Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> necoandjeff wrote:
>
>> Religion implies a system of teachings based on a book or a central
>> religious figure (Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) or a combination
>> of both. Shinto has none of that.
>
> What are the named kami such as Amaterasu Omikami, and the Kojiki? It
> seems the Kojiki had something to teach the sources used by BBC, or
> Shinto believers, despite kami such as Amaterasu not being as
> explicit in how to live.

Those are creation myths and little more. Not enough to form the basis for a
religion or a system of teachings.

>>> I wonder what other systems of beliefs, such as Santeria, Wicca,
>>> Heaven's Door or Aum, your dictionaries consider not to be actual
>>> religions.
>>
>> I've never heard of Santeria or Wicca.
>
> In the decades they've been known in the US?

Nope. I confess ignorance. I doubt that I care either.

>> Heaven's Door and Aum, from what I know of them, would almost
>> certainly be religions in my book.
>
> Are they called such in your dictionaries?

Those religions are probably too recent to be in the dictionary. <checks>
Nope. Not even Aum shinrikyo is in the Kojien. But religions as recent as
those are almost by definition a system of teachings. It would be quite
curious if something were to spring up that is based merely on traditions or
rituals alone without a central "leader" and a system of teachings.

Jeff