginnings in upbringing, environment, and cultural conditioning.  Therefore, beliefs will differ--even within the same religion--because experiences differ and are personal.  Experiences shape us, yet struggle to answer complex questions that come up.  For instance, in one of my Facebook posts I asked you to share with me questions you have for me to research and blog about.  Here is a list of questions from real people, that a "belief system" have not answered:

• Prayer--what in the world is it.  Everybody does "it' differently.  Is it real?
• Jesus
• Shift in moral consensus over time
  How can we claim that the Biblical text is infallible, inspired, useful, etc. when our own moral understanding as human beings has changed so drastically since its writing?  I'm not talking about moral growth, I'm talking about how the Bible endorses things, especially in the Old Testament, that we openly reject today as immoral (women as property, slavery, violence, etc.).
• Doctrinal confusion
  I heard a quote recently to the effect of "God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33), but can you think of a book that has caused more confusion that the Bible?" (I believe it was Sam Harris).  If we really have a divine hand guiding believers on earth, why the incredible doctrinal fragmentation?  How does that make Christianity superior to other religions that also can't decide internally exactly what they believe (Islam and Buddhism spring to mind as good examples)?
• World religions and cultural origins of belief
  Why does a person's religion depend so heavily on your place and culture of birth?  Most people are completely convinced of the truth of their religion (or non-religion), and that is mostly determined by how they were raised.  Why isn't a true religion transforming lives and "winning" over the "false" ones?  Could it be that the power of religion is largely internal and doesn't really arise from an external source?
• Biblical references to demonic "miracles"
  Why does the Bible talk about magic, witchcraft, etc. as though it was real and could have real effects on the world? (Saul and the witch of Endor, Pharoah's magicians duplicating Moses' miracles, etc.).  As far as we have seen in the modern world (basically since cameras and recording equipment have become commonplace), events like these just don't happen.  What differentiates the supposed reality of those evil supernatural occurrences from the good things that God does, and since we don't see occurrences of either happening in the modern world how are we to react to descriptions of "evil" miracles or demonic power?
• People who feel the Holy Spirit
  How do we square the fact that people across different cultures and conflicting religions experience similar feelings of divine inspiration, guidance, peace, etc?  Surely they can't all be right, so does that mean that a lot of our interaction with the Holy Spirit is imagined or simply arises from within our own minds?  It's a bit hyperbolic, but suicide bombers likely feel the same conviction about the correctness of their actions as we do of ours.

...and the list goes on and on.  I received several emails with questions for me to answer, a bit overwhelming actually.  I will never be able to get to all of these, so I thought I would attempt to address all of them by speaking about religion in general.   By giving you what I believe would be for me to create more problems in the world of "religion."  That is what people fight over, because everybody truly believes their perspective is the right one without taking into consideration what formed that belief. 

Instead, I will try as hard as I can to stick within the parameters of the definition of "Thrēskeía..."  WARNING: I'm sure my context will influence me and I probably will subconsciously get into my beliefs--that I apologize for, and I hope you can look beyond my context and into your context, and apply it. 

Rather than belief, Thrēskeía focuses on observance.  Therefore to be "religious" would to become an "observer."  To observe is the action of watching or noticing something.  Observation also includes collecting data about that which you are observing and then acting based upon what was collected.  Now it gets really deep here because this is where the lines between science and religion get really blurry. 

Follow me very closely...In quantum physics, which deals with the behavior of very small objects (like our own little subcultures we all live in), it is not possible to observe a system (our own subcultures) without changing the system, and the "observer" must be considered part of the system being observed.  Is this what was meant by writers like, Paul, James, and John when they spoke of "being in the world but not of the world?" The only way to see the world for how it really is, is to metaphysically separate yourself from that which you are entrenched in.  You must, in essence, step outside of yourself and observe it from a distance.  When you see that which you are in, from an outside perspective, you can then act upon it accordingly.  That is why successful organizations bring in outside consultants who have no idea about their organization to suggest changes.  The people within the organization sometimes become blinded by being "in it" for so long. 

Have you ever told one of your kids to stop doing something, and they have no idea what you are talking about because they don't realize they are doing it.  My son is a prime example.  He developed a few habits that were so much a part of him, he subconsciously acted upon them and didn't even realize it.  As a matter of fact, when I told him what he was doing he would argue with me because he truly believed he wasn't doing them--until he saw them from an outside perspective.  We told him we were going to video tape him doing it so he could see it for himself.  Have you ever recorded yourself either on video or audio and say, "I can't believe I sound like that or act like that."  It is because you are observing yourself from outside yourself.  This is the beginning of understanding religion in its truest sense.  It is honestly looking at what you are in for what it truly is--both the beauty and ugliness.  It is to unbiasly collect the data from what you have observed and changing it based upon the facts.  For the people of the Bible, they were so immersed in their subculture that orphans and widows were a common thing.  Therefore, since it was so "normal" and "common," an every day occurance, nothing got done--these people were neglected.  The culture was becoming self-centered and people were trying to convert others by "beliefs" rather than changing their subculture into a better place.  I've been in towns where most people go to church and have similar beliefs, but the poverty level, crime level, and morality level was no different than a town were church attendance was much lower.

So much of religion today is based on converting people to our beliefs and experiences rather than stepping outside of ourselves and looking at our world for what it really is, what it is supposed to be, and what it can become. If we observe our world without stepping outside our self then we will just try to create the world we are observing into what we already are, rather than what it really needs.  This is the problem with religion, especially Christianity.  Why do you think there are so many denominations?  We must "be in it, but not of it." Your question is ready to be answered right outside your self.   Lech lecha my friends!!