Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I have no problem with your definition. It's just that we need to realize that people may have other definitions, and so we need to be careful when we start slamming "religion." Other people may not know what we are talking about.
On that subject, a Catholic friend of mine wrote the article this link points to. That's me with the long comment at the end of it:
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...3-01-2011.html
What's my definition of religion? I have several, depending on context. I use it positively many times, because that's the context my audience may be working under.
My negative definition is it's anything we do independently of God but that's supposed to be "spiritual." |
An excellent post by Patrick. Evidence that you can't just dismiss Catholicism.
And I liked your response.
I would suggest an alteration, or addition, on one point. It is not necessary that we agree on the definition of religion (or of any particular thing), but that we understand which definition is in use at a particular time in a particular discussion. When James makes reference to it in his epistle, for anyone to dismiss him because he is talking about religion is to equivocate and use a different definition. To simply say that the opening premise of this thread — that "religion should be extinguished" or that it will be by a point in time — is a good thing is not talking about the definition under which the term is used in that opening post.
It is an intellectually bankrupt position to insist on one definition when it is not the one intended. And it is one of the worst aspects of postmodernism to suggest that which definition is in play is up to the reader. If that is true, then there can never be meaningful discussion about anything.