Is the foundation of the three major monothestic religions false?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I believe, from my point of view, you need to understand that most people with a higher education would disagree with you.. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that scholars would most likely disagree with you.. You can believe it to mean whatever you want, just that in a cultural western institution of a higher education it means to bind..

But if you start a university, do let me know..

a reply to: LauGhing0ne

Yet you have shown zero evidence that says the word RELIGION means to bind.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Etymology, Ancient Greek and the New Testament, if you ask any scholar in a western cultural society with a higher education in the specific field I am afraid they would disagree with you.. What you believe in thereafter is most likely your own set of ideals.. The evidence is there, you just choose to put your own belief in it..

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

Etymology, Ancient Greek and the New Testament, if you ask any scholar in a western cultural society with a higher education in the specific field I am afraid they would disagree with you.. What you believe in thereafter is most likely your own set of ideals.. The evidence is there, you just choose to put your own belief in it..

Etymology proves the word RELIGION does not mean to bind. Ancient Greek didn't have the word RELIGION.

So, prove religion means to bind.

a reply to: TerryDon79

i think you need to look at what I wrote.. Terry , most people with a higher education would disagree with you, that is what I am saying.. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that they would disagree..
You are probably right in your world, most people are.. But in society, I wouldn't stretch it like you do..

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

i think you need to look at what I wrote.. Terry , most people with a higher education would disagree with you, that is what I am saying.. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that they would disagree..
You are probably right in your world, most people are.. But in society, I wouldn't stretch it like you do..

Source?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Good luck in the future Terry!

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

Good luck in the future Terry!

So you can't prove that which you kept going on about for 3 pages? What a surprise.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The word religion doesn't mean that either. The words it originated from and, possibly, the earlier meaning of the word, sure. It doesn't mean to bind or to be bound today.

But wouldn't it be related? Wouldn't it hold some of that meaning?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The word religion doesn't mean that either. The words it originated from and, possibly, the earlier meaning of the word, sure. It doesn't mean to bind or to be bound today.

But would it be related? Wouldn't it hold some of that meaning?

It is related by the origin of the word. The meaning of what religion means now doesn't have to reflect the meaning of the word it originates from.

Just look at the modern usage of the words cool, bad and hip. They originated from the exact same words, but have completely different meanings.

a reply to: TerryDon79

But I got "to be bound" from the link you posted. Not in those words.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TerryDon79

But I got "to be bound" from the link you posted. Not in those words.

The only reference to binding was the word religare.

(From earlier link)

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."

a reply to: TerryDon79

The modern interpretation (from that link) is given as "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers"

Allegience is to be bound.

I'm not even sure what the big deal is about. What is wrong with it meaning that you are bound, in servitude, in allegience to a deity?

What is it suppose to mean according to you?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TerryDon79

The modern interpretation (from that link) is given as "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers"

Allegience is to be bound.

False. It, again, originates from a word that means to bind (ligare).

I'm not even sure what the big deal is about. What is wrong with it meaning that you are bound, in servitude, in allegience to a deity?

Because it doesn't.

What is it suppose to mean according to you?

It just means the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's because people forget what religion actually is, is the reason we have cults like Scientology and the reason wars and hate is caused by the "religious" and in the name of "religion".

originally posted by: TerryDon79
[False. It, again, originates from a word that means to bind (ligare).

You don't think that the original meaning carries over? Oh well.

It just means the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seems to me that in that relationship the human is bound by the laws of their personal god or gods.

So maybe, and that is a big maybe, it doesn't specifically mean bound but it is part of the parcel.

It's because people forget what religion actually is, is the reason we have cults like Scientology and the reason wars and hate is caused by the "religious" and in the name of "religion".

I'm pretty sure those things would exist even if the term was "waffle".

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TerryDon79

The modern interpretation (from that link) is given as "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers"

Allegience is to be bound.

I'm not even sure what the big deal is about. What is wrong with it meaning that you are bound, in servitude, in allegience to a deity?

What is it suppose to mean according to you?

Ginny!" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain?

Seems applicable.

What the OP proposes is again humanism and it has been tested and proposed centuries ago till now. And again what the OP points to abut Judaism is again signs of humanism in the altered books of Judaism.

Is the foundation of the three major monothestic religions false?

Yes.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Now you elaborate, a statement of yes is based on your own belief system and experiences.. Does not mean it is dogmatic

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Now you elaborate, a statement of yes is based on your own belief system and experiences.. Does not mean it is dogmatic

Well, there are as many gods in heaven as there are leprechauns at the end of the rainbow, and fairies at the bottom of the garden. If there is "something" it isn't a religious god and it doesn't care about us.

As the sig below reads "no gods in the heavens, only tyrants on earth". Apart from that it's all good though.