Religion Vs. Faith

24 posts

Flag Post

Not everyone who believes in God is religious.

Religion is an easy target. It’s a human establishment, full of doctrines, hypocrisy, politics, social hierarchy, and sin. Religion is not God.

The personal life changing relationship people have with God is just that, personal, and life changing. Believers often tolerate the environment of religion because they are looking for God, but religion is trying to take out a monopoly Him.

It’s not fair to generalize people based on what you see and hear from television. I believe in the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was a friend of prostitutes, minority groups, social outcasts, and thieving tax collectors. He believed God’s love and forgiveness was for everyone. He hated religion because religion makes it impossible to have a relationship with God.

He believed this so strongly that he died for it.

 
Flag Post

So are you saying that having ‘faith’ in Jesus is not a ‘religious’ faith?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

So are you saying that having ‘faith’ in Jesus is not a ‘religious’ faith?

Great summary. Yes, I believe there is a big difference between faith in Jesus and his teachings, and adherence to the church and it’s politics and doctrines.

There is also a very big difference between believers, the institutionalized church, and the way both a presented in the media.

 
Flag Post

both are stupid.

i mean great that you found someone that inspires you. someone to be an example for you; that has a world vision and attitude about life that you persue to emulate. great.

stop turning it into something supernatural; dogmatising it; deviding people based on it; and exalt yourself to something so complacent and bigoted and self-absorbed it fringes homocidal psychotic psychopathy.

there are many people that can be a great inspiration, and with Jesus-and-co’s less popular teachings that often get conveniantly overlooked many are BETTER than this.

 
Flag Post

I also found the philosophical impact and veneration of the morality system of Jesus pretty few and far between the various Christians religions. I was young and raised Roman Catholic, and like you I believe, I identified with a more independent interpretation of the Jesus mythos as I became increasingly disenchanted with Christian behavior and theology. In time I shed the divinity aspect, and eventually took interest in other figures all together.

So, like others, I would ask you what aspects of Jesus’ philosophy requires divinity to justify it? If he was simply a man, would things still mean the same thing – or perhaps even more?

Secondly I would recommend looking into some of the Gnostic heresies relating to Christ. They often focus on the picture and presentation of Jesus that is rather pointedly overlooked by large religious organizations. Perhaps no coincidence they deemed heretical. Gospel of Thomas is not a bad place to start. I can’t speak to it’s veracity as a holy text, but it is certainly food for thought that a large number of people never wanted you to read.

Omega Doom:
Easy now. I also think the supernatural is the wrong path to take, however, thinking something is supernatural is a long way from establishing a whole dogma full of “complacent and bigoted and self-absorbed it fringes homocidal psychotic psychopathy.” – You seem to be blaming him for all the ills any religion ever committed and I dare say that was one of his points. As for these “BETTER” philosophers are there any in particular you would care to suggest?

 
Flag Post

ITT: Diarrhea Vs. Poop

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I also found the philosophical impact and veneration of the morality system of Jesus pretty few and far between the various Christians religions. I was young and raised Roman Catholic, and like you I believe, I identified with a more independent interpretation of the Jesus mythos as I became increasingly disenchanted with Christian behavior and theology. In time I shed the divinity aspect, and eventually took interest in other figures all together.

So, like others, I would ask you what aspects of Jesus’ philosophy requires divinity to justify it? If he was simply a man, would things still mean the same thing – or perhaps even more?

Secondly I would recommend looking into some of the Gnostic heresies relating to Christ. They often focus on the picture and presentation of Jesus that is rather pointedly overlooked by large religious organizations. Perhaps no coincidence they deemed heretical. Gospel of Thomas is not a bad place to start. I can’t speak to it’s veracity as a holy text, but it is certainly food for thought that a large number of people never wanted you to read.

Omega Doom:
Easy now. I also think the supernatural is the wrong path to take, however, thinking something is supernatural is a long way from establishing a whole dogma full of “complacent and bigoted and self-absorbed it fringes homocidal psychotic psychopathy.” – You seem to be blaming him for all the ills any religion ever committed and I dare say that was one of his points. As for these “BETTER” philosophers are there any in particular you would care to suggest?

I respect this position. My faith has been reinforced by experiences which I consider to be supernatural as a result of having a relationship with God through Jesus. It just ‘works’ for me, with me, and through me; the power of God manifest in Providence. That is my position.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

both are stupid.

i mean great that you found someone that inspires you. someone to be an example for you; that has a world vision and attitude about life that you persue to emulate. great.

stop turning it into something supernatural; dogmatising it; deviding people based on it; and exalt yourself to something so complacent and bigoted and self-absorbed it fringes homocidal psychotic psychopathy.

there are many people that can be a great inspiration, and with Jesus-and-co’s less popular teachings that often get conveniantly overlooked many are BETTER than this.

