In many posts on this blog, I have, for example, when discussing freewill or religion insisted that the failure to agree on definitions could be part of the reason some debates have gone on for decades or millennia. In my previous post, I wrote
I further suggest that the word self-sacrifice is a word that has no place in the dictionary
and I later offered a definition of what I mean by self-sacrifice
the giving up of one’s own interests or wishes to help others or to advance a cause.
which I said no one has been known to do anything like this. I will go on a limb for purposes of argument that Jesus dying on the cross, if actually happened doesn’t pass muster. Among other things he was assured of his place in heaven and as god-man, it would be most beneficial to him that men were saved from hell than not. Anyone who argues for self sacrifice is free to offer me a definition what they mean.
To illustrate this point further, this post talks about religion of thought, which makes everything religion. With such usage, the word religion then becomes useless for we can’t tell exactly what is and isn’t religion. It is for this reason I define religion as a belief in the supernatural, whatever these are.
John Hick, a christian, I must add, in his book arguments for [the existence of] god, argues that many, if not all the arguments for god are deficient. He maintains, and I agree, that none of them prove what their authors intended them to prove. I can only assume this author is not familiar with the objections to all the arguments for god. The simplest objection being that were a god really known, no argument would be necessary.
Random thoughts 