# Real Christianity is not a religion... Do you agree?



## lapalm (Aug 17, 2010)

Agree or disagree

What is a religion?


----------



## possum steak (Aug 17, 2010)

From my personal perspective I see it as a personal relationship with my Lord & not a religion. I can't speak for everyone else though.


----------



## Randy (Aug 17, 2010)

According to Wikipedia:

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So yes Christianity is a religion.


----------



## Dominic (Aug 17, 2010)

Religion


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 17, 2010)

I've read that religion is the outward manifestation of ones spiritual place.
The Bible says:  "Pure and undefiled religion is this, visit the widows and orphans in their time of need".  (something like that)


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 17, 2010)

It's just a semantic game.  Define religion and define Christianity and then we can have a discussion.  Those terms are so loaded to begin with that each individual has their own feelings about what they mean and they'll stick to their definitions.  So, give me your definitions and I'll see if I can answer the question.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 17, 2010)

I would say Christianity is a religion, but what Jesus wanted was a relationship.

I think you can find Jesus in many religions, some easier than in others, but that finding Jesus is the main thing.

Man creates religions..God seeks a relationship.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 17, 2010)

alright you got me.
 it is not a definition of terms. it is a point of view. you will notice that all the terms of religion in the posts above were from man's perspective or what man's efforts are to reach God. 

Christianity, real Christianity is a relationship with God, based on what God has done, not what man tries.

every religion, is worthless, including Christianity, if you rely on what you can accomplish to have a relationship with God. Not good enough. 
If you solely rely on what He has done, not your actions, you have a relationship with God  

sorry for the set up


----------



## Hunting Teacher (Aug 17, 2010)

farmasis said:


> I would say Christianity is a religion, but what Jesus wanted was a relationship.
> 
> I think you can find Jesus in many religions, some easier than in others, but that finding Jesus is the main thing.
> 
> Man creates religions..God seeks a relationship.



We have a winner!


----------



## formula1 (Aug 17, 2010)

*Re:*

Jesus cannot be found in any religion, only in a personal, intimate relationship can he be found. And God hinself has made that very relationship possible through Jesus Christ.


----------



## hawglips (Aug 17, 2010)

lapalm said:


> Agree or disagree
> 
> What is a religion?



Disagree.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 17, 2010)

farmasis said:


> I would say Christianity is a religion, but what Jesus wanted was a relationship.
> 
> I think you can find Jesus in many religions, some easier than in others, but that finding Jesus is the main thing.
> 
> Man creates religions..God seeks a relationship.



What he said.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 17, 2010)

lapalm said:


> alright you got me.
> it is not a definition of terms. it is a point of view. you will notice that all the terms of religion in the posts above were from man's perspective or what man's efforts are to reach God.
> 
> Christianity, real Christianity is a relationship with God, based on what God has done, not what man tries.
> ...



Well, you got to do something, otherwise it isn't a relationship.  You've got to at least love, honor and glorify.
Maybe that's what you meant.


----------



## earl (Aug 17, 2010)

Real Christianity is a myth. Just look at all the people who claim to be . And you know they don't all believe exactly like you do .


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't mind the term religion, I guess it would depend on how you define it though.

But to simplify it I would say: Relationship of Master>Bond Servant


----------



## ronpasley (Aug 17, 2010)

lapalm said:


> Real Christianity is not a religion... Do you agree?
> Agree or disagree
> What is a religion?



Real Christianity to me is truly walking in the spirit of God. Truly seeking Him with all your heart. An inward change which is notice on the out side. Picking up the cross and following the Holy Spirit daily. A witness for Jesus that brings forth fruit. Being transform by the renewing of the mind daily. A hungry for the things of Christ. Wanting to see all coming to repentence and being saved, that's how I feel.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 17, 2010)

I appreciate yall's answers

The real Christians know it is a relationship, because we have a one on one intimate relationship. Were not servants anymore,, we are now called friends. but He loves us when we don't do anything correct. His love is unconditional remember.

I ask this to see the depth of those who use this post.
Thanks


----------



## Israel (Aug 17, 2010)

I agree. Being a disciple/new creature/born again/born from above of God's spirit/christian is not a religion.
It is not at all something one does, or practices...it is what one _is_.
There are two species presently inhabiting the earth as men, the old man, bound to the earth and its judgment...and the new man, not a resident of earth, but an alien...sent from heaven to tell of the Glory of God and His mercy to be found in the Lord, Jesus Christ...and by so doing, the simple obedience to proclaim what he sees and knows from above to see men transformed and born into a Kingdom that will not perish...that has no beginning or end.

Wordy, I know.
I've never been accused of being too brief.


----------



## formula1 (Aug 17, 2010)

*Re:*

We are sons and heirs!

Romans 8:14 
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Galatians 3
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

Galatians 4
 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born  of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 17, 2010)

When you take all the denominations and sects of christianity and combine them into a group compared with other  spiritual traditions, y'all got a  christian religion, don't care what y'all say.

Religion is a category. Wesleyans, Lutherans and Free Will Unirollers are other subcategories. 

Christianity can be religious and a personally intimacy with God. The two have been together for centuries and continue to be...

And to my brother Earl whom I love above all my brothers, and who knows I love him. Marriage is a myth. Just look at all the people who claim to be. And you know they believe all differently. And yet claim to believe it is real and important. What gives bros???? Your off your game, what???

I will conceed that when one is drafted to the will of God, the "church" can seem and can be more than a bit of a drag. I really don't know what the answer is to this... It's like we are born again new infants and children and yet we must live in our churches with old worn out bodies.


----------



## earl (Aug 17, 2010)

Dang gordon !  Good analogy .  Every one's is different . BUT, at least with marriage you get a ring and a piece of paper to prove you are REALLY married .


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 17, 2010)

gordon 2 said:


> When you take all the denominations and sects of christianity and combine them into a group compared with other spiritual traditions, y'all got a christian religion, don't care what y'all say.
> 
> Religion is a category. Wesleyans, Lutherans and Free Will Unirollers are other subcategories.
> 
> ...


 
I agree, but I think what the OP was referring to was the person not the sect of religion, in which case I would say a real christian is not religious, but rather spiritual..


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 17, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I agree, but I think what the OP was referring to was the person not the sect of religion, in which case I would say a real christian is not religious, but rather spiritual..



LOL

Does this beg the question which comes first the religious or the spiritual? Do spiritual movements get religious? Or do religious organizations promote the spiritual?

I think that christians are religious because christians must be apostolic. It is trough the apostolic mission of the religious aspect of our spiritual lives that many are called to the faith. ( How's that for a spit ball?)


Real Christians are indeed religious and not religious. ( That they are temporarily not practicing, should not be confused with not being religious or real.)

I know of one Muslim denomination that decided that the religious was sin and they are no more. Or unreal now.


----------



## tomtlb66 (Aug 17, 2010)

Well, this is just my opinion here. There is the worlds view or definition of religion and then there is Gods view religion. I believe my personal relationship with God is my religion. The worlds view of religion is I am a good person and I go to church. This is my opinion, so, I hope I did not offend anyone.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 17, 2010)

tomtlb66 said:


> Well, this is just my opinion here. There is the worlds view or definition of religion and then there is Gods view religion. I believe my personal relationship with God is my religion. The worlds view of religion is I am a good person and I go to church. This is my opinion, so, I hope I did not offend anyone.



My religion is an attemp to have a balanced relationship with the Lord and the world. I see where some have the "world's view" for their religious cultures. Mainly limiting the bounty of the Good News by believeing that the chief importance of the Gospels is to achieve eternal life or a place in heaven with God after death and believing that the world we live in is adrift with sin and for this it is ok to hit people in the face, full swing with a shovel because of it, is indeed the christian religion's worldly view. Christians have commited genocides, homicides,  and ethnic cleansing for their simple beliefs of what the Good News is. No offense intended.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 18, 2010)

gordon 2 said:


> My religion is an attemp to have a balanced relationship with the Lord and the world. I see where some have the "world's view" for their religious cultures. Mainly limiting the bounty of the Good News by believeing that the chief importance of the Gospels is to achieve eternal life or a place in heaven with God after death and believing that the world we live in is adrift with sin and for this it is ok to hit people in the face, full swing with a shovel because of it, is indeed the christian religion's worldly view. Christians have commited genocides, homicides,  and ethnic cleansing for their simple beliefs of what the Good News is. No offense intended.






Balanced relationship.
Internal and external.
The external is the religious part.....
...the visiting widows and orphans.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 18, 2010)

“I would say Christianity is a religion, but what Jesus wanted was a relationship.”

I just Can’t.

But seriously – you can’t go throwing straight lines like that out into a group of thoughtful comedians . . . it is so easy that it just invites mayhem . . .


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2010)

or won't?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 18, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “I would say Christianity is a religion, but what Jesus wanted was a relationship.”
> 
> I just Can’t.
> 
> But seriously – you can’t go throwing straight lines like that out into a group of thoughtful comedians . . . it is so easy that it just invites mayhem . . .



That's funnyyyy right there....


----------



## lapalm (Aug 18, 2010)

Mans efforts to reach God is a religion, God's actions to reach man is real Christianity. If your Christianity depends on what you are trying to  do it is a religion. just as wrong as all religions
After a relationship is established, our actions change to function according to relationship, as many of post say.


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 18, 2010)

Religion is what man does to get to God.
Christianity is What God did to bring mankind back to him.
You Choose.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 18, 2010)

I totally agree,
 Be careful how you say it, because man can never get to God through mans actions that why I use the word efforts of man versus the actions of God.

God does not try anything , He does not have efforts, He only accomplishes.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 18, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Religion is what man does to get to God.
> Christianity is What God did to bring mankind back to him.
> You Choose.


 
Religion is the act, spirituality is the lifestyle and the relationship. I know plenty of folks that are religious in their acts but don't have the faith to lift a feather.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 18, 2010)

gordon 2 said:


> That's funnyyyy right there....


 

I guess I didn't get it.


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 19, 2010)

Religion Man Made

Relationship God Made


----------



## hawglips (Aug 20, 2010)

True Christianity is following Christ.  It's being a true disciple.  IMO, those who would put themselves on somewhat of a par with Him don't have a real relationship with Him at all, but have fabricated something else altogether.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 20, 2010)

Christianity IS a relationship with Christ.
And that relationship includes some religion.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 21, 2010)

I would normally agree with Ronnie T but I found myself keeping score with God. You know, I did something good, now God has to bless me.  Or If I do the right thing  then God will do something for me. My motivation was messed up I should be serving Him. period no matter what happens. That's why I class all my and men's efforts to reach or exact God's favor as a self centered humanist religion. 

Remember in the faith chapter" some were sawn asunder" I don't think I could go that far in service with out a question or two that I  really don't deserve  to even ask much less an answer

I have to think now that it's God way or it's wrong.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 21, 2010)

It is simply a religious belief system.  Deity based beliefs exhibit relationships between their followers and their deity of choice.
It is very emotions based.

Buddhists have a relationship with Buddah.
Muslims have a relationship with Allah.
Christians have a relationship with Jesus/God/HS.

Each believe their belief is the "right" one, and exhibit strong exclusivism.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 21, 2010)

If you study the religions, the focus of action and attention is humans  and humanity and their dwelling  place and benefit.

real christians focus is on the relationship and what God  has finished.  

reaching enlightenment for buddhists  or conquering the whole world to present it to Jesus so the last imam? can teach jesus how to pray focus on the actions of a human. 

Even Christian activity that elevates my actions over God's is wrong  no matter what the intentions are.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2010)

_Christianity IS a relationship with Christ.
And that relationship includes some religion._



lapalm said:


> I would normally agree with Ronnie T but I found myself keeping score with God. You know, I did something good, now God has to bless me.  Or If I do the right thing  then God will do something for me. My motivation was messed up I should be serving Him. period no matter what happens. That's why I class all my and men's efforts to reach or exact God's favor as a self centered humanist religion.
> 
> Remember in the faith chapter" some were sawn asunder" I don't think I could go that far in service with out a question or two that I  really don't deserve  to even ask much less an answer
> 
> I have to think now that it's God way or it's wrong.




Either I stated my thought incorrectly or you misunderstood my intent.
I was just saying that Christianity certainly is a relationship.
And our relationship ultimately produces the religious parts.
ie., visiting widows and orphans in their distress.

I agree with you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2010)

WTM45 said:


> It is simply a religious belief system.  Deity based beliefs exhibit relationships between their followers and their deity of choice.
> It is very emotions based.
> 
> Buddhists have a relationship with Buddah.
> ...



Don't what to be contrary but Buddhist don't have a relationship with Buddah as a deity and Allah means God in the middle east.


----------



## Israel (Aug 22, 2010)

El Shaddai is my daddy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Christianity IS a relationship with Christ.
> And that relationship includes some religion.



I think that where some might get mislead by thinking that Christianity is not religious is because often religious christianity preaches grace yet practices  under the law. A friend of mine pointed out recently that Jesus said that He had not come to undo the law, but to overcome it. That is to say in the Christian Kingdom and in our religion(s) the law and grace do apply, however with the law, with its black and white justice, a falling off will be quick and the fall mighty compared  to the more elastic or forgiving covenant of grace.

This I think can be a frequent issue with christian communities who depend heavily on the word or scripture based faith as if the word is law-- but it is also an issue in all denominations or religions who offer sacrements and nessesary rites to membership and therefore salvation.

Where the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life, where followers claim to be under the redeeming blood Christ and yet hold onto the differences caused by doctrine; When some are said not saved if they are not baptised, or humble or sangtified; Where followers fill up their lungs with the singing of the well remembered words of Amazing Grace but it is in no way in their hearts or day to day practice.

Where people are said to be saved or lost for doctine as if doctine was the proper food--the Kingdom is made into rubble. It is no wonder that some might ask is real christianity religious.

The problem with christian religion is that it cycles periodically into the law and becomes undone and becomes anti-Christ and can easily  be criticised as hypocritical and as the opium of the masses. However the Spirit that giveth life is always willing to turn the deciples of the law to their dormant spirit of Grace which is when christian religion becomes a powerful force for truth and justice full of wholesome integrity...and joy.

Now also their is another reason why some might question why  real christianity is religious. Because some christians have not practiced grace to their own family members often ostracizing them( especially as children) because of doctrine, anger, jealousy--the children often bring down the whole edifice of christianity for the sins of their parents. There is nothing worse than taking a school bus in your catholic grandmothers driveway for 11 yrs and that grand-ma never once came out to say good morning or visited you three house down the road due that her son had married a baptist and even worst the grandkids were raised as baptist. And there is nothing worse than a father kicking out his 14 yr old son because said son will not conform to the father's notions of what is expected--from scripture or the Word. 


Also when christians point out the evils in politics or in polititians as being anti-christ or anti-scripture, for example, but are very willing to tolerate  what they judge to be  lesser evils that end up providing for their "way of life" and their social comforts, they are makeing rubble of the Kingdom. ( Now here is where words get to be fighting words, and I will not go further and will gladly run away.) These christians are open to all sort of critique and question arise as to ( "What is religion doing to these people?)


When Grace is not practiced by christians, they open themselves up and  set others up to evil. When christians judge others from the perspective of the law they do their Kingdom tremendous harm. Under grace judgement belongs to the Lord and justice is achieved by overcoming the law, just as Jesus did.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2010)

Israel said:


> El Shaddai is my daddy.



Really! I wonder if we could hold council(s) and decide. El Shaddai is my papa. Mine is more catholic? ???


----------



## lapalm (Aug 22, 2010)

Gordon2 speaks the Truth ya'll best listen


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 22, 2010)

lapalm said:


> Gordon2 speaks the Truth ya'll best listen



I hope since you capitalize Truth that it is the most important word in you statement.

As for Gordon2 my words they come from sharing with other saints, always  alighted by the Holy Spirit and from  scripture where Saint Paul writes," O you foolish Galatians who has bewitched you?"

Galatian, Galatian, Galatian by any other name is a Galatian.

Paul explains in great detail  in Galatians the importance of grace to those for whom he is "surprised and astonisthed that you are so quickly turning renegade and deserting Him who invited and called you by the Grace of Christ to--- ( get this) another Gospel!" Chaper 1 verse 6. So one can indeed ask what is the Good News, really?

