• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The One True Religion

Then call it something else.

Religion is defined already and is not what you want it to be.

It's my thread, my friend. And yours is not the way language works.

And I replied to a question like yours back on page 2:

Isn't that spirituality? Religion has a definition.

I'm trying to get away from the popular restrictive sense of the word, MrP, and get us to think about the concept more broadly, more in line with one of its etymological sources.

religion, n.
c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
Online Etymology Dictionary


Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community", from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods",[11] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[12]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possible interpretation traced to Cicero, connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) with lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect", which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[13][14] [15]

In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin root religio was understood as an individual virtue of worship, never as doctrine, practice, or actual source of knowledge.[16] The modern concept of "religion" as an abstraction which entails distinct sets of beliefs or doctrines is a recent invention in the English language since such usage began with texts from the 17th century due to the splitting of Christendom during the Protestant Reformation and more prevalent colonization or globalization in the age of exploration which involved contact with numerous foreign and indigenous cultures with non-European languages.[16][17] It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the Quran, and other ancient sacred texts did not have a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion


The etymology of “religion” is indeed disputed. This is not, of course, the case when it comes to English, which clearly inherited the word from Latin religio. Rather it applies to Latin itself, in which it is not clear what the component parts of the noun religio are or mean. The ancient Romans disagreed about this. Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission.

On the other hand, the Christian writer Lactantius, writing in the early fourth century, opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “Divinae Institutiones,” “tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful study [relegendo], that religion has received its name.” Lactantius’s greater contemporary, Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

Roots of ?Religion? ? The Forward
 
If you want to play word games instead of looking at evidence, that is your choice. However, using such loaded terminology as 'scientific folly' is showing an extreme bias, and a disconnect with modern knowledge.
No word games. It's intellectual honesty, which science in the last fifty years has lost.

If animals other than man have morality, then they are moral agents. If they are moral agents they are weighing right and wrong in their moral conduct. Does this sound like any animal you've observed, besides man?
 
No word games. It's intellectual honesty, which science in the last fifty years has lost.

If animals other than man have morality, then they are moral agents. If they are moral agents they are weighing right and wrong in their moral conduct. Does this sound like any animal you've observed, besides man?

That is your claim. Can you show that the 'intellectual honesty' is nothing more than wishful thinking, speculation, and emotional desire? And, if you read the links I provided, yes, some animals other than human do weigh 'right' and 'wrong'. Rhesus monkeys, bonobos, chimps all do... as well as dolphins. Other animals do it to a lesser extent.. some more than others. You seem to want to elevate man way above any other animal, and reject any evidence that although man is unique in many of the intellectual abilities, many of those qualities are present in other animals, even if it isn't as well developed.
 
That is your claim. Can you show that the 'intellectual honesty' is nothing more than wishful thinking, speculation, and emotional desire? And, if you read the links I provided, yes, some animals other than human do weigh 'right' and 'wrong'. Rhesus monkeys, bonobos, chimps all do... as well as dolphins. Other animals do it to a lesser extent.. some more than others. You seem to want to elevate man way above any other animal, and reject any evidence that although man is unique in many of the intellectual abilities, many of those qualities are present in other animals, even if it isn't as well developed.
This is zany, man.
I love animals, but I don't pretend they're moral agents.
I wish you the best in this pursuit, but I'm not interested in debating an absurdity. Good luck with it, though. :)
 
This is zany, man.
I wish you the best in this pursuit, but I'm not interested in debating an absurdity. Good luck with it, though. :)

Funny, that is exactly what I think of the world view you are trying to promote.

The big difference between the point I was making is that my claims are backed up by peer reviewed scientific studies, that are testable and repeatable.
 
The problem with that is not everyone reasons in the same way...someone has to set the 'across the board' standard imo...for me, I look to my Creator to set those standards of right and wrong...who better to tell us how to live than the One who created us...who knows us inside and out?

Oh I agree...God reasonable and He is logical...and faith is certainly not blind...
You're a breath of fresh air, Elvira.
In the airless room of militant atheism. Malignant atheism. Malaprop atheism. :)
 
Last edited:
Funny, that is exactly what I think of the world view you are trying to promote.
Yeah, that crazy world of mine in which animals are not moral agents weighing right and wrong before they act. ;)
The big difference between the point I was making is that my claims are backed up by peer reviewed scientific studies, that are testable and repeatable.
ugkmsEE.jpg

"Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies"
 
jcvxLNa.jpg


Those who are anti-religion are really against organized religion.
Religion, before it is organized, is merely a deeply felt connection to the universe.
You can't be against that and still be rational.

I consider the one true religion to be greed. It's universal and encompassing.
 
It's my thread, my friend. And yours is not the way language works.

And I replied to a question like yours back on page 2:

You do not have control of how language works.

If you want to have something that is not religion, ie not organised, then don't call it religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom