Hey Christians, what about all those who lived and died before they ....

Okay, you don't seem to be getting it. You asked me if everybody in the world called me a leprechaun, would I be a leprechaun. I replied that if everybody agreed on what the definition of leprechaun was, but I didn't, that I would be a leprechaun. We know what the definition of a leprechaun is currently, correct? Obviously I would not fall under the current definition. BUT if everybody in the world agreed upon a definition and I fit all the requirements OF that definition, then I WOULD be one. What you are saying is that even though basically everybody agrees upon a definition of a religion and Christianity falls under that definition, it still isn't a religion. That is absolutely absurd.

Who cares if it used in a different context? Is King of kings, when referring to Jesus, not mean to signify that he is God?

...What? King of saints who are kings?

Holy crap. BFSmith. It is a TITLE used to indicate that God is above the kings and lords of the Earth, it doesn't mean he is actually the head of a monarchy.

Then what does it accurately mean? You keep claiming that the definition that dictionaries use are wrong, but fail to indicate what the actual definition of the word is according to you.

What bearing does the origin of a word have on its contemporary definition?

Yeah, I agree, and what YOU are saying is that the definition of religion, which Christianity falls under, is NOT the meaning of the word.

 

When you start to analyze the fairy tale it does make it very difficult to defend it. That's because it's imaginary and not based on reality. The story might sound good but it's just a fiction.

 

As it says in Job 4:6 (CEB) = Isn’t your religion the source of your confidence; the integrity of your conduct, the source of your hope?

 

LOL......you are nuts...you must be on medication or your brain has been affected by some drug or the other.[/QUOTE]

I can see that.....I can see that meaning of words have no meaning to you.

No....king of kings does not mean God it just means what it says....king of kings. It was also used for a human king as well. It’s a political title plain and simple but you want to turn it into a religious word when it applies to God. God is also called father, is that a religious word as well? The writers used words that human beings can relate because it is human beings they will be passing it on to, it does not make up its own meaning to words or take a word and change the meaning.

Yes......the Bible says the saints will possess the kingdoms of this world.......it does not say they will possess the religions of this world.

Then why did you say it’s a religious word? Show me proof that the word king when apples to God is a religious title but not when it applies to a human being.

I was hoping that you would be willing to look it up yourself.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word "religion" back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "rely" or "return," and ligare means "to bind; or to enslave" in other words it means, "return to bondage."

Now the question that I have is this, if what Jesus preached a religion and religion means a return to bondage what bondage is one returning to if a person was never in bondage before? So obviously that meaning applies to someone that was in bondage before and was free, and then returned to bondage after they were free. And by that definition it does not have to be a person who believes in a god because the definition does not suggest that. So even the word that people have come to apply Christians by the above definition is not limited to that.

Because to get at the truth you need to go back to its roots the same way people who wants to know something about their family history would do. You cannot hope to understand ancient history by going by what words have become to mean today, that meant something different back then. The meanings of words change because people misuse words not because the word itself changed itself.

What I'm saying is that the Bible is not about a particular religion....that Jesus never preached a new religion, He preached the gospel of the kingdom and a kingdom is not a religion. That is why His title is King.

 

You're acting childish since that is exactly what you are doing, pretending that the meaning of a word really isn't the meaning.

So, God is literally a king and a father?

Well, since Christianity is a religion, and it is used as a title for that religion's God, then it is a religious title.

The etymology of a word has no bearing on its contemporary definition.

I'm not trying to understand ancient history, words change meaning over time. What you are basically arguing is that you do not like the contemporary definition of, so you are going to use the ancient definition of it.

Newsflash, this is a commonly deployed fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Yes, yes, he never preached a new religion because you are using fallacious arguments to try to change the definition of what religion is. Even if we said that religion still held the same meaning as religio, the word was never used in a way to suggest the definition was "to return to bondage". Cicero defined the word as "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."

 

I would just like to make this little statement. That a Christian or anyone from any religious background cannot really argue their faith to an atheist or an agnostic, well they can but it normally does not work very well.
In my personal opinion when arguing with an atheist or an agnostic first you must argue the existence of God. Why you believe in God, the reasoning and logic behind your belief. Only after they accept the belief that God does exist (if they do accept it) do you bother to argue your religion and the finer points of it.