Paul is addressing us I think.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 23, 2010)

I think that the Good News, for just about everyone on the planet, is that Christianity is a religion, like all others; relies entirely on their own fictitious set of ‘Sacred’ ancient writings and secrets, like all others; asserts that they alone are in possession of the One Truth, like all others; condemns anyone who does not adhere to their thoughts alone, like all others; cannot substantiate that assertion in any terms other than ‘Faith’ that they do indeed hold some actual authority, like all others; and has factionalized internally into myriad disagreements within their own dogmas, like all others.

Likewise, Christianity has constantly changed ‘teachings’ over the centuries as science has proven the dogmas and ‘teachings’ to be wholly wrong, like all others; has constantly adapted to different cultures and peoples over the centuries, adopting many rituals and practices as were convenient, like all others; has constantly and consistently ‘revised’ teachings and even writings in the face of an ever-evolving social dynamic, like all others;  has often arrogantly abused the position of presumed power in the pursuit of the personal desires of the ‘anointed,’ like all others; has amassed great wealth from the ‘governed’ populace in the sole interest of the ‘leaders,’ like all others; and has built gigantic and pervasive ‘Sacred’ monuments meant to inspire the awe of the governed at the great power and authority of the ‘leaders,’ and done so on the backs of the very folks meant to be awed by such displays of power, like all others.

Walks like a duck . . . 

Good News.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 23, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Walks like a duck . . .
> 
> Good News.



Problem with your "like all the others" is not unlike people who find bluegrass music sounds all the same or somehow mistake a pelican or a heron for a duck  like all the others.
From afar a family of otters can look like a group of ducks etc.


 Your Points: I think that the Good News, for just about everyone on the planet, is that Christianity is a religion, like all other; (because)

1. relies entirely on their own fictitious set of ‘Sacred’ ancient writings and secrets, like all others;

no not entirely although some denominations do lean heavily on scripture, to say that scripure is fictitious and christianity has secrets is a stretch.( prove it?)

2.asserts that they alone are in possession of the One Truth, like all others; not so, at least it is not the assertion of the majority of christians. 
3.condemns anyone who does not adhere to their thoughts alone, like all others;  not so... although some hold on to rancours, 

4.cannot substantiate that assertion in any terms other than ‘Faith’ that they do indeed hold some actual authority, like all others; 

the only authority christians have is as servants 

5.and has factionalized internally into myriad disagreements within their own dogmas, like all others.[/COLOR] But isn't that the human condition in all things, from claiming adherence to one's political bent to makeing cars...???


6.Likewise, Christianity has constantly changed ‘teachings’ over the centuries as science has proven the dogmas and ‘teachings’ to be wholly wrong, like all others; I would argue that christianity has adapted to the push and pull of history. For example it was the christian mindset that egged on the scientific method to provide medicine and understanding for the illnesses and sufferrings known at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, but mostly solved or understood today. It was not the other way around as you state. 

7.And has constantly adapted to different cultures and peoples over the centuries, adopting many rituals and practices as were convenient, like all others; When in america do like the americans. What's your issue really? 

8.has constantly and consistently ‘revised’ teachings and even writings in the face of an ever-evolving social dynamic, like all others; thats the whole point of faith and relationships in a world of corrosives. 

9.has often arrogantly abused the position of presumed power in the pursuit of the personal desires of the ‘anointed,’ like all others; often? Hum...sometimes yes.

10. has amassed great wealth from the ‘governed’ populace in the sole interest of the ‘leaders,’ like all others;  the assumesions here are just infamatory. Yours is a generalization that would render religions cults.

11.and has built gigantic and pervasive ‘Sacred’ monuments meant to inspire the awe of the governed at the great power and authority of the ‘leaders,’ and done so on the backs of the very folks meant to be awed by such displays of power, like all others.You are arguing like the english socialists who on sunday go on the public square, get on a box and preach on the evils of capitalism. This last bit of yours is pure marxist comedy.

Peace bros...memory is a faculty use it wisely. PS. I don't like being black and blue.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 23, 2010)

Diogenes actually proves the point that some (most) Christians are religious and don't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and are not real Christians They are religious.

I can prove everything I believe or I don't believe it

the problem is as  Diogenes says is people go off believing anybody anytime and don't stay fixed on what God has for us here and hereafter.

The  problem is we don't know who we are and don't know what to believe and because we need to believe something we believe anything.  

The whole story has been distorted so those like Diogenes can find their favorite faults to condemn the facts when only the distortions are false. The premise is true that we need salvation, if our doctrine is presented in truth,  it is the only thing Diogenes can fight

the fact that  Diogenes, a obvious unbeliever, is on a spiritual discussion  forum is that the Holy Spirit is working on him and even in his spiritual struggle he can here or why else would he bother?


----------



## Roberson (Aug 23, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Religion is what man does to get to God.
> Christianity is What God did to bring mankind back to him.
> You Choose.



That's  it, bros. Religion is man-made, Christianity is God- made. and earl, diogenes, and others, since you deny the Spirit, why must yall CONTINUALLY post in the "Spiritual Forum"?  Ya'll must have something nagging at you, I think this is the only place on here in which yall post.


----------



## earl (Aug 23, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> That's  it, bros. Religion is man-made, Christianity is God- made. and earl, diogenes, and others, since you deny the Spirit, why must yall CONTINUALLY post in the "Spiritual Forum"?  Ya'll must have something nagging at you, I think this is the only place on here in which yall post.



 You just don't get it do you ? It's not Christian only . All you have to do to see where others post is to visit a few different places . 
In the last few days there have been a lot of unspiritual posts made . And guess who made them. 

We seriously need a huge whiny smily .


----------



## Roberson (Aug 23, 2010)

I do get it. What exactly do you believe, earl? We have all made our beliefs clear, but you keep skirting  around the issue.


----------



## earl (Aug 23, 2010)

I can't help it if you can't read. I have put my beliefs out several times. Would it make any difference to you any way ? You have made it clear that some one not on the same page as you ''ain't right ''.

If you get it , why the continual whining ?


----------



## Roberson (Aug 23, 2010)

I can read quite well, and I don't whine. you still did not state your exact beliefs, maybe I could go back through hundreds of posts to find it. 
I know it is none of my business, but like I said, I and several other Christians have made our beliefs quite clear. Where do you stand?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 23, 2010)

earl said:


> I can't help it if you can't read. I have put my beliefs out several times. Would it make any difference to you any way ? You have made it clear that some one not on the same page as you ''ain't right ''.
> 
> If you get it , why the continual whining ?





Gatorcountry said:


> I can read quite well, and I don't whine. you still did not state your exact beliefs, maybe I could go back through hundreds of posts to find it.
> I know it is none of my business, but like I said, I and several other Christians have made our beliefs quite clear. Where do you stand?





Earl has pu it on here a time or two, Heck, I thought everyone knew he is a Rastafarian.


----------



## earl (Aug 23, 2010)

'' and earl, diogenes, and others, since you deny the Spirit, why must yall CONTINUALLY post in the "Spiritual Forum"''

''Where do you stand?''

Both of your questions have been answered numerous times. To continualy ask because you are too lazy to look for them ,constitutes whining in my book.

Swamp , you were close.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 23, 2010)

And here I thought the OP was a question.  Silly me.

Is Christianity a religion?  (Religion, n. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.)

Um?  Yeah.  So what is the argument?  Are y’all feeling so very power-filled that you’ve transcended mere religion and are now a science, or a force of nature, or a fixed star in your own sky?

Spititual, on the other hand, is a rough word to fall back on if one is asserting that Christianity is not a religion but rather a simple fact.  Spirituality relies by definition on the incorporeal, and has meaning only in terms of feelings and beliefs, rather than facts.  The ‘spiritual’ includes everything from belief in ghosts to feng shui, and ranges from the ‘spirit’ of comraderie and team ‘spirit’ to the ‘spirit’ of competition and, indeed, even the ‘holy spirit.’  If, as some here seem to be trying to assert, Christianity is fact rather than religion, then it is Christianity that has no place in a ‘Spiritual’ forum.


