Relationship vs Religion

Deleted member 16771 said:
No could you just explain what you mean, please?
Click to expand...
wiredandwound said:
It is a faith. [That] No works necessary, only that we know that we "All fall short of the glory of God", so that we cannot boast ourselves above others, which leads us to Mercy and forgiveness, and ultimately Love.
Click to expand...

Why are you so contentious about this? If this offends you, then say so. If you are actually educated in argument, then state one.
 
wiredandwound said:
Why are you so contentious about this? If this offends you, then say so. If you are actually educated in argument, then state one.
Click to expand...
No I'm not offended, I just don't understand the distinction you're making here, on which grounds you're making it, and why it's important to you.

As far as I'm aware, Christians have always described Christianity as a 'religion', and 'religion' as being a worthy goal in itself - this is pretty much why we have the word in English as prominently as it is.
 
wiredandwound said:
It seemed to be important to this thread. I found that it was not welcome elsewhere.

No. Jesus argued against religion. This is why I asked you what you think religion is.
Click to expand...
Well, historically speaking, 'religion' (religio) was Christianity. If someone was said to be 'professed in religion' or 'good in religion', that simply meant that they were pious, knowledgeable, good Christians, usually with the connotation of living by the rules of Christianity without invoking membership in any priestly or monastic orders (as for instance regularis or canonicus might imply).

I'm not sure that the concept of 'religion' as we know it even existed in the time of the New Testament, unless you're referring to something like 'orthodoxy', and you're arguing that Christ was against blind faith in orthodox doctrines.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
For sure the various commandments listed in the Bible (however many hundreds), then it depends on which denomination you are if you accept apostolic authority, &c.
Click to expand...
Did the Pharisees obey the commandments, No.
Did the Israelites obey the commandments in Sinai, No.
Who made the Levitical Laws? People did.
All of the legal forms of worship are religion. These are man made - not of God. Most of the Bible is man's pursuit of "Whole-iness", via the practice of laws that they deemed to be honorable to God or their gods. This, is what Jesus was arguing against. "the earth is my footstool?".
Yes, it is true that the 10 commandments (actually 12 if you read all of Exodus 20), were to show the people that they were incapable of obeying all the laws all the time. Jesus said that even thinking (tempted) about breaking a commandment is sin.

So, what are the rules again?
How can man be found not guilty of sin if he is incapable of it?
 
wiredandwound said:
How can man be found not guilty of sin if he is incapable of it?
Click to expand...
The only rule is that one must have Faith that the blood of Christ (The duly appointed heir of Adam, denoted by Jesus' own words when He called Himself "The son of man", by the lineage of His birth), is sufficient for the remission of sins - man means Adam.

You can look this up anywhere for verification.
 
Whether this discussion be about religion or orthodox, I somehow cannot see why both religion and orthodox need to be invalidated along the lines of the OP's first post. Orthodox and religion are social systems, which are created mainly for societal order. Simplistically, not everybody has the capacity for in-depth introspection. This is the job of philosophers, pastors, priests, alchemists, doctors, imams, and other such experts. Whether the "experts" are as tight (to borrow @Wyote's words) with God, Christ, Allah, etc is a path all their own. Not everybody is capable of pursuing such paths owing to mental, emotional, physical, and spatiotemporal limitations. Most of the time, nobody has the time for such pursuits. Survival is key. It is in this that religion and orthodox becomes the cheat-sheet for societal order because it has the capacity to aid survival. "Having difficulties in life? Turn to Christ.": this statement being one of many examples of religion as a survival tool. A lot of the survival expertise is concentrated within a certain population and I'm sure that this is both fortunate and unfortunate. It is unfortunate because then the concentrated few has the capacity to manipulate the majority to a whim that is irresponsible. Fortunate, because what would you do with a society where everybody is truly one and the same?

Sure, love is all we need but isn't hating on Christianity (or any other orthodox) counterproductive to that statement?

Also, @wiredandwound faithfulness is different from religiosity but certainly Christianity is a religion and the way it is being interpreted/utilized today, it is not just faith.
 
MINFJToothFairy said:
certainly Christianity is a religion and the way it is being interpreted/utilized today, it is not just faith.
Click to expand...
My point is addressing the error of common definition. I find that when the audience mainly has an "incorrect"definition, it makes communication very difficult.

The truth is, that just because people in churches call it a religion, does not mean that it is. People in churches are often the ones who are the least knowledgeable about what they even practice. Confining oneself amongst others of like mind, is not conducive to having one's ideas challenged, for the purposes of understanding, what is true.

All I am stating is a truth about religion and faith, and that they are very different concepts. Without this understanding, I find it impossible to even bring the matters to light.
 
You do realize language is fluid and definitions of words are based on consensus?

It's cool that your definition differs from the standard, but that makes your definition the one causing the communication problems.
 
GRiMM said:
When it comes to beliefs.. Is there really a good or bad? Or just a beneficial or harmful?
Click to expand...
There is certainly better or harmful kinds. Good or bad is subjective to consensus.
Lady Jolanda said:
You do realize language is fluid and definitions of words are based on consensus?

It's cool that your definition differs from the standard, but that makes your definition the one causing the communication problems.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a definition built on a solid foundation of context is problematic. I do not understand what you mean by "standard".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top