 

The misuse of a word cannot be used as the definition of the word anymore than calling a Chinese a Korean, and saying that all Asians are Korean because that is what everyone believe.

Yes, He is.

Not by the Bible's definition.

That is nonsensical reasoning and is not supported by any expert.

Contemporary definition has no bearing on the scriptures.

The ancient definition is closest to the truth it is the main reason why Jewish scribes were so meticulous in preserving the original text of the Torah/Old Testament and not try to adopt it to fit the changing times.

Not when it comes to the Bible or if one wants to understand ancient culture or writings. It would be foolish for a Christian to believe he or she can understand the scriptures from a modern and an American/western point of view, because it was not written in modern times nor was in written with an American perspective.

Jesus never preached religion period. For example, a king is not a religion, a kingdom is not a religion, loving one's neighbor is not a religion, and honoring one's parents is not a religion.

 

You know, the thing is I'm not even arguing my point based on faith......I'm simply going on the fact on what the Bible says in term of the words that are used in the Bible. The Bible used words, like king, son, kingdom and rule. All these words are words human beings can relate to and understand because these are words that were created and used by human beings. They are not religious words or words created by people who believe in God or gods. So to say that a perfectly secular word means one thing when applied to a human being but when that same word is applied to God it means something entirely different. That kind of reasoning is insane thinking.

But I do understand your point and I agree.......I will put an end to it soon, because I know that what I'm talking about is beyond his ability to grasp. One of the things Jesus said was that some people when they hear the words about the kingdom, Satan come and pluck what was sown in their heart. Even many Christians do not understand the message of the kingdom let alone someone that does not believe.

 

So, God is a male who created Jesus and every other human being through procreation? If not, then I'm not sure how he could be a father. And also, what political state is God currently the monarch of?

Where does the Bible define religion? The Bible only uses the word six times (NIV), and the closest thing to a definition is probably from James when it says, "Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Which 1) isn't a definition but rather a standard for what God considers a good religion, and 2) seems to suggest that Christianity is a religion if you believe that verse to be a true representative of God's thoughts.

An expert of what? Any linguistic expert wouldn't support your ancient use of the word religion and I'm quite certain of that. If you want to find me an expert that does, then provide away.

Once again, the Bible doesn't have a dictionary in it that defines words and I'm not sure that saying a collection of books written two thousand years ago by anonymous writers is a good source for defining a certain word in its modern context.

...The main reason that the Jews were meticulous in not changing the text of the Bible was to preserve a word? Uh... okay, that's a weird statement.

Who cares? You use English and the definitions of English words to read Scripture, do you not? So why does that suddenly change when you come upon a specific word?

Woah, woah, woah, I never said that a king is a religion or a kingdom is a religion and if you are trying to suggest I did then you are being intellectually dishonest. But, who says that religions cannot use words in an allegorical sense? Obviously God isn't a literal father, which you weirdly claimed, since I don't think that you would be willing to admit that God is male and that "he" created humanity through procreation. Also, I would say that the last two things you listed are examples of doctrine, which usually is a criteria for something being a religion.

 

One last thing, the word king didn't become a "secular" word until very recently in human history, this specifically changed during the Enlightenment. Have you not heard of divine authority where monarchs claimed they derived their power from God and that they should be respected as either divine themselves? Heck, even the Emperor of Japan was considered a God by the Japanese people until very recently (I'm sure there are many people who still think of his as such) and the leaders of Communist authoritarian countries usually have been looked upon as such as well (North Korea is a perfect example of this). So, you're trying to draw a line between these terms when really, history has shown that they are often intertwined.

 

God is Spirit and He is creator of all that exist....He is not confined by space and time so He is not limited by His own creation. So God can become a father without the usual way a male goes about becoming a father. The word that is translated into the English word father from Hebrew or Greek does not mean male. In the Greek it means "a nourisher, protector, upholder" and in Hebrew it means chief. God the Father of Jesus is not Jesus' Father through being created God is His Father because Jesus eternally proceeded from the Father. The kingdom of God is not like man's system that rule by oppression, suppression, corrupting and deceit, in which they are the ones that benefit than those they claim they are serving. In God's kingdom all His children are kings and is destined to rule with Him over His creation......the purpose for God creating human beings is to rule the universe......it is the reason why God created the universe.

