what is a religion?

[Dok]

..............which religion?

It shore hain't Chris-tee-ani-ty.

:o

As Above So Above, As Within so Without - See what is around you as yourself and become one with all things as God is one

 

[JesiJones]

..............which religion?

It shore hain't Chris-tee-ani-ty.

:o

I must be confused. I thought the title of the thread was "what is a religion", not "what is Christianity".

However, if that is to be the case then I must point out that in-fact that notion has influenced Christianity on more than one occasion. The phrase comes from Hermetic philosophy - the presence of which can be found in Ezekiel, Psalms and elsewhere.

Solomon practiced the Hermetic arts. Much of Jewish mysticism comes from Hermeticism as well. In fact the winged of angels are Hermetic symbolism.

Nothing that was said there goes against Christianity in any way other than perhaps the common interpretation of modern times. The concept is hidden within the Star of David and the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.

"God made man in his image" - As in Heaven so on Earth
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

The Israelites believed (as many still do) that the wellbeing of heaven reflected the wellbeing of Jerusalem and vice versa. That that what happened in Jerusalem affected Heaven and Heaven affected Jerusalem.

The Egyptians had the same belief and it is from Egypt that this comes from. (Though to be fair, other cultures such as the Chinese, also believed this.)

 

[dlamberth]

..............which religion?

He's looking at the Divine from a mystics perspective. It's "experiencing" God as Life itself. Check out this Wiki link on Panentheism.

In a way, he's answering the question of: What does life look and feel like through the eyes of Jesus?

It's my belief that its in the mystical experience of the Divine which is how many religions begin. Someone has the deep inner experience, and others come along and create a religion around it.

.

 

[awitch]

Gotta luv it. Wow. The Biblical God came to us in the Person of Jesus, minus a universal set of rules. The personal relationship cannot possibly vary! It is with God, who has imparted His Righteousness to us!

"Get along" with each other? What does that mean? Be friendly? Come on!!! We are to be ONE spiritually. There is only ONE interpretation of scripture that is correct, perfect, incapable of being distorted or challenged, and that is the ONE provided by the Holy Spirit to those who have been spiritually born from above, whose spiritual nature dominates the sinful nature. Show me one person who, in a Spiritual relationship with the God of everything, can condone or participate in sin. Although HE will never leave us or forsake us, although our eternity is secure, imagine how disruptive, if not disgusting, living in sin while born again can be! What does sin do to that personal relationship? How often do we grieve the Holy Spirit and get away with it?

It has zero zilch nada to do with defined secular structure, with rules, policies, procedures, all that "stuff" appended to knowing the One in whom we place our faith, trust, and calm, confident assurance. In HIM, not in the church, not in water baptism, not in rituals, not in "fathers," pastors, bishops, elders, deacons ....... it's a long list, not one of which is a substitute for, or necessary addition to, salvation by grace through faith.!

A personal relationship that must be identical to everyone else is not personal.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good grief. How can ANYONE place Christianity in the camp of "religion" ????? Yuk ! ! !

That's easy. I see religion as a kind of relationship one has (or may potentially have) with a deity, whether that deity is a personal god or a numinious experience of something mysterious and impersonal. (This isn't intended as a complete definition, but just a feature of religions.)

The form of this relationship differs from religion to religion. For some ancient religions in the West, one gave regular sacrifices to the gods (or goddesses) for some protection of some sort. Perhaps your city had a protector-god that would help defend it from enemies.

Other religions, such as Christianity, emphasied a different sort of relationship, somewhat more focused on an afterlife, where one enters into the relationship only once for "Salvation". That's still a relgion, however.

Religion is not essentially a set of buildings or rituals. Those are just the form a relationship with a deity may take within a particular religion.

Incidentally, the eastern dharmas are just different enough that I doubt that we should try to wedge them into the particularly Western notion of religion. I'm tempted to call them "dharmas", and leave it at that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

So, wouldn't a personal relationship imply that the Biblical god does not necessarily have a universal set of rules for everyone? That the personal relationship could vary?

Nope. The question is, what is really established.

 

[razeontherock]

As Above So Above, As Within so Without - See what is around you as yourself and become one with all things as God is one.

Pretty sure you meant as above so below. Pretty sure you're espousing satanism there. Just a word to the wise, that's one of the few things not tolerated here in the least

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pretty sure you meant as above so below. Pretty sure you're espousing satanism there.

