Where does religion fit in?

[prism]

how do you do that without religion then?

This is the best explanation of it...
John 3:3-15 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

how do you do that without religion then?

To answer your question, it takes coming to Jesus crucified as a sinner in desperate need of His saving (Religious people, being filled with pride, won't do that). The Spirit will see to it that a person is born anew so that...

Ephesians 2:1-5 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[quietthinker]

Faith / religion fits in: teaching people how to b the best they possibly can be. To encourage healthy relationships, honesty, productivity, etc. This (or should be) one of the goals for every faith. Obviously Christians believe that the Christian path is the best of all these, but I generally do find other paths to be general net positives as well.

The religions of the world are all self focused.... it produces a fruit contrary to its lip service.

Jesus was murdered by the religious....has this been forgotten in our definitions?

Those connected to the vine have a knowledge (consider the word) quiet different to human wisdom....a knowledge that only they who possess it understand.

 

[marksman]

How do you get the very best out of everyone?? You can't force people.
Is it safe to assume a well balanced person will produce good things for their society.
Is religion supposed to produce well balanced people - that then go out and benefit everyone?

Copious research shows that a religious society produces better members than a non-religious society. The atheists don't like that one because it means they have nothing to contribute to a healthy society.

And when I say religious, it includes a set of beliefs that involve faith in a supernatural being but not necessarily the Christian God. Only the Christian God can offer unconditional salvation, but a lot of other belief systems do help to improve the lot of individuals and their thinking so they have a marginally positive effect on society.

If Christianity disappeared from the face of the earth, hell would make an early entrance.

 

[marksman]

how do you do that without religion then?

It all depends on what you mean by religion. Christianity is not a religion in the true sense of the word. It is a belief system in a man that can change people for the good and can offer unconditional salvation. In other words, we are dependant on what he does whereas with religion you are dependant on what you do. Most religions demand that its adherents earn their salvation. A classic example is the Roman Catholic Church. I worked with a member of that church and he used to go to mass every morning before work and I asked him why. He said that in doing that he earned brownie points to make sure he was going to be admitted to heaven and not have to spend so much time in purgatory.

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

I'm having trouble with the christian speak.
I jokingly rib people by calling it Christianese haha.

how about this?
If all people genuinely seek God everyday. If they really try. Then, although admitting the aren't perfect, try to do as God wishes, try to love God and others. Will that make more balanced people and a far better society?

 

[theophilus]

I'm having trouble with the christian speak.
I jokingly rib people by calling it Christianese haha.

how about this?
If all people genuinely seek God everyday. If they really try. Then, although admitting the aren't perfect, try to do as God wishes, try to love God and others. Will that make more balanced people and a far better society?

It would make a better society but that wouldn't necessarily mean that the people who make up that society are saved.

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

It would make a better society but that wouldn't necessarily mean that the people who make up that society are saved.

Thats interesting.

 

[Taken]

Where does religion fit in?
OP ^

Worldly Religion is a system of set beliefs and manner of worship within that system.
That individual's Choose to participate in (or not).

Per "the Individual", who is a "member" of a particular "Religious Organization", but does not Believe (adhere), to what that "Religious Organigation" promotes...
That "Individual's" Religion is "In Vain"
(James 1:24)

Pure Religion (according to God)
IS NOT:
( ...about gathering wealth, Monstrous man-built Buildings, Fame, Giving "THINGS" to others...etc.)
IS:
...about an Individual Giving their TIME to personally VISIT, particularly, Widows and Orphans, during their Affliction (of becoming a widow and orphan).
(James 1:27)

IMO - Gods Idea of "Religion" is about ANYONE, (without begrudgely), Visiting and Comforting those afflicted with sorrow.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

Where does religion fit in?
OP ^

IMO - Gods Idea of "Religion" is about ANYONE, (without begrudgely), Visiting and Comforting those afflicted with sorrow.

Glory to God,
Taken

are you Franciscan?

 

[Taken]

are you Franciscan?

No.
Franciscans are an Order of Catholics that
Promote "monetary charity" for giving to "the poor."

I am not a Catholic.

I was speaking about Scriptural teaching of giving ones "Time", (Not money), to those afflicted with "Sorrow", (Not poverty).

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Am I right to think you don’t want “following Christ” being labelled a religion?

Following Something/Someone....
In a nut shell...hinges on an Individual Freely Choosing "They TRUST" (the Something /Someone) to be Worthy TO Follow and DO the same.

To note:
It was First "men who did NOT find Jesus Worthy "TO Follow Him", that called "Other men Following Jesus" ... CHRISTIANS...meaning, Followers of Christ Jesus.
To note:
Men following Christ Jesus, themselves, did not "Call Themselves"..."CHRISTIANS"...until years later.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

Yeah - I was hoping to avoid getting in too deep with definitions of religion.
That isn't where i hope hoping the conversation would go.
I was hoping to start a conversation on how faith changes a person for the better. (religion / christianity / relationship with God - whatever term you use).
I want to hear detailed descriptions of what happens within a person.

What I suspect happens, is that a person has some sort of experience of love that they identify as God or "of God".
They draw on this experience everyday throughout their lifetime.
This experience in turn creates inspiration, strength or good will towards others.
Furthermore, the experience leads you to wanting to seek a relationship with God.