----------



## Roberson (Aug 23, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And here I thought the OP was a question.  Silly me.
> 
> Is Christianity a religion?  (Religion, n. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.)
> 
> ...



"Religion", diogenes, is a man-made word with a man-made definition.


----------



## Roberson (Aug 23, 2010)

earl said:


> '' and earl, diogenes, and others, since you deny the Spirit, why must yall CONTINUALLY post in the "Spiritual Forum"''
> 
> ''Where do you stand?''
> 
> ...



Are you to lazy to tell me?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 23, 2010)

"Pure and undefiled religion is this, visit the widows and orphans in their time of need".


----------



## earl (Aug 23, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> Are you to lazy to tell me?



 I don't feel the need . With your attitude why would I bother ? Your goal is to ram Christianity down everyone's throat ,no matter what . You have shown that you have no respect for other's right to believe differently ,much less their beliefs. When you grow up , spiritually , we may have that discussion.


----------



## earl (Aug 23, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> "Religion", diogenes, is a man-made word with a man-made definition.





DANG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That is deep and insightful .


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 24, 2010)

I will just say what the word says: James 1:27 (King James Version)

 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.


----------



## earl (Aug 24, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> I will just say what the word says: James 1:27 (King James Version)
> 
> 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.



''man-made word s with a man-made definitions ''   To borrow a phrase...


----------



## lapalm (Aug 24, 2010)

Jam 1:26  	If any one doth think to be religious among you, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, of this one vain [is] the religion;


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

earl said:


> I don't feel the need . With your attitude why would I bother ? Your goal is to ram Christianity down everyone's throat ,no matter what . You have shown that you have no respect for other's right to believe differently ,much less their beliefs. When you grow up , spiritually , we may have that discussion.



I don't force Christianity on anyone, don't have to, or want to. I am just sick of ignorant people putting down Christianity all of the time. Almost every post you ever make is aimed at discrediting Christianity, so it would seem you are the one who has no respect for others beliefs. People like you seem to think that just because someone states that they are a Christian, that we are "ramming" it down your throat. No, I don't claim to be grown up spiritually, but that's OK, neither are you.


----------



## earl (Aug 24, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> I don't force Christianity on anyone, don't have to, or want to. I am just sick of ignorant people putting down Christianity all of the time. Almost every post you ever make is aimed at discrediting Christianity, so it would seem you are the one who has no respect for others beliefs. People like you seem to think that just because someone states that they are a Christian, that we are "ramming" it down your throat. No, I don't claim to be grown up spiritually, but that's OK, neither are you.





The ignore feature can be your friend when the going gets too rough .


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

earl said:


> The ignore feature can be your friend when the going gets too rough .



It hasn't begun to get rough yet.


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 24, 2010)

Matthew 10:14-15 (New King James Version)
14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> Matthew 10:14-15 (New King James Version)
> 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!



Amen.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 24, 2010)

Um?  ‘Religion’ is a man-made word?   Um, er . . . okay.

Got any that aren’t?

Got some frog-made words, maybe?  Or some that grew from seed?  Any that spewed from volcanoes, or arrived from space like literary asteroids?  Or maybe a few that condensed like clouds, or were discovered frozen in glaciers?  

I’m afraid that I’ve missed your point, if indeed there is one being made.

(BTW – Matthew 10:14-15 indicates that the very merciful God of the Bible will brutally murder anyone who failed to listen to the sermons of men, spoken in the words of men, to other men.  I’d be careful about using that one in this context, lest the subtext taste a bit bitter coming back up . . . )


----------



## earl (Aug 24, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> It hasn't begun to get rough yet.



Good . I really am glad to hear that . Talking about , discussing , or defending ones beliefs without personal attacks should be easy and uncomplicated .  Losing your cool or your temper or whining doesn't put you or your religion in a good light .


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 24, 2010)

Now dadgumit why is every one picking on my good buddy eARL. He has a happy place that he tells everyone about that if we all accept one another peace will thrive. Just look at the news there are many places that are in so much peace like Mogadishu. You tell em eARL they will get it sooner or later.. later...later...later


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

earl said:


> Good . I really am glad to hear that . Talking about , discussing , or defending ones beliefs without personal attacks should be easy and uncomplicated .  Losing your cool or your temper or whining doesn't put you or your religion in a good light .



"Personal attacks"? You attack Christianity all the time, and to me, that's personal. When have you heard me attack your religion, if you have one? I'm simply defending Christianity, as I should, and I have not lost my cool. When I defend Jesus, it DOES put me in a good light.


----------



## Tony Two Tone (Aug 24, 2010)

*Peace!*


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Um?  ‘Religion’ is a man-made word?   Um, er . . . okay.
> 
> Got any that aren’t?
> 
> ...



All words are man-made, God speaks an entirely different language. And yes, you are right about that scripture. Vengeance is the Lords. Maybe YOU are the one who should take heed, quoting the words of Jesus without believing in them.


----------



## earl (Aug 24, 2010)

Gatorcountry said:


> "Personal attacks"? You attack Christianity all the time, and to me, that's personal. When have you heard me attack your religion, if you have one? I'm simply defending Christianity, as I should, and I have not lost my cool. When I defend Jesus, it DOES put me in a good light.


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

earl said:


>



Is that all U got? and you call ME spiritually immature?!


----------



## earl (Aug 24, 2010)

After a while you have to laugh or cry. I got no tears.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 24, 2010)

“God speaks an entirely different language.”

Um?  What language is that, exactly?  

“Maybe YOU are the one who should take heed, quoting the words of Jesus without believing in them.”

You get me wrong, sir – I quote the words written by men in your ‘Holy Book.’  You are the ones who attribute those words to Jesus, not me.  But then you say, also, that words are man-made.  Then you also say that ‘God speaks an entirely different language,’ without saying just what that language is . . . But presumably you understand it anyway, and nobody else does . . . 

And yet, in and around all of that, you would caution that only ‘Believers’ ought to be allowed to ‘quote’ these man-made words attributed to a God that speaks no such words without taking ‘heed’?  Have you thought that one out, at all?  

What ‘heed’ is that, exactly?  Should we recognize that you all seem more than a bit unbalanced, on average, and that we ought to give you wide-berth, as well as helmets and psychotropic medications for your own protection, and ours?  Or should we ‘heed’ the ‘fact’ that you are certainly and unwaveringly correct in all of your assertions, despite not being able to demonstrate a single one of them, and realize that our eternal fate is sealed, because you say so?

Enlighten me.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 24, 2010)

Tony Two Tone said:


>




Actually, that's a manmade definition of religion.

There is a Biblical religion.


----------



## Roberson (Aug 24, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “God speaks an entirely different language.”
> 
> Um?  What language is that, exactly?
> 
> ...



God speaks a pure and undefiled language, not the language of men. He speaks to the spirit. 
and those were the exact words of Jesus, as quoted by Matthew. Since You cannot know for a fact that God does not exist, Maybe you should be  careful freely quoting the Words of His Son, whom you sneer at. That's all i'm sayin'.......


----------



## Israel (Aug 24, 2010)

I am a fool.
I am a worm, and no man.
I am simply animated dirt, a bit of mud that has discovered the ability to speak to other mud.
Jesus is Lord.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 24, 2010)

“God speaks a pure and undefiled language, not the language of men. He speaks to the spirit. 
and those were the exact words of Jesus, as quoted by Matthew. Since You cannot know for a fact that God does not exist, Maybe you should be careful freely quoting the Words of His Son, whom you sneer at. That's all i'm sayin'....... “

And all I’m sayin’ is that if you have no idea what that language is, but assert that it speaks to the ‘spirit,’ and further assert by implication that you have that ‘spirit’ where others do not, then how can you know the Words of anybody at all , let alone His Son?  If there are no words in this language, it seems a bit odd to suppose that you actually have some of them, is all . . . and odder still to claim sole possession of them, to the point that you alone may ‘quote’ these non-existent, but at the same time extant ‘Words.’  

I remain unenlightened by your explanation of this phenomenon, I guess is all I’m sayin’.