The Bible does not get into religion because it’s not a religious book......the Bible is about man and God's relationship or dealings with man through the various prophets. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not religious men.....there was not even a Church where these men attended. The Bible says they were pilgrims and they looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. That City is described in the book of Revelation. The Bible is about how God is going to re-establish His kingdom back on the Earth, and He is doing through man and Jesus is the first man to have attained glory.

Mainstream Christianity might be and is a religion but most of mainstream Christianity is far different than what is taught in the Bible. What the early Church believed up until Emperor Nero burnt Rom down did not believe for example, that Heaven was where they will go when Jesus returns. The early Church members all believed that it is the Earth they will be their home, because that is what Jesus said. Jesus said many would come in His name and deceive many......so the vast majority of Christians are deceived.

You think that wanting to keep the one's own written record of their history intact weird......I guess you would not have a problem with anyone changing American history. You would not mind if someone wrote their own interpretation and their own opinion and pass that off as American history. But then again, much of American history is sort of like that now....they omit the parts they don't like.

Unlike you I care. If someone wrote me a letter in another language I would want to get the fullest meaning of what they wrote and not have it watered down.

It’s not allegory because Jesus told His disciples that they would be on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus told the Pharisees that Abraham and others from around the world will sit in the kingdom. Jesus said those who overcome would sit with Him on His throne the same way He is now doing His Father's throne. You are a victim of what is taught by mainstream Christianity.

 

And that is why so many Christians are deceived.......they don't fully understand what God is really saying in His word because they have a diluted and twisted understanding of it. They call Jesus Lord but they think it’s spiritual. They fail to understand that when that word was used there was no President or Prime minister. The world was ruled by kings and lords so when that word was used for Jesus those who heard it knew exactly what was being said and knew that it was literal and not something in our hearts.

It is silly for a Christian to think they can understand an ancient book like the Bible by using modern definition of words. The Bible is a book you have to study and not just read like a story book.

 

I have not read every post, but has anyone hit on the main logical problem in all of this?

Most religions seem to have some way to dodge this issue, mostly saying that if those who have not heard their version of salvation are basically good people god can give them a pass if god wants to.

This works for a lot of people, but for me it left a nagging question.

What is the point of teaching people about religion if it makes them more culpable for (*)(*)(*)(*)ation? What if basically good people hear the message but are not convinced? Whoever taught them is not saving them, but is ensuring their eternal punishment.

Besides this most religions also condemn adherents who only give lip service. Grace is usually reserved for those who truly repent. If you don't have real faith but go through the motions, and then live your life in contradiction to gods teachings you go to hell as quickly as the heathen.

Wouldn't it make more sense to teach them to be essentially good people and hide the religion from them? Let gods mercy and wisdom judge them and leave the extra hurdle of faith out of it?

This issue is the main reason I turned away from organized religion. The flaw in logic was too huge to ignore.

 

You apparently missed my first post in this thread.

 

Oh look a thread dedicated to atheists....goody.

I have an idea why people like you exist, how about you just let people believe in who/what they want to believe? If you don't want to believe in the same no one is forcing you, that's your opinion and your business. Why must you insist that people not believe? I have never understood why you feel it is your business/duty to force people to become non-believers.

Just **** already and worry about your own selves.

 

This is a subjective answer and relies heavily on modern mystical thought. I won't disagree with you, but I think most christians will.

But on point-- You don't directly address the question of the thread. It also seems to be a pretty bold assumption that all good people are "Godly" and knew some redeemer was coming.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean.

Sorry.

 

So, once again, you set aside the modern definitions of words because you feel more comfortable with ancient ones (though even the ancient use of the word doesn't line up with what you are saying). At least admit that.

So you lied when you said the Bible defined religion. Amazing.

Once again, another misdirection which I'm getting sick of dealing with. Does that verse not basically call Christianity a religion?

