Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Visiting orphans and widows is fine as an example showing that religion should include acts of compassion. But, it is too narrow to serve as a definition of religion. It leaves out myriad instances which deserve compassion such as those demonstrated by Jesus in the gospels toward the blind, the disabled, and the mentally ill [the so-called demon-possessed]. That you fail to see that is puzzling.
|
I consider "orphans" and "widows" to indicate those disenfranchised from society. So I see this in a much broader sense then the narrowest literal translation would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
I suppose the proposition that James gives the ultimate definition of religion is part of your larger mission to prove that the Bible is an infallible science text book. Your repeated failure at that has provided ample evidence that it isn't for anybody who hadn't figured that out already.
|
How does defining religion support the Bible being a scientific textbook? That does not make any sense. Nor have I ever suggested that the Bible is a scientific textbook and have rejected this false assertion every time it has been made on my behalf. Instead what I have repeatedly proved in the pristine and irrefutable way is that the Biblical accounts are not contrary to our best scientific understanding.
Instead I think the real failure is trying to discuss religion without having a clear definition that everyone agrees on. If one person is substituting "false religion" for the term and another "pure religion" and a third some new age definition, and still a fourth uses a secular definition then any discussion is doomed to failure.