Defining 'Religion'

Again, 'religion', according to The Holy Bible is this:

James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."


And the Greek definition of the word 'religion' is:

2356. thréskeia
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
religion, worshipping.
From a derivative of threskos; ceremonial observance -- religion, worshipping.

see GREEK threskos


Which could be the 'truth' behind the 'worship'.


John 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."

 

Once again please read for comprehension,
this is about the present state of religion, regarding its attributes, as defined by courts and philosophy NOT your bullshit spin to derail the thread.

I am not going to argue your spin.

 

Ok, no problem.

 

Proved you wrong again, so you edit the post and start whining.

Report thread derailment if you think it is!

 

Thanks, much appreciated

 

Well I certainly agree that worship is normally part of religion and ceremonial observance is close enough to reverence for me.

 

I already covered supernatural being and worship before the derailment, or are you saying that something else should be added?

 

In other words you are trying to void the actual definition and replace it with one that might include " atheism" . And now you are attempting to conflate " nontheist" with athiesm. Is there no end to your attempts to bastardize definitions?

 

Trouble is that you have dealt with it twice, once on page two where you rejected it and now you accept it, which is it?

 

Except for adding the phrase " may include" your addition is correct. Drop that phrase and change include to includes and you are getting there.

 

then it would no longer conform with the present standing of religion. I used may because ACCORDING TO THE COURTS and philosophy (sorry the emphasis is for anyone with challenged comprehension), it may include a supernatural agency, I have not been able to find any reference stating it 'must' include a supernatural agency therefore for accuracy I do not want to change it unless you can show me it is in fact a requirement. Case in point the Jainists and Buddhists.

 

Are you claiming there are no supernatural entities in Buddism? And that there is no worship in either religion. And saying " according to the courts and philosophy " is quite a cop out unless you can list the court case and back up your philosophy claim. And note you have to prove your assertion for every school of philosophy.

 

Define religion, eh

How 'bout … the biggest scam in human history...

 

Both have been posted a couple times and the snippets in the op are from stanford so I am not sure what you expect here? I didnt post a notion that needs to be proved what are you talking about? I was not aware Buddhism had any G/gods they worship? Either way Jainism does not and it nonetheless is a religion. Your post does not make sense to me, not sure what you want?

The thread was constructed in this manner to hopefully reduce the amount of drive by snarking that is so typical out here.

 

cornell law review ok with you?
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3412&context=clr

 

I think there is no agreed upon definition, as per the wikipages on the subject. As such, I think that whether something is a religion is meaningless until it has been specified what one means by religion. Now, it's true that a lot of the time, it might be specified (even implicitly) in some way that excludes religion, but I don't fundamentally have a problem with someone constructing an argument using a definition which includes religion. Just like I think orange is a fruit, but that doesn't keep me from understanding the argument "orange is a nice colour".

I hold that the point of language is to make oneself understood, to communicate ideas. If you are able to make yourself understood using a non-standard definition, then I have no problem with it.

 

This version is clearer, the other phrasing made it unclear which word the "not" was referring to.

As [this] will tell you, there isn't a clear, agreed upon definition of religion. Kokomojojo's definition, while not that common, and certainly not universal as he would like us to think, is not an impossible way to look at religion.

Definitions are features of words that we use to describe things, not about the reality of the things you define. As such, if your position or arguments are shaken by changing definitions, then your arguments were not very strong to begin with.

 

Its a work in progress, that is why I was asking for suggestions to make sure we dont miss anything, at least get over 95% of the bell curve, and I think we are close. Presently I am pondering the word 'social' I believe its to impersonally broad and has a government tint I think that it may be more accurately said to be cultural.

Here is the latest;

Religion: Not limited to; The personal or cultural practices of value and faith based beliefs, morals, commitments, self-knowledge, often containing a world view, which may include worship and a supernatural being or agency.



I dont believe it will ever be possible to define it listing every possible contingency in one line, but I also believe this is far closer to reality than the shitty job the dictionaries are doing. Right now I think it contains the major groupings which of course sub-groupings can be assigned like good-evil etc which would be the combination of belief and value and may or may not include supernatural if the source is God. I added 'not limited to' because I have no doubt there is more as we meander through time.

The idea is not to force fit, instead to attempt to best fit by assembling the attributes in a manner thats not too narrow as to 'exclude', and not to broad to 'include everything imaginable', based upon the present day variants and understanding.

It is a compilation of the different common views, as I have said earlier, taken from philosophy, the courts, not so much microscopic scholars trying to narrowly define it with one word which is not remotely possible.

Please dont encourage more of his off topic spam.

If you all wish to start a new thread to argue whether atheism is a religion you can add it to the plethora of other threads presently on the endless juvenile merry go round, please do not argue it here, it is off topic.

This thread is about defining religion based on present day understanding in law, philosophy and theology, not intended to argue the religousosity of any particular attribute. I hope you can respect that.

So once again please do not encourage his off topic spam.

 

Thats impossible to do in an illiterate dumbed down world, back to the tower of babel warning. Hey I went to the store yesterday and asked 2 different kids where the plaster is, and I got 'Duh' whats plaster? I looked at them and in my kind generous way said, seriously?

 

The problem you have with the word religion is that not only does it have several attributes like the 25 ingredient hamburger, but religion can be any singular or combination 1, 2, 3 or more of those attributes to constitute a valid religion as is understood in theology, law, and academia.

This exercise is designed to promote a greater understanding of the concept and construction using the present understanding in theology, law, and academia not a reduction while simultaneously without leaving anyone out in the process again according to present day understanding. Religion is several magnitudes more complex than orange versus orange.

 

Nope. You claimed there was a court case that defines what constitutes a religion. Your article mentions many cases none of which provide an actual definitive definition although most if not all of the Supreme Court decisions seem to identify religion with a belief in a god

If your position is belief in a god or supernatural being is optionsl in religion then perhaps you can state the actual Supreme Court definition thst supports your position.

 

They both have supernatural beings. Now if your definition of god is different please supply it.

 

Oh, and The Cornell Law Review isn't a case so if you have an actual case that provides a definition of religion that supports your position would still like the actual case.

 

Sure it is, several in fact, but you have to actually click on it and read it before you would know that.

Really? News to me, source?

 

The Cornell Law Review is a case. Really nice try!

The Cornell Law Review is the flagship legal journal of Cornell Law School. Originally published in 1915 as the Cornell Law Quarterly, the journal features scholarship in all fields of law.