What he wrote wasn't satanism, unless you are casting that net very wide.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JesiJones]

Yep, that was the mystic in me.

Pretty sure you meant as above so below. Pretty sure you're espousing satanism there. Just a word to the wise, that's one of the few things not tolerated here in the least

As mentioned, that's not Satanism in the least. It is Hermetic which =/= Satanism.

And yes, it was supposed to be As Above, So Below. Thank you for pointing out the typo.

So, wouldn't a personal relationship imply that the Biblical god does not necessarily have a universal set of rules for everyone? That the personal relationship could vary?

You'd think so... but I suppose it comes down to two factors.

I) What one means by personal, that is "taking it personal" or "having it personally molded for" as any relationship tends to be.

II) A universal set of rules does not forgo having a local set of rules. Like in programing within an object-oriented programming language whereby an object will inherit the attributes of the parent unless given its own set of attributes or pattern.

It would make sense that there would be a universal environment or "set of universal laws" set into place in order to create these relations in the first place. Since we know that a relationship requires two or more objects - or in this case people - and that not all relationships with a higher power are not experienced the same way and we are to assume the validity of each..... we must conclude that the conditions for each experience must be different in order for variety to exist just like in human social interaction.

So I don't think it's even a matter of defining a certain type of relationship from the get go. The very nature of relationships in general shows that the entropy of any such foundation will occur because of the dynamic fluidity of relations.

 

[chris4243]

what is a religion?

to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

[Robban]

How about Partnership?

 

[Tobias]

Christianity (and correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be rather fixed in the tenets. Sure, people can interpret a few things differently along the way but there isn't a lot of wiggle room for the important stuff. Hence all the "one true path" talk.

So, wouldn't a personal relationship imply that the Biblical god does not necessarily have a universal set of rules for everyone? That the personal relationship could vary? Shouldn't all the denominations get along with each other and shouldn't there be no problems with Christian homosexuals since they all have their own personal relationship?

As the theory goes, the willful practice of sin precludes an individual from relationship with Jesus. So when a Christian looks at his neighbor to see if he has a relationship, he simply is looking for evidence based upon his own personal belief of what is necessary for this relationship to occur. Heresy is also a sin, so it is often considered better to excommunicate first, and then ask questions later.


It would be a completely different world we live in if Christians had a more accurate way to determine who's living in a valid relationship with Jesus and who's not!

 

[chuck77]

What is a religion?

suprise me...

stu

The short answer: Religion is man reaching out to God.

The long answer: Christianity is God reaching out to man.


Suprised?

 

[chuck77]

Whether YOU like it or not, 99% of the world does!

Bruce

Curiously, what the world believes to be true about Christianity has no bearing on reality, Bruce.

 

[dlamberth]

I think it's a union.

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The short answer: Religion is man reaching out to God.

The long answer: Christianity is God reaching out to man.


Suprised?

No. It's a chewed-out phrase that's become somewhat of a cliché - and of course, can also be traced back to the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and 70s.

 

[TerranceL]

No. It's a chewed-out phrase that's become somewhat of a cliché - and of course, can also be traced back to the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and 70s.

HIPPIES DID IT?! I knew it.

It's always the hippies.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

HIPPIES DID IT?! I knew it.

It's always the hippies.

It was Christianity's attempt at assimilating hippies, not hippies themselves. I kinda like them. They were starry-eyed idealists, sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
If I could trade them for the Yuppies and their descendants, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.

 

[dlamberth]

The short answer: Religion is man reaching out to God.

The long answer: Christianity is God reaching out to man.


Suprised?

Sorry, but Christianity is not God.

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It was Christianity's attempt at assimilating hippies, not hippies themselves. I kinda like them. They were starry-eyed idealists, sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
If I could trade them for the Yuppies and their descendants, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.

To be fair, a lot who were involved at the forefront of the Jesus Movement were rather radical in religious circles. They weren't simply trying to appropriate the hippie movement, but represented both a cultural and ecclesiastical subversive element; subversive in that they did believe Jesus and Christianity had something more substantive than the status quo. In some ways it was American Evangelicalism that assimilated the Jesus Movement; two of America's significant Evangelical denominations, Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard were a product of the Jesus Movement. Lonnie Frisbee, one of the most prominent figures in the Jesus Movement was ultimately disowned by both churches when it came to light that he was gay.

-CryptoLutheran