No, and that isn't what you said. You were implying that the main reason the Jews were meticulous with their writing was to preserve the definition of a single word.

Which usually you do by knowing the common definitions of words and not the ancient definition of them. Once again, you're committing a common logical fallacy.

How does this prove that this isn't allegorical? Did he ever say the word "literally" when describing these situations?

 

Except, as I have already pointed out to you, the ancient definition of the word doesn't match up with what you are saying either since Cicero clearly defined religio as "reverence of the gods", only the root etymology does.

And once again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

"A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies,[3] or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology."

That you can't see the blatant logical fallacy in your own words strikes me as strange. I mean, do you honestly think that you are the first person to attempt to do so?

 

Where there is no law, there is no sin. So those people are not guilty.

As for the "White" folks, they are the worst bunch, and have had the law since Adam. That's why God had to come and save them. If He could save them, the rest of humanity is a push over.

The Chinese have known Christ since at least 2500 BC. Its built into their pictogram language.
[video=youtube;DA-AkJzpKmg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-AkJzpKmg&feature=related[/video]

 

You kind of limited the responses with "hey christians" but, oh well, here's my take.

Jesus superceded the law, but did not abolish it or the prophets. (and abolish has a variety of meanings/translations) As to the estimates of 50 to 100 billion people who have died since the dawn of time, if one believed in a deity then it isn't difficult to reason out that the deity would have revealed himself/itself to the homosapiens in some fashion, possibly via nature as mentioned by another poster.

Good provocative question though.

 

My advice for you on the other hand is that. Human's intelligence is limited. That's why sometimes they failed to comprehend logic. I suspect that's the case with you. Doubt about your own intelligence, you may have a chance to find the truth.

In a nutshell, every human is subject to a covenant. A covenant a law requirement for you, plus a faith requirement you need to believe. The reason behind this is that, heaven is an eternity which only the so-called righteous can enter, or else people will screw things up there to make no longer a heaven. As for humans, the covenants they are subject to becomes the measurement on whether they are qualified to be the righteous.

The New Covenant is a warning that humans nowadays can no longer achieve the righteous status under their current covenant, they are thus recommended to hop over to a New Covenant. That's why the "religion education". Moreover, there's reason why a covenant is composed of the law requirement and the faith requirement. To simply put, you can't be referred to as "good" or "righteous" in terms of God's Law. That's why you faith as specified in a covenant.

 

In my experience, these problems are found primarily in Christianity and Islam.
And that leaves a whole bunch of others out there.

 

Because it has no place in a book that was written thousands of years ago not to mentined written in another language. What I use for that is the Concordance that has the Greek and Hebrew meaning of each word used in the Bible.

I did not say that.

No!

Yes, that's the main reason or at least one of the main reasons.

You are assuming that every word in one langue can always be translated into another and not lose the full meaning.

If someone tells you that one day he was going to be the President of the United States how do you know that he is not speaking allegorically? Do people who want to be the President of the U.S have to say, I am literally going to run for the office of the Presidency of the U.S?

I don't know about you but when I read scriptures like the two below that prophecies of the return of Jesus it does not look like its speaking allegorically.


Revelation 11:15 (KJV)
15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Daniel 7:18 (ASV)
18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

 

That is irrelevant......God's word is unchanging even if men languages does.

And who is the author of Wikipedia? And what is his/her/there credential? The only thing Wikipedia has done is give Wikipedia's opinion.

 

Let's just concentrate on what you just said here. I honestly don't think that you know what you are talking about because Strong's Concordance gives an index of the words in the Bible and gives their definition. There are three Greek words that were translated into "religion" in English from Greek, and those are deisidaimonia, threskeia, and loudaismos.

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=religion

You can find those there. None of these actually back up your argument in any way since these Greek words don't define religion, they are just turned into the word religion when the translation occurs. And as you can see, the ulterior uses of these words backs my argument up, since deisidaimonia and threskeia are also defined as "superstition" and "worshipping" which is more in line with the contemporary definition than the one you claim to be supporting (obviously loudaismos is only meant to refer to the Jew's religion).

Also, yes you did. In a few replies ago you literally stated that "was not how the Bible defines religion".