And as for my not knowing for a fact that God does not exist, that is an odd way of expressing what is, in fact, a rather simple concept.  You see, I do not know, ‘for a fact,’ that Flying Pink Unicorns do not exist, by the standard of the logic you are employing.  Similarly, by extension of your logic, I cannot ‘disprove’ leprechauns, Atlantis, alien abductions, the Ruby Slippers, or Bilbo Baggins.  But the problem with such an odd use of rhetoric is that I do not in any way assert the existence of such things.  So I am neither inclined nor required to either prove or disprove any of them.  

I consider them all to be equally quaint and odd uses of the human imagination, and have no responsibility whatsoever to ‘disprove’ flights of other people’s fantasies.  The responsibility for proving one’s position rests entirely on the person making the assertion.  If one were to assert that leprechauns were real, you’d have to pardon me for not taking that as true simply because they asserted it to be true and because I could not convincingly ‘disprove’ their belief in terms they found acceptable.  

Besides, when this sort of ‘argument’ comes up I’m too busy giggling to bother taking it seriously anyway . . .

In other words, one’s insecurities and doubts are one’s own look-out – don’t look to others and challenge them to ratify your own supernatural beliefs simply by failing to refute them in a fashion you find acceptable.  Prove it.  Or do not.  I’m not the one who believes in something irrational, invisible, supernatural, and unprovable – you are.  So don’t look to me to provide some sort of validation in the negative where you cannot provide even a shred of validation even to yourself in the positive.  Your doubts are reasonable, and well-founded, but they are not my problem to explain to you.


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 25, 2010)

Mark 16:15-16 (Amplified Bible)
15And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach and publish openly the good news (the Gospel) to every creature [of the whole [a]human race].

    16He who believes [who adheres to and trusts in and relies on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] and is baptized will be saved [*from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe [who does not adhere to and trust in and rely on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] will be condemned.*


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

Judges 11: 30- 39.  

And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, Then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”  

(And so the Lord seems to have answered his prayer, in a nutshell, and he ‘returned in peace from the people of Ammon’ after slaughtering them all in twenty different cities.  But the first thing that came out of the doors of his house, upon this return, ended up being his only daughter.)  

38: “So he said “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains.”   39: “ And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her that he had vowed.  She knew no man.  And it became a custom in Israel.”

So, apparently, SHE who either believes or doesn’t is also condemned to be made into a burnt offering by her own father (and a virgin no less!), simply so that he can get this Lord’s permission to go and slaughter a bunch of folks he holds a grudge against . . . And apparently making a burnt offering of your virgin daughter became a custom in exchange for being given permission to go out and kill a bunch of folks you don’t like . . .  

It doesn’t take an awful lot to end up getting condemned in this Book of yours, does it?  And clearly believing in what you personally say, or not believing in what you personally say is hardly the dividing line, at least according the Book you so zealously cherry-pick . . .  Seems like quite a lot of condemning was going on, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with what is right or what is wrong. 

God will give you sanction to go on a massive killing spree, so long as you sacrifice a virgin to him?  Really?  That’s what it says.

Which part is the Good News?  The part where I’m condemned?  What could possibly be Good about that?  Or the part where I have to agree with you completely in order to avoid that?  What is Good about compulsory agreement under the threat of condemnation?  

And what of the millions upon millions of innocents, including Jephthah’s daughter, who were slaughtered along the way in the narrative provided by this Holy Book?  What part of it was Good for them?

The only Good News I can see is that the vast majority of the people on this planet think you folks are nuts, and the more I see of your tactics, beliefs, and rationalizations,  I’m increasingly starting to think they might be right . . .  

(I can do this all day, so be careful quoting your Book at me – I’ve read the whole thing, in dozens of iterations, and have also read the ‘competing’ Books, which are equally nuts . . . )


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 25, 2010)

a.Judges 11:39 Scholars fail to agree as to what Jephthah really did. For example, "This plain and restrained statement that 'he did with her according to his vow' is best taken as implying her actual sacrifice. Although human sacrifice was strictly forbidden to Israelites, we need not be surprised at a man of Jephthah's half-Canaanite antecedents following Canaanite usage in this matter" (F. Davidson, ed., The New Bible Commentary). And, "Although the lapse of two months might be supposed to have afforded time for reflection and a better sense of his duty, there is but too much reason to conclude that he was impelled to the fulfillment by the dictates of a pious but unenlightened conscience" (Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown, A Commentary). And, "The religious system of Israel had fallen into suspension. From the days of Phinehas (Judg. 20:28) to the time of Samuel, we hear nothing of the high priest, the ark or the tabernacle" (The Cambridge Bible). On the other hand, J.P. Lange (A Commentary) articulates the position of many scholars when he calls attention to stories in Greek mythology in which the virginity of a goddess was celebrated by Greek maidens with song and dance. Summing up, Lange says, "At all events, it does not 'stand there in the text,' as Luther wrote, that she was offered in sacrifice." And the fact that the maidens mourned her virginity and not her death seems to prove that she did not die.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2010)

Oh great, Scripture Wars, awesome show, especially when they are used out of context to prove individual points.

The non-believers love this tactic, it helps make the feel more secure about their middle of the road life of complacency.


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 25, 2010)

Several important lessons are to be learned from Jephthah's vow. 1. There may be remainders of distrust and doubting, even in the hearts of true and great believers. 2. Our vows to God should not be as a purchase of the favour we desire, but to express gratitude to him. 3. We need to be very well-advised in making vows, lest we entangle ourselves. 4. What we have solemnly vowed to God, we must perform, if it be possible and lawful, though it be difficult and grievous to us. 5. It

well becomes children, obediently and cheerfully to submit to their parents in the Lord. It is hard to say what Jephthah did in performance of his vow; but it is thought that he did not offer his daughter as a burnt-offering. Such a sacrifice would have been an abomination to the Lord; it is supposed she was obliged to remain unmarried, and apart from her family. Concerning this and some other such passages in the sacred history, about which learned men are divided and in doubt, we need not

perplex ourselves; what is necessary to our salvation, thanks be to God, is plain enough. If the reader recollects the promise of Christ concerning the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and places himself under this heavenly Teacher, the Holy Ghost will guide to all truth in every passage, so far as it is needful to be understood.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

So he had his fingers crossed, and did not fulfill his vow?  That seems a bit out of the spirit of things, and is certainly not what is meant by the words, “. . . and he carried out his vow with her that he had vowed.”  That seems rather unambiguous to me . . . 

What happens to folks who try to play wise with this Lord of yours?  I mean, you can interpret until yer eyes bleed, but you can’t have any bit of it both ways – either it means what it says, completely, or it is allegorical – completely.  My money is on the latter . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

I might also mention, in context, that the whole bit seems to be rather, um,  'religious' about now . . .


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 25, 2010)

2 Timothy 2:15 (Amplified Bible)
15Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

Yegads!  An interpretive BibleBot.  Programmed to automatically respond only and always with non-responsive and highly ambiguous (but annotated) quotes!  Hide the women and children!  Nobody is safe!

So I'm guessing that in your opinion, God had actual words, right?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

And yo, Miguel?  “The non-believers love this tactic, it helps make the feel more secure about their middle of the road life of complacency.”

I didn’t start it.  This is the tactic of the true zealots, to attempt to shout down disagreement by spouting endless verses of completely unrelated nonsense.  Countering them, in their own language, is completely fair.

And as for a ‘life of complacency,’ a thoughtful person might consider that mindlessly believing whatever bits of nonsense that might be handed to you by a single ancient book, without question or thought, thus relieving yourself of the burden of solving anything for yourself, might represent the very ultimate of sheep-like complacency.

Unfortunately, in a country that self-describes as being 50.9% Protestant, it is the ‘believer’ who is taking the ‘safe’ middle of the road position, afraid to think independently, and thus leave the safety of the herd . . .


----------



## vanguard1 (Aug 25, 2010)

John 15:18-19 (Amplified Bible)
18If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you.

    19If you belonged to the world, the world would treat you with affection and would love you as its own. But because you are not of the world [no longer one with it], but I have chosen (selected) you out of the world, the world hates (detests) you.


----------



## REDNEKSAVAGE (Aug 25, 2010)

earl said:


> After a while you have to laugh or cry. I got no tears.


