Not quite religion, but then what?

[Galatea]

You can always buy drinks all round and join us outcasts here.

That's not the scriptural definition of "perfect."

So what is your response to Jesus' command: "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect?"

Do you ignore it based on your personal definition of "perfect," or do you seek to know what He means by "perfect?"

I am perfect in Christ, but not perfect in myself.

From what I understand, perfect means complete- or nothing wanting.

I take it to mean a believer's position in Christ.

 

[Galatea]

You can always buy drinks all round and join us outcasts here.

I did not mean to double post. Sure, I'll stand you a round and be the designated driver.

 

[Robban]

I did not mean to double post. Sure, I'll stand you a round and be the designated driver.

What the whole gang ?

You are forgiven Sunshine you are forgiven.

Haha was just kidding, thought you may have needed cheering up.

Look after yourself Galatea.

 

[Galatea]

What the whole gang ?

You are forgiven Sunshine you are forgiven.

Haha was just kidding, thought you may have needed cheering up.

Look after yourself Galatea.

Thank you.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I have been trying to explain why my faith is not bound up in moral rules.

That wasn't really my point, it was just for demonstration purposes, but for the record, I don't think I have a heart problem either.

I don't often witness to people, mainly because I do it so badly and am afraid of bringing harm to people rather than make Christ appealing to them.

With Christians, we are concerned for people who are not because we believe we are right. And if we are right, then that means people without Christ go to Hell. So it is a rescue mission in a way. It is like trying to rescue people out of a burning building. Only, I am not such a good firefighter, and my bumbling efforts may make the people cling to the burning walls tighter.

I have been on the other side of this conversation in my previous life as a Charismatic Christian. It's not something I'm that unfamiliar with. I might somewhere in the back of my head understand it a bit better than you might realize.

If I felt like going there, I'd have a couple of wierd stories to tell about my 'career' with trying to convert people back in the days...

I apologize for making Christianity seem an ugly or miserable thing. It is not my intention.

I don't honestly know what to say. You're really not following the usual pattern here... I'm torn between should I try to cheer you up or what...

 

[Galatea]

That wasn't really my point, it was just for demonstration purposes, but for the record, I don't think I have a heart problem either.



I have been on the other side of this conversation in my previous life as a Charismatic Christian. It's not something I'm that unfamiliar with. I might somewhere in the back of my head understand it a bit better than you might realize.

If I felt like going there, I'd have a couple of wierd stories to tell about my 'career' with trying to convert people back in the days...



I don't honestly know what to say. You're really not following the usual pattern here... I'm torn between should I try to cheer you up or what...

I understand it was for demonstration purposes, but I couldn't let it stand without addressing it, because I am so very against works and legalism.

That's okay. I know you were once a member of a church, so I know you probably know more than I give you credit.

I'm not sure what the pattern is, or supposed to be. You don't have to try and cheer me up. I am fine. Remember what I said about God, He won't cast me out, even when I bungle trying to make a convert.

 

[RDKirk]

I am perfect in Christ, but not perfect in myself.

From what I understand, perfect means complete- or nothing wanting.

I take it to mean a believer's position in Christ.

The use of "perfect" through scripture is presented to Christians as something attainable...but to be attained, not as something bequeathed.

 

[Galatea]

The use of "perfect" through scripture is presented to Christians as something attainable...but to be attained, not as something bequeathed.

Do you think you can become perfect?

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm not sure what the pattern is, or supposed to be. You don't have to try and cheer me up. I am fine. Remember what I said about God, He won't cast me out, even when I bungle trying to make a convert.

The usual pattern doesn't include apologizing for being a bad witness. I find you a bit wierd evangelist It's not that bad thing, though. Something new.

 

[Cearbhall]

With Christians, we are concerned for people who are not because we believe we are right. And if we are right, then that means people without Christ go to Hell. So it is a rescue mission in a way. It is like trying to rescue people out of a burning building.

I may get exasperated when someone tries to convert me online, but I do appreciate it when the person truly believes this and has good intentions.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

To me, morality is *extremely* important - but to us, not to the universe, the Supreme Deity or whatever. There is no metaphysical dimension to it, it's just the kind of rules we develop around social behaviour in order to live as harmoniously as possible.
The reason why we react so negatively to anti-social behaviour on an instinctual basis is tied to our species's history, linking us to other species that live in social groups (in contrast to eusocial insects and solitary species). As culture-creating entities, we bring significantly more to the table than just hereditary impulses, however, which is why there's more than one morality, and different cultures approach the matter quite differently. Yet at the core of all that, there's a nucleus of well-nigh universal principles, owing to social coexistence.

Morality is also relational and intersubjective: this is why an earthquake is not a moral entity, even if it kills more people than most mass murderers.
Of course, this complicates matters even further. Imagine a superior extraterrestrial species in comparison to whom we looked as primitive and intellectually limited as a farm animal looks to us. Would it be morally wrong for them to treat us like cattle, if we tasted like bacon to them? From our vantage point, absolutely! We'd regard them as the epitome of evil. But what does that say about our dietary habits?

