At best, you can give a rough idea of what you're talking about in order to gain a basic understanding, but one should use that as a foundation to move forward. The further you move along in the discussion, the more clear the concept becomes.
That's problem as I see it when you're constantly asking me to define these broad concepts. Not only that, you do so when we haven't even scratched the surface of discussing one of the concepts mentioned.
Seriously, explaining the relationship between religion and philosophy will take up more than enough time in of itself. Same goes for the relationship between religion and spirituality. To discuss both to a comprehensive length is one discussion is literally impossible - there's simply too much to discuss!
It's better to deal with one topic at a time - which I see as the basic relationship between religion and philosophy mostly. There'll be plenty of time later to discuss religion and spirituality.
Also bear in mind, INFJs have the common trait of being abstract in communication.
In many ways yes. I brought up the historical context of Christianity emerging out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism, and you dismissed that as an irrelevant anecdote. In fact any type of historical context I bring up you dismiss as an irrelevant anecdote.Have I suggested that the Bible ought to be interpreted independently of context?
If one is to understand the Bible on any scholarly basis, then one must take into account the historical contexts in which it emerged. And how one understands the Bible is also related to such.
There's plenty of discussion within Christian circles on how this relates to the truth of scriptures. There are those who insist the Bible is true 100% "true"(as in error free), since it comes directly from God. There's also the perspective that the Bible is inspired literature, that the spiritual truths it contained are directly from God, but since it was composed through human vehicles - errors do occur, but they are irrelevant.
And plenty more. Yet whenever any of this is ever brought up, you immediately are dismissive of it - which betrays an unwillingness(if not just plain stubborness) on your part to address this issue on a more comprehensive level.
That's the basic difference between you and me and Owl): Owl and I are willing to discuss this more comprehensively, while you seem determined to narrow the discussion as much as possible.