Now eARL dont let em get cha down buddy, we know youve cried before over these issues because you have such a deep conviction about the thriving world peace at hand. Some of them will never get it eARLie. Come on all they have to do is turn on the TV and there is thriving peace all over the world that you speak of. Oh look eARL there is peace in.... well I almost found some I will keep looking for ya buddy and as soon as I find it will ring your bell!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> And yo, Miguel? “The non-believers love this tactic, it helps make the feel more secure about their middle of the road life of complacency.”
> 
> I didn’t start it. This is the tactic of the true zealots, to attempt to shout down disagreement by spouting endless verses of completely unrelated nonsense. Countering them, in their own language, is completely fair.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry, did I call you out? I was making a general observation, but then, you know what they say about the "bit dog"!!!


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 25, 2010)

Religion:  Christianity 
Denominations: Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopal, etc.

Religion: Islam
Denominations: Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi, etc.

Religon: Judaism
Denominations: Hasidism, Haredim, Reformed, etc.

Etc., etc.

So, to answer the question: YES it is a religion.  Within it are many different variations as there are in other religions.  Just like "money," there are many denominations.


----------



## lapalm (Aug 25, 2010)

religions are inadequate and ineffective including Christianity without a personal relationship as show by the diarrhea of the mind posted here. 

Jesus hates religions too


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Aug 25, 2010)

The thieves crucified on either side of Christ's cross were not religious men. One looked Christ into the eye and asked him to remember him. Jesus' response was, "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." THEREFORE, I submit it is a relationship with a man who is my REDEEMER. The one mediator between God the Father and man, ...Christ Jesus.  FURTHER, I would assert I've known some very religious people who don't count Christ as their SAVIOR. Jesus himself said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, no man cometh to the FATHER but by ME."


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 25, 2010)

Michael F. Gray said:


> The thieves crucified on either side of Christ's cross were not religious men. One looked Christ into the eye and asked him to remember him. Jesus' response was, "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." THEREFORE, I submit it is a relationship with a man who is my REDEEMER. The one mediator between God the Father and man, ...Christ Jesus.  FURTHER, I would assert I've known some very religious people who don't count Christ as their SAVIOR. Jesus himself said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, no man cometh to the FATHER but by ME."



With your quote above (blue text), are you referring to Christian or other "religious people?"  If Christian, I am curious as to what demoniation that would be.


----------



## farmasis (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Unfortunately, in a country that self-describes as being 50.9% Protestant, it is the ‘believer’ who is taking the ‘safe’ middle of the road position, afraid to think independently, and thus leave the safety of the herd . . .


 
What an asinine observation.

This country is 90+% heterosexual. Would it be safe to assume you believe we should think more independently about the sex of mate we want and leave the safety of the herd?


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Judges 11: 30- 39.
> 
> And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, Then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
> 
> ...



An unbeliever quoting scriptures is like a kindergarderner reading a NFL playbook for the offense.

Of course they can read it, but the uphill battle will always be the lack of understanding (a direct result of lack of faith and dis-belief), and of course the end result is the same, they loose.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 25, 2010)

“ . . . an NFL playbook for the offense . . .”   Um?  Sheesh.  As odd analogies go, well, I suppose that is one of them . . . The moment someone figures out just what that means, please, let me know . . . 

I ‘Loose’?  Really?  I didn’t realize that it was a sweepstakes, involving winners and losers.  Understanding is certainly not lacking – the entire point of writing a Book is to put one’s thoughts into words, so that others may enjoy them in your absence.  Once those words are written down, the thought is presumed to have been adequately captured for the purpose of conveying one’s meaning to others (presuming, of course, that the others are at least semi-literate and share the same language).  I understand perfectly what the modern English translations (all 35 or 40 of them) say.      

So I guess I’d have to ask – just which parts of this rather short, disjointed, rambling, and multi-authored Book do you propose that I do not understand?  

It is the defining work of a number of religions, you see, and it seems to make equal sense to each of them to violently disagree over the content, to the point of authoring entire wars with each other over the centuries.  One might fairly presume, given this sad state of affairs, that either the Book was very poorly written, as concerns communicating any singular meaning whatsoever, or that nobody at all ‘understands,’ – or both.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 25, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “ . . . an NFL playbook for the offense . . .”   Um?  Sheesh.  As odd analogies go, well, I suppose that is one of them . . . The moment someone figures out just what that means, please, let me know . . .
> 
> I ‘Loose’?  Really?  I didn’t realize that it was a sweepstakes, involving winners and losers.  Understanding is certainly not lacking – the entire point of writing a Book is to put one’s thoughts into words, so that others may enjoy them in your absence.  Once those words are written down, the thought is presumed to have been adequately captured for the purpose of conveying one’s meaning to others (presuming, of course, that the others are at least semi-literate and share the same language).  I understand perfectly what the modern English translations (all 35 or 40 of them) say.
> 
> ...



Well see, thats a good point for lack of understanding (the entire book) due to lack of belief. Its a spiritual thing. Your not going to unerstand it because you do not believe. The analogy for the NFL playbook was simply, its over your head. Hows that for simplification?

Yes it is a win or loose deal with your soul.

And if you did understand, you would know that yes there are those that will disagree over the content, but so what. That does not mean they are corrrect with their statements or their confusion about the content.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 26, 2010)

Sir, my hat is off to you.

In a nutshell – your position is that one cannot understand what is written unless one believes that what was written is what one believes that one understands.

I’m astounded.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 26, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Sir, my hat is off to you.
> 
> In a nutshell – your position is that one cannot understand what is written unless one believes that what was written is what one believes that one understands.
> 
> ...



Before you become too astounded:

From a biblical standpoint, you are not going to understand the Bible unless you believe the contents with in. Thats the whole point of "FAITH"......... 



In fair play, anything anyone does not believe in, can and will have a multitude of reason as to why they dont believe, instead of just simply saying "I dont believe it".


----------



## earl (Aug 26, 2010)

A little clarification please. Is it your belief that a nonbeliever won't understand the bible ? If so ,how can they glean enough information from it to get the ''call to salvation'' .Seems like you are encouraging folks not to try to read and understand the bible until after they are saved.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Aug 26, 2010)

earl said:


> A little clarification please. Is it your belief that a nonbeliever won't understand the bible ? If so ,how can they glean enough information from it to get the ''call to salvation'' .Seems like you are encouraging folks not to try to read and understand the bible until after they are saved.


 
That is absolutely correct, unless you ask or seek to let Jesus / God into your heart all you are doing is reading words. I once had a friend / neighbor that was a very pragmatic individual. An engineer by trade, everything had to fit a certain format of logic or it just didn't fit into his lifestyle or way of thinking. One day he decided that after a lifetime of no church and no schoolin on the Bible that he'd sit down and read it. Read it he did, from cover to cover, and had all kind of questions trying to logically explain or discover how some of the things in the Bible could have actually happened, or be misconstrued by the scribes that wrote the books. However, after all of that time reading all of those books, words, stories, parables, etc, not one ounce of spirituality was gleaned from it.


----------



## Spotlite (Aug 26, 2010)

Spotlite said:


> Before you become too astounded:
> 
> *From a biblical standpoint, you are not going to understand the Bible unless you believe the contents with in. Thats the whole point of "FAITH"......... *
> 
> ...





earl said:


> A little clarification please. Is it your belief that a nonbeliever won't understand the bible ? If so ,how can they glean enough information from it to get the ''call to salvation'' .Seems like you are encouraging folks not to try to read and understand the bible until after they are saved.



OK, let me clarify. Since there are different types of unbelievers.

One will be those that are receptive to the Word and then those that are not receptive.

Scriptures were written by holy men as they were moved on by the spirit......................why would think it does not take that same spirit to fully understand those same scriptures? That doesnt mean you have to be saved to understand them, it does mean you have to be receptive (that eventually leads into salvation)  

If a person denies that spirit and is not receptive to it, there is no way possible for that spirit to deal with them. So for that person, Im saying no, you will not be able to understand the Bible in its intended content.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 26, 2010)

As much as I understand the passion of the argument, I have to say that for all intents and purposes it is a non-starter.  It is a little like saying that if one already believes in Bigfoot and UFO’s, then facts will be found in the National Enquirer.  I mean to say – Of course a pre-existing belief can be reinforced by writings meant solely to appeal to that particular believer.