If we suppose that there's an omnimax deity, our actions would be utterly inconsequential to him/her/it. We live on a tiny rock at the edge of a single galaxy in a whole cosmos filled with similar clusters, a microscopic speck of dust. The way I see it, the problem's not so much that non-Christians believe themselves to be perfect, but that Christians believe themselves to be of cosmic significance. There's a whole lot of hubris involved there, if you believe that the entity behind this vast universe is obsessed with, say, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, or what you put on your sandwich.
Have you ever been morally offended by an amoeba? Do you hold a grudge against a bacterium living on the other side of the globe? Nothing we could think, say, or do could ever affect a divine superbeing. If it chose to pay attention to us, and was concerned for our well-being, it might help us figure out better ways of existing peacefully and happily - but that's not the same as what most religions teach, with angry deities demanding recompensation for personal grievances.

The gods are *too small*, too human. Too obsessed with our species.
All of that suggests to me that we invented them to feel important.

 

[Jack of Spades]

If we suppose that there's an omnimax deity, our actions would be utterly inconsequential to him/her/it. ........Have you ever been morally offended by an amoeba? Do you hold a grudge against a bacterium living on the other side of the globe?

While I get what you're saying there, about our bedroom morals not being of cosmic significance, I think that this God-human-amoeba- comparison is still an anthropomorphic approach to the idea of deity, it's just supersized anthropomorphism where our human limits sneak in to the idea of deity.

If God is the classic montheistic version, omnipresent, personal spirit, he/she/it has no problems of being fully up to date and interested in ants aswell as galaxies at the same time. In human experience, seeing big things is the opposite for being caught up with the details, but there are no such limits for an omnipresent and omniscient being.

The gods are *too small*, too human. Too obsessed with our species.
All of that suggests to me that we invented them to feel important.

I agree with the observation of religious portrayals of gods having dosed with lots of human influence, but I don't think that should lead to the automatical conclusion that this means there are no deity/deitis.

For a metaphor, there are two human-made portrayals of the sun:

Spoiler: The sun, as pictured by humans

Then, the sun as actually witnessed:

Spoiler: The sun, as it is for real

For me that's a comparison for the difference between human explanations about God, and that of a personal experience about God. I guess my portrayal of both makes it clear which one I prefer.

 

[Mister Bubbles]

I end up meeting nowadays more and more people who practice something and believe in something, which is difficult to define. Might be a bit like a religion, but isn't quite.

Would for example, people who believe in spirit guides be religious in your books? Or when someone believes they are spiritually one with the nature? When someone is just spiritual but not religious? What is it called when someone has a mix of life philosophy and spiritual practices, but doesn't really follow any particular religion.

What's in your opinion, a fundamental difference between things like life philosophy, value system, religion, spiritual practice etc.?

I don't really have any point to make here, just asking for random thoughts on the topic, for thought food. As nowadays traditional religions are losing ground, but people still practice all sorts of elements of religions, it's getting a bit blurry.

Some of that blurriness is by design. Outside the fundamentalist bubble it is frowned upon to profess that one thinks, say, that our species is descendent from two white nudists who frolicked about in a garden with a talking snake.
You get far less heat at the dinner table from your friends if you don't pin yourself down with specifics and just blurt our some meaningless pap like "energy" or "healing" or my personal favorite "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual."
This way, people get awarded the undeserved respect usually reserved for traditional religions without the burden of actually having to make a coherent argument.
Once the coercion of religion is removed, people will start to believe things that make them feel good, like "being one with nature". Whenever I hear that phrase I ask the speaker if he'd still desire to be one with nature if he accidentally stepped in a nest of fire ants.

Now you know why I don't have any friends.

Mr. B.

 

[Mister Bubbles]

The gods are *too small*, too human. Too obsessed with our species.
All of that suggests to me that we invented them to feel important.

They appear to be especially obsessed with what we do while naked.

Very nice post, by the way.

Mr. B

 

[Jack of Spades]

This way, people get awarded the undeserved respect usually reserved for traditional religions without the burden of actually trying to make a coherent argument.

That's a little bit ethnocentric take, assuming a culture where being religious is a magic tool for respect. My North European culture is very secular and everyone confessing to believe in something is considered to be a bit wierd and naive at best. Yet the same phenomenon exists here, the people who do believe in something are getting more and more blurry.

 

[Mister Bubbles]

That's a little bit ethnocentric take, assuming a culture where being religious is a magic tool for respect. My North European culture is very secular and everyone confessing to believe in something is considered to be a bit wierd and naive at best. Yet the same phenomenon exists here, the people who do believe in something are getting more and more blurry.

Well, yes, it is spoken from an american perspective and it is true that Northern Europeans have largely done away with Christianity. But it just goes to show that jettisoning one heap of intellectual rubbish doesn't guarantee that others won't spring up in its place.

Mr.B.

 

[Galatea]

I may get exasperated when someone tries to convert me online, but I do appreciate it when the person truly believes this and has good intentions.

Thanks for being so gracious, I honestly did not intend to start out posting in order to convert, but to try and make the distinction between faith and religion. It just kind of devolved.

 

[Galatea]

The usual pattern doesn't include apologizing for being a bad witness. I find you a bit wierd evangelist It's not that bad thing, though. Something new.

It's alright. I'm weird all the way around. There is no doubt about it.

 

[Jack of Spades]

A faith system for just one person is not a religion.

Why not?

How many followers a religion needs to be a religion? 2? 5? 200? 5 000?

And when you decide how many, could you also explain why that number and why not one less, or one more.

 

[juvenissun]

Why not?

How many followers a religion needs to be a religion? 2? 5? 200? 5 000?

And when you decide how many, could you also explain why that number and why not one less, or one more.

One-person "religion" normally does not have a clear doctrine and the content is likely to change from time to time. That is not what a religion should be. This situation is not likely to happen if the faith is shared by more than one person.