..... wrote:
Literati wrote:
You asked a supposedly “honest” question, even going so far as to admit your understanding of the church might be erroneous. I gave you an honest answer from the very source of the term you have been misusing for 40+ years. You respond with an ad hominem attack. Is a capital ‘B’ really the issue here?
You're the one who introduced a condescending tone, but I did intend my question honestly, so apologies for my insult. The word "church" predates the Christian bible, so there's no ownership here. Sorry, but you are simply wrong on that point. And beyond that, language is defined by its usage, so again no ownership.
It would be useful to have a simple phrase that means this generic idea of "place of religious assembly". The problem is that religion is a loaded topic that divides people into enlightened vs. condemned.
While the word ekklesia existed in Greek prior to the New Testament writings, the ‘religious’ sense in which you (mis)use it began with the Biblical writings. Even prior to that, however, the term referred to a social gathering and not a building.
As to your last point, the Christian religion divides every single person into the condemned category on the basis of their own sin (e.g., Romans 3:23). Yet the free gift of Christ’s righteousness (‘enlightenment’) is offered to all. It doesn’t depend on human linguistics but trust in God’s eternal Word.