But ‘understanding’ is a rather different idea, and when I read the Bible, or any other written work, I tend to view it as simply what it presents – a set of words meant to convey the meanings set forth.  Some works, such as poetry, satires, or fables, set out to be allegorical or to employ allusion from the get-go, and intend to evoke less than literal interpretations.  One is free, and in fact encouraged, to explore the deliberate abstractions and assign one’s own interpretations.

Others warn one ahead of time, in bold print – “This Is A Work Of Fiction.”  That seems fair, but many seem to ‘believe’ them anyway.  Yet others attempt to define, factually, just what is and what is not.  That seems fair also, since they make no other representations, and leave it to the reader to either accept the contentions made or verify and/or refute them oneself.  

The problem I have with ‘Holy’ writings of all kinds is that they seem to attempt to be all four – literal, allegorical, fictional, and factual – at the same time.  ‘Interpretations’ range from the strictly fundamental and literal reading to the liberally abstract and allegorical application, and we are asked by each of the various factions to take it on ‘faith’ that their particular reading is the ‘correct’ one.  This is worse than confusing, and is in fact irrational to ask – that out of hundreds of sectarian interpretations one must choose which one is the ‘correct’ one, and which are so much hogwash.  

It all comes out of the same Book.

I fail to see it, then, as a matter of being infused with the proper ‘spirit’ which will then allow ‘understanding,’ when millions of those who claim to be infused with this ‘spirit’ seem to possess entirely different ‘spirits’ and cannot even agree among themselves on what any single ‘Holy’ book actually says.  Understanding takes on many forms, and standing back from the situation for a moment, and viewing it dispassionately, often provides the most thoughtful perspective.


----------



## Israel (Aug 27, 2010)

Jesus is very plain about the matter.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 
Joh 8:43  Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


----------



## formula1 (Aug 27, 2010)

*Re:*



Spotlite said:


> From a biblical standpoint, you are not going to understand the Bible unless you believe the contents with in. Thats the whole point of "FAITH"......... QUOTE]
> 
> Yes indeed Spotlight! I would add that you will not glean any meaningful truth nor understand the possibility of Salvation unless you first accept the possibility of God, which can only be accomplished by stepping out in faith.  It is a short step indeed, but one many will never take.
> 
> ...


----------



## gtparts (Aug 28, 2010)

The Christ within, who is our hope of glory, is not a matter of
theological debate or philosophical speculation. He is not a hobby, a
part-time project, a good theme for a book, or a last resort when all human effort fails. 

He is our life, the most real fact about us. He is
the power and wisdom of God dwelling within us.

The hardened heart is colder and harder than a diamond.

What Dio cannot understand is because he will not understand. Every characterization of Scripture, for him, is  marked by a determination to not be effected himself. His presupposition that God does not exist makes it impossible for him to take the account of Jonah being swallowed whole by a great fish as a factual event. Those who believe in God accept the Jonah/fish story because nothing is impossible with God.

Every time scientists solve some problem, discover the operating principles within a system, or stumble upon some new bit of information that adds to our understanding, Dio believes it reduces the probability that  a deity/creator exists. The other side concludes that such is merely men unraveling the mystery of how God has created and organized the physical universe. Surely, science is engaged in a game of catch-up it can never win. Every gain is accompanied by more unanswered questions that show how small we are and how wonderful and marvelous He is. He knows all the questions and all the answers.


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2010)

So we should quit searching and take every thing on blind faith ?  Save a lot of time and money. It will irritate Jerry's Kids though.


----------



## Israel (Aug 28, 2010)

earl said:


> So we should quit searching and take every thing on blind faith ?  Save a lot of time and money. It will irritate Jerry's Kids though.



You cannot "quit searching". 
Unbelievers are tasked with proving themselves, believers are "tasked" with proving God. It all depends upon that for which you search.

Yes, I enjoy a cold beer. If that comes from the unbeliever's (not saying all advancements in technology are attributable to them alone) efforts in the realm of thermodynamics, well, thank God for unbelievers who think life is all about the heat absorbed by expanding gasses that have been compressed to their liquid state.

But ultimately, as GT has said, they're still just working within a framework of physical laws ordained and kept in line by the Designer.

This is why I never (rarely ever) let my thoughts go to the eradication of unbelievers, but instead, their conversion.
They are very useful, even in their unconverted state. And, of course, should they be a "convertible"...well...wow...there's just no plumbing the depths of their worth.
Now, when they become so outraged that someone might simply see them as useful tools, rather than those to whom all gratitude is owed for all their "work", all their efforts, all their scampering around trying to prove their worth, well then they often prove their greatest worth, as they have with so many saints, by assisting them (the saints) in putting off their mortal flesh. They help believers get undressed of their dirty clothes.

You see, should you claim all the refrigerators are yours, all the advancements and comforts, in short, the whole of the Earth is your domain and every bit of its goodness is due to your unbelieving labors and strivings...well, what can a believer do except laugh?

Jesus has told me there are cardboard men, and real men. But he hasn't shown me who is who, some fit for burning, some for saving.
He just tells me treat them all the way he does, and the way I'd like to be treated.
Both the cardboard and the real men were paid for by his blood, and that is their value.
If he wanted to pay an outrageously high price for laminated paper, who am I to disagree?
That is his business. 
But it surely grants him rights over all.
Not that he didn't already have them...but it pleases him to save some.

He is not the Lord because he tries really hard to be nice to everyone.
He's the Lord because he is.
That he has gone the "extra mile" is according to his will alone, and I know I am only saved because of his willingness to do what he never had to.

And so, again, should all the unbelievers come together and say...we are taking back all the refrigerators just to show you how much you really need us...well, if he determines I need one, God can make a cold Yuengling out of nothing. 
If he chooses not to, his business also.

Now, when it finally does get down to the unbelievers final furious attempts to stamp out the knowledge of God they will also demonstrate this attitude..."you say you have life...well show me how good you do without your head!"

Very well, thanks.

I'm just a tool, too. But the one who holds me has promised not to discard when done.


----------



## apoint (Aug 28, 2010)

The Bible has more meaning everytime I read it. It always changes you, even the 10th time you read it.


----------



## gtparts (Aug 28, 2010)

earl,


There you go..... arriving at a negative conclusion that is unwarranted. Do you see anywhere in my post that suggests you or anyone quit searching?

For what are you searching? Whatever you have now must not be very satisfying if you keep searching.

If you see the difference in someone you know, be candid and ask them how it is that their life reflects something that you lack. You do this enough and you will start to see what causes them to be experiencing greater joy than you have been experiencing on a daily basis.

As for blind faith, it seems like deja vu to post a response, but faith is not blind, it is spiritually informed. But, since you and others seem to like the term, pray for blind faith. If God gives you blind faith, it will be sufficient.


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2010)

Sorry I didn't  do a very good  job articulating what I was trying to say. In searching as in searching for cures for diseases. Had scientists and doctors simply said it was God's will that some one die and left it in his hands ,there would be a lot of dead folks.

I will continue to search for the rest of my days ,if nothing else just out of curiosity . I consider that to be a good trait. Much as you search your bible for greater understanding, I search life in general. 
I was the irritating kid who constantly asked why, where, how . I guess I never out grew that . If you tell me the sky is blue , you can bet I will look up.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 28, 2010)

earl said:


> Sorry I didn't  do a very good  job articulating what I was trying to say. In searching as in searching for cures for diseases. Had scientists and doctors simply said it was God's will that some one die and left it in his hands ,there would be a lot of dead folks.
> 
> I will continue to search for the rest of my days ,if nothing else just out of curiosity . I consider that to be a good trait. Much as you search your bible for greater understanding, I search life in general.
> I was the irritating kid who constantly asked why, where, how . I guess I never out grew that . If you tell me the sky is blue , you can bet I will look up.