Relationship is defined as, amongst other things,
1) Prayer
1.a.) Contemplative - going back to the experience of love, in your memory and feeling it for some time.
1.b.) Conversational - Verbally speaking with God including listen.

2) Attempting to extract God's "way" for us by reading sacred scriptures and following it to our best.

3) Worshipping God
3.a.) Artistic - Singing, painting, playing music, cooking, gift giving to others, helping people (Under God's inspiration)
3.b.) Loving others (giving them the "experience" of God)

God is God, Jesus and Holy Spirit.
The "Experience of God" and "Love" is Jesus the Messiah (in part).
Jesus the messiah is bigger than just that though - Jesus is a person who imparts God to us - as love.
The "experience" of God

????

 

[bbyrd009]

I was hoping to start a conversation on how faith changes a person for the better. (religion / christianity / relationship with God - whatever term you use).
I want to hear detailed descriptions of what happens within a person.

a possible prob with that tho imo is that we replace "having faith" with "belief" in our english Bibles, as anyone who bothers to Bsearch "belief" or "believe" or "believed" can easily see. So iow then "faith" becomes a noun, "the faith," and its all downhill from there imo

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

a possible prob with that tho imo is that we replace "having faith" with "belief" in our english Bibles, as anyone who bothers to Bsearch "belief" or "believe" or "believed" can easily see. So iow then "faith" becomes a noun, "the faith," and its all downhill from there imo

id love to learn the original language and read the sources directly.
anyone know how?

 

[bbyrd009]

id love to learn the original language and read the sources directly.
anyone know how?

Genesis 1:1 Lexicon: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
imo just read from a Lex and you wont have to learn the original languages, as others already have, and you can just stand on their shoulders for definitions. Although you might want a good etymology for some of the more disputed terms too,
πειθω | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

i have an old meta-ety prog if you happen to run ubuntu, but that guy really does the same thing, consults them all iow

ειδω | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)
ive been looking for for a while, so ill just stick it here too

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

Genesis 1:1 Lexicon: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
imo just read from a Lex and you wont have to learn the original languages, as others already have, and you can just stand on their shoulders for definitions. Although you might want a good etymology for some of the more disputed terms too,
πειθω | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

i have an old meta-ety prog if you happen to run ubuntu, but that guy really does the same thing, consults them all iow

Thank you.

I might be able to tell people what "a" bible says.
I can't always grasp what it means - which is really important.
I think if i could understand the original scriptures and the society at the time plus the context of which each item was written - I could understand the meaning a bit more.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thank you.

I might be able to tell people what "a" bible says.
I can't always grasp what it means - which is really important.
I think if i could understand the original scriptures and the society at the time plus the context of which each item was written - I could understand the meaning a bit more.

i guess--unbeknownst to us--that Scripture is really written from the "naive" dialectic, although we have all been trained to reason from the "logical" dialectic, so that the "naive" makes little sense to us--Orientals playing baseball games to a deliberate tie comes to mind--so this might be useful, Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture ,
but the gist is basically
"It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason from the Eastern dialectic, as the Jewish writers were:

"
...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.

Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

and i guess it kind of helps to understand that 1st Century is also marked for the rise of logical "Greek" thought. Also, the Bible appears to be written from the logical, as "facts" can apparently be Quoted from It, right, but you might notice that any "fact" Quoted from the Bible has an equally opposing counter "fact" in It, only not like the Orientals did it in Dao or whatever, obviously and in the same sentence or para, but somewhere else entirely usually?

so imo the Bible ends up reading you, when you pick whatever "facts" you choose to "believe in," and inevitably ignore the other vv that dispute the belief? Something like that?

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

I find the "christian speak" hard to follow. Maybe one day I'll learn the language.

until then - above is my attempt at

i guess--unbeknownst to us--that Scripture is really written from the "naive" dialectic, although we have all been trained to reason from the "logical" dialectic, so that the "naive" makes little sense to us--Orientals playing baseball games to a deliberate tie comes to mind--so this might be useful, Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture ,
but the gist is basically
"It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason from the Eastern dialectic, as the Jewish writers were:

"
...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.

Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

and i guess it kind of helps to understand that 1st Century is also marked for the rise of logical "Greek" thought. Also, the Bible appears to be written from the logical, as "facts" can apparently be Quoted from It, right, but you might notice that any "fact" Quoted from the Bible has an equally opposing counter "fact" in It, only not like the Orientals did it in Dao or whatever, obviously and in the same sentence or para, but somewhere else entirely usually?

thank you - i'll read that properly when i get a chance

 

[bbyrd009]

I find the "christian speak" hard to follow. Maybe one day I'll learn the language.

ha personally i wouldnt bother, imo go Paul's way and speak their language, the language of whomever you are talking to
so iow avoid Christians too, for about three years or so

 

[Confused-by-Christianity]

i guess--unbeknownst to us--that Scripture is really written from the "naive" dialectic, although we have all been trained to reason from the "logical" dialectic, so that the "naive" makes little sense to us--Orientals playing baseball games to a deliberate tie comes to mind--so this might be useful, Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture ,
but the gist is basically
"It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason from the Eastern dialectic, as the Jewish writers were:

"
...Dialectical reasoning is actually opposed to formal logic in many ways.

Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)..

Richard Rohr nearly said the same thing in this video - 3:15.