Jesus and the Cross
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
So, the definition of Religion is wrong? I should just ignore definitions?
It's the common definition one can find in any dictionary.
From Merriam-Webster↱:
religion
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious
/ a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I thought you said it would be in any dictionary.
More usefully, let's take the moment to consider: Once upon a time, skipping out on a question, as you did, in order to continue pushing crackpottery was frowned upon. This used to be a subject of much complaint, about how some religious advocate wasn't answering an issue to the atheist's satisfaction, yet going on to push their talking point, anyway. Some of that really was problematic, but these years later, we see a lot of the complaint really was its own form of trolling; the complaint wasn't really about the behavior, but who got to behave how. That is, it really wasn't about fallacy and make-believe in and of themselves, but, rather, that some atheists thought only they should be allowed to employ those elements as rational discourse. More directly: Once upon a time, skipping out on the question in order to continue pushing crackpottery was the source of much complaint, but only when it was those people over there.
It stands out that, while scholars acknowledge there is clearly no universal definition of religion, you, in turn, require dumbing it down according to the one thing it isn't.
The root of the word religion pertains to practice and obligation; the living experience is the sort of thing the literary record is littered with throughout, as the great artists, philosophers, and scientists alike have all failed to express this experience satisfactorily for themselves or communicably unto others. Your definition is extraordinary, purports to trump the historical record, and creates a massive rhetorical gap where divinity is merely implied by superstition; there is also a ridiculous appearance of self-interest, that one might abide creed, code, and cult according to an assertion of sacredness that transcends mundane expression, and, sure, it might hurt people, but, hey, at least it's not religion, or something.
And that last ought to be a silly projection, yet it's these years later and here we are, and Ockham has yet to prune the branch.
†
Meanwhile, there is a fun bit attending the syntax of the first definintion, "the state of a religious", and check on the word "religious"↱ as a noun, we can also consider scholar Karen Armstrong:
The origins of the Latin religio are obscure. It was not "a great objective something", but had imprecise connotations of obligation and taboo; to say that it was a cultic observance, a family propriety, or keeping an oath was religio for you meant that it was incumbent on you to do it. The word acquired an important new meaning among early Christian theologians: an attitude of reverence toward God and the universe as a whole. For Saint Augustine (c. 354-430 CE), religio was neither a system of rituals and doctrines nor a historical institutionalized tradition but a personal encounter with the transcendence that we call God as well as the bond that unites us to the divine and to one another. In medieval Europe, religio came to refer to the monastic life and distinguished the monk from the "secular" priest, someone who had lived in and worked in the world (saeculum).
(5)
(5)
At this point, we are back to the word, religious, as a noun; and if you look above, at 3a, "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful", there is a similar definition for religion, "scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness", but this definition is also noted, "archaic", which in turn touches on what Armstrong describes as having "imprecise connotations of obligation and taboo; to say that it was a cultic observance, a family propriety, or keeping an oath was religio for you meant that it was incumbent on you to do it". Even six years ago↗, we could read the advice from a prominent atheist suggesting why "belief in God" is not a good definition of religion.
And that's when you just ran↗ away↗ from the issue. But, still, as I wrote six and a half years ago↗, there isn't much to insisting on deliberately narrow definitions of religion: It is intellectually lazy, at best, to simply complain and expect to be taken seriously according to merits one refuses to demonstrate.
Given how much people complain about religion, around here, wouldn't it be just so ironic, or something like that, if they happened to be wrong about what they complianed about?
†
Okay, quick story: So, James R and I had a strained policy discussion a couple months ago, and he happened to point to a particular thread, by name, as an example of something, and if I suggest the statement didn't age well, it's not pick on him. Indeed, I doubt he thought about what he said when he created a second thread, later, because the "one thread to rule them all"↗ needed whittling to something more manageable and accommodating of his arguments, and thus a second thread↗. There isn't a telling of the tale he would appreciate, but the point of recalling here is to note what went wrong.
First, he let an insincere whiff of pantheism distract him. Second, he let it distract him in a particular way. Really, that's it.
The thing is, the pantheistic whiff was an easy troll, and thus expected, especially considering who it came from. The underlying problem, though, as explained in the second thread, was that it "doesn't appear to describe the God of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) very well at all".
Where the story gets long is in the greater detail, but, as Armstrong explains, "our modern Western conception of 'religion' is idiosyncratic and eccentric", such that "even premodern European Christians would have found it reductive and alien" (4). Certes, we might suggest the "one thread to rule them all" was not prepared to accommodate the range, but what we see in the second thread is the limitation of scope to eccentric, idiosyncratic reductiveness, i.e., fallacy.
†
Compared to any pretense of care about the harms of religious belief and behavior, the underlying surrender to fallacy, is reflective of years worth of apparent effort spent addressing the circumstance wrongly. And, sure, we've all been there, so to speak, but that's the thing. The point remains↗, given considerations of religion, there are always questions of vector, and the most obvious retort is to pretend another vector. To wit, there is little point in appealing to pretenses of care about the harms of religious belief and behavior if one's purpose is more akin to your infinite brawl.
Still, though, unless the purpose is cheap self-gratification, a critique is actually enhanced when one knows, and is able to communicate, something about what they are criticizing. To the other, if the purpose actually is cheap self-gratification, then at least that can be acknowledged and we can move past the ignorant, callous, and idiotic some people seem to think justified because they aren't capable of describing what their problem actually is.
Hint: When people are down to tossing coins 'twixt whether your problem is trolling or poor reading comprehension, you're doing it wrong. I mean, to the one, it's not really believable; to the other, yet you insist.
____________________
Notes:
“Religion”. Merriam-Webster. 7 June 2020. Merriam-Webster.com. 12 June 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
"Religious". Merriam-Webster. 2020. Merriam-Webster.com. 12 June 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
Armstrong, Karen. Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.
It is, right there in front of you, dumbass. Wtf is wrong with you?
Certainly you can point to it. You're capable of that, at least, right?
Because, y'know, people can see.
Here, I'll help you out. First, you, two weeks ago, #57↑ above:
• "Here's what I said: believing in God IS religion"
Which, is close enough. The original↗ opened with a gregarious, self-gratifying "LOL", and ended with an insult. Your recollection, "Here's what I said: believing in God IS religion", is accurate. You also said, in #66↑, "It's the common definition one can find in any dictionary."
So, now, the entry from Merriam-Webster↱:
religion
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
re·li·gion | \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of religion
1 a : the state of a religious
/ a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
And while you claim, in #69↑, your definition, which should be found "in any dictionary", is right there, you failed to cite, quote, highlight, or otherwise indicate it. Are you actually able to do so? Because it seems significant, and rather apparent, why you didn't. It is "right there in front of" me? Yet you're unable to actually make the point?
It's hardly an unfamiliar moment, though people usually aren't so explicit about it.
Point to it? When it' right in front of your eyes? How dumb can you be.
Dennis Tate
Banned
Near death experiencer Kevin Zadai was shown that the seventy two hours in the heart of the earth between his death and resurrection were actually worse than the scourging and crucifixion.
Dr. Zadai was shown that Jesus went into the lowest levels of hell.......
perhaps somewhat like Rabbi Nachman of Breslov did in the nineteenth century.
If Rabbi Nachman truly also went into hell then.....
John 14:12
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
Although technically Rabbi Nachman did not believe in Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus as Messiah.....
his understanding of the role of Messiah may have given him a greater level of belief than most of us Christians have which would qualify him for this promise.