You are my hero and my friend. And I mean that... Someday you will be born again and your searching for the rest of your days will mean a totally different thing, but I got the feeling that God will use you to search life in general...LOL

Quote: --Had scientists and doctors simply said it was God's will that some one die and left it in his hands ,there would be a lot of dead folks.--

God is a spirit Earl, He does not simply say. His will is not like you say, rather He points us to the Good Samaritan.  And when people say it is in the Lord`s hands, it usually means  let nature take it`s course...there is nothing more the doctors or science can do and nature is God`s will as well as the doctors and science doing all they can.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 29, 2010)

Refering to the Original point, not any of the responses, I cringe when my friends refer to my beliefs as religion. Although technically speaking, it can be called that.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 30, 2010)

I‘m not sure I’m getting this right (perhaps because my eyes are still watering from the laughing), but are you guys actually saying that this God you propose is the only actual fact, (and only the one God you propose, not any others), and that science is actually belief based, because it hinges entirely on things that your God provided originally??

Really?  

Yet, to this day, when pressed, the best you can do to demonstrate this contention is to say, in effect, “Trust Me. I’m Right.”  ??

So God himself provided us (you also) with things like Polio, Smallpox, Bubonic Plague, and Rubella, but also gave to you (but just to you) some heathen unbelievers who were dogged enough to not give in to this will of your God, and managed to be ‘useful’ by solving them for you?  And you hope, in your infinite condescension, to someday ‘convert’ those unbelievers to your way of thinking??

Really?

Seems to me you folks ought to drop to your already worn out knees and thank those folks, rather than revile them and condescend from a platform of little more than mindless ancient superstition.  Were it not for those ‘useful’ folks, you wouldn’t be here to insult them so readily.


----------



## lapalm (Sep 2, 2010)

Why are you here?

Not the forum,  but on this earth?

Why is this earth here?
 human based logic will not answer this

Does a mouse know why it is in a test maze?

the answer is only outside of humanity?

If you looking for a honest  man , like the real Diogenes, they must first admit their ignorance on these matters, otherwise their not honest.

Any information from any source is not believed  at first. it is tested and proven and then believed and more testing and thus more belief or rejection of information.

Test God against Truth not against any Humans opinion


----------



## gtparts (Sep 2, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> I‘m not sure I’m getting this right (perhaps because my eyes are still watering from the laughing), but are you guys actually saying that this God you propose is the only actual fact, (and only the one God you propose, not any others), and that science is actually belief based, because it hinges entirely on things that your God provided originally??
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...



Why do you assume that followers of Christ are not interested or involved in the various aspects of science, i.e., medicine, chemistry, engineering (in all its various "flavors"), etc?

Many of the advances in every field of science are the result of Christians working in their respective areas. Your persistence in ignoring the contributions made by Christians speaks poorly of your research of the subject area or is indicative of intentionally specious offerings on your part.

And how is it that you continue to not understand that all the mean, bad, nasty things that afflict this world are the result of man's sin, beginning with Adam? You keep asking the same question repeatedly (though worded in different ways), you get the same answer, and for some unknown reason, you reject the truth and ask again. 

Dio, the truth does not change. The answer remains the same. It is clear you do not like the answer, but it is THE answer.


----------



## Israel (Sep 2, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Why do you assume that followers of Christ are not interested or involved in the various aspects of science, i.e., medicine, chemistry, engineering (in all its various "flavors"), etc?
> 
> Many of the advances in every field of science are the result of Christians working in their respective areas. Your persistence in ignoring the contributions made by Christians speaks poorly of your research of the subject area or is indicative of intentionally specious offerings on your part.
> 
> ...



I have also found it revealing how some have sought to divide asunder every bit of what is considered scientific advancement from any man who may profess God.
It is convenient to throw believers into the cauldron of superstitious witch and book burners while forgetting someone as obvious as Gregor Mendel. 
It doesn't support the anti science invective to mention men like Keppler, Pascal, Kelvin and Farraday amongst many others.
The attitude that "we atheists" are the only reasonable investigators of natural truth and principles is, as you say, specious at best. 
One could very boldly say that it is solely based upon the presumption that all of the universe operates according to some irrefutable order that any steps can confidently be made toward a greater understanding of those natural truths.
Indeed, in the pursuit of such, and the beneficial results that accrue to that investigation, the first thing that may be utterly dispensed with is what is has been recently celebrated as a worthy nostrum:

“Nothing is true, not even that.”

We'll see if they gladly pump maple syrup into their Cessna 150. Or better yet, go skin diving with an anvil while preferring to call it a snorkel.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 3, 2010)

“Any information from any source is not believed at first. it is tested and proven and then believed and more testing and thus more belief or rejection of information.”

So employ that standard, really, and tell me where it leads.

GT –“ If God gives you blind faith, it will be sufficient.”  

Then, almost immediately – “Why do you assume that followers of Christ are not interested or involved in the various aspects of science, i.e., medicine, chemistry, engineering (in all its various "flavors"), etc?
Many of the advances in every field of science are the result of Christians working in their respective areas. “

Well, I never ‘assumed’ any such thing, but the ‘rebuttal’ leads easily to a question --   

So which is it?  You argue out of both sides of your mouth, and take both positions at once, which is sufficient evidence of doubt.  Do you have ‘blind faith’ in this God of yours?  Or do you not?  If so, then the ‘science’ you so consistently doubt and renounce is just so much pointless twaddle.  And just why would a Christian with such ‘Blind Faith’ wish to place a foot on the other side of the fence, and lay claim to scientific progress, also in the name of Christianity?  Are you unable to decide, like nearly everyone else, and have rationalized that you can have both if only you assert your claim to both?

C’mon.  Choose.  Quit with the ankle-biting indecision, and make one stand or the other.  What say you?  Faith (Blind and without limit), or Rationality?  

“And how is it that you continue to not understand that all the mean, bad, nasty things that afflict this world are the result of man's sin, beginning with Adam?”     Well, um, er, that might be because that story is an ancient fiction, perhaps?  And also because the story itself makes no sense whatsoever in the context you folks provide?  And perhaps because the history of mankind already reveals that people are no stinkin’ good, from start to finish, and don’t need your sudden insights by way of ‘explanation’?

The Perfect, Flawless, All-Knowing, All-Seeing God of your imagining Created Adam in His own Image.

Have I got that part right?  But Adam, created in the image of this God, was flawed.   WHAT????   Stop right there.  You have to be kidding. What sort of bedtime stories did you folks get told?

“Dio, the truth does not change. “  Indeed.  Nor does the real truth – that you have not a single thing to demonstrate that your ‘truth’ is actually true other than the bully pulpit and a pile of disconnected fictional stories of unknown authorship compiled by you-don’t-know-who somewhere around you-don’t-know-when .  All I ask for is a single bit of evidence, just one, independent and verifiable, that your ‘truth’ is genuinely true.  I’m not getting anything there, even from those Christians who will also lay claim to science as their own bailiwick.  The two contentions seem mutually exclusive, but if you can actually resolve them we’ll be all ears.  

Folks will be quite happy to hear you explain just why the earthquake that recently killed more than a few thousand of ‘God’s’ children was actually an act of God, but that you also have the ‘science’ to get God off the hook for this apparent act of mass-murder on His part.  Good luck being an uninformed and completely wishy-washy fence-straddler, afraid to take one stand or another.   

And Israel?  Um? “The attitude that "we atheists" are the only reasonable investigators of natural truth and principles is, as you say, specious at best.”  This is called a straw-man argument, where one invents a contention in order to argue with it.  I don’t recall anyone here contending any such thing, but thank you for imagining  . . . 

Please, try not to take on advanced thoughts from an elementary perspective – it just wastes bandwidth . . . and arguing only with yourself and your imagined demons might be satisfying, but it rather wastes everyone else’s time . . .

Have we gotten anywhere?  Is Christianity a religion, or an established Scientific and historical fact that bears no doubt, while also co-opting spirituality, just in case?  Or vice-versa?

Anybody?  Bueller?


----------



## Israel (Sep 3, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> I‘m not sure I’m getting this right (perhaps because my eyes are still watering from the laughing), but are you guys actually saying that this God you propose is the only actual fact, (and only the one God you propose, not any others), and that science is actually belief based, because it hinges entirely on things that your God provided originally??
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...





The straw man made his entrance long before.


----------