What are you basing these comments on? Is it based on some preconceived misconception, or something I actually said or did. Do you see how what you posted could be interpreted as offensive and irrelevant to the topic?

 
Flag Post

uhm…it seems very relevant, and if the truth is offensive, well…

As for these “BETTER” philosophers are there any in particular you would care to suggest?

how about Socrates? Spinoza? uhm, Kant? Russell?

i don’t actually read long texts. heh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…it seems very relevant, and if the truth is offensive, well…

As for these “BETTER” philosophers are there any in particular you would care to suggest?

how about Socrates? Spinoza? uhm, Kant? Russell?

i don’t actually read long texts. heh.

What is truth?

 
Flag Post

wow…that’s a major philosophical question there friend. that’s like, perhaps the hardest question of all.

if i were to take a swing at it, i’d say it’s … no, sorry, i can’t get any further than “not false”, or such circular explanation. ask an epistomologist.

 
Flag Post

Truth is something real.
But real depends on your view of reality.
Thus, as long as your view of reality pushes mine away, we won’t reach a common truth.
But if we’re talking about the ultimate truth, it’s something that reaches beyond our personal realities and actually combines them.
Our task is to find it.
And for that, we need an open mind and a closed brain. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

So are you saying that having ‘faith’ in Jesus is not a ‘religious’ faith?

Great summary. Yes, I believe there is a big difference between faith in Jesus and his teachings, and adherence to the church and it’s politics and doctrines.

There is also a very big difference between believers, the institutionalized church, and the way both a presented in the media.

So, Jesus yes, but the Church no? Jesus is right, but the Church is wrong?

Jesus said this:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And this:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

So, do you still believe in Jesus but not the Church?

 
Flag Post

Who says that what has become of the church today is what Jesus had in mind?

 
Flag Post

I respect this position. My faith has been reinforced by experiences which I consider to be supernatural as a result of having a relationship with God through Jesus. It just ‘works’ for me, with me, and through me; the power of God manifest in Providence. That is my position.

That is a very hard position to politely argue against. I cannot say I believe in miracles, nor can I say I have experienced any. So, without seeming rude, I would have to suggest you are mistaken; at best. That said, would you share the nature of such occurrences of providence through you? In order to address them pointedly, I would have to be familiar with them.

how about Socrates? Spinoza? uhm, Kant? Russell? i don’t actually read long texts. heh.

Well there you have it.

So as impressed as I am by lists of famous people, can’t say I am all that swayed. Certainly there are other philosophers worth reading, perhaps better, perhaps worse. But lets not pretend that your opinion in that matter has the least to do with any philosophical or moral standpoint of theirs; it’s simply an extension of your contempt for Christianity as a whole. Even as you criticize others for overlooking notable philosophers as a consequence of their narrow mindedness you are really only highlighting the exact same behavior in yourself.

Jesus said this:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Okay, first of all. Non literal interpretation I would suggest is paramount, which throws a stick in alot of the accepted dogma. Which, surprise, was of course perpetuated by “the Church” at large. Secondly, can the Roman Catholic Church actually trace it’s succession of leaders back to Peter? No of course not.

So, Jesus suggested a church related to Peter. It seems a rather large stretch to suggest this is a direct endorsement of the orthodoxy of dogma practiced by any church. Both by questions of succession and what is actually meant by a church. More on that below.

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I think you are confusing the word church with “The Roman Catholic Church”. The word church, in the Gospels, is better understood by the original greek word used, Ecclesia. Which Church is a poor, and likely motivated, translation for (unlike Ecclesia which has a democratic bent, Church has a feudal one. But that is a whole other conversation). Ecclesia most literally signifies “out-called” perhaps better understood by “summoned” or the most frequent translation of “assembly.” Now Ecclesia, is a greek word, with a long greek history. It was the major general assembly in Athens for ages long before Christ. It was a word with associations of law, order, common culture and duty; as well as a mess of people. So Jesus, in telling someone that when someone sins against you, first deal with it private, then with a few people, then with alot of people – perhaps “our people”.

All of this has little to nothing to do with the RCC. Furthermore it is not even an endorsement of dogmatic orthodoxy. In fact, quite amusingly, it is exactly the opposite. It advices not bringing to the “church” any matter which cannot first be addressed with fewer people.

 
Flag Post

You’re simply stating that one meaning of the word religion/faith is not the same as another meaning of those words… That’s nothing new, many words have different meanings and different interpretations depending on their usage… It’s not because 2 words (religion/faith) can sometimes be used for approximately the same thing that they can always be used that way! :P
Try a “define: religion” and “define: faith” on google and this topic is solved. LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Tetsuo_Shima:


Try a “define: religion” and “define: faith” on google and this topic is solved. LOL

1. Tried google search and found 974,000,000 results for “define: religion”.
2. Tried google search and found 617,000,000 results for “define: faith”.

Please don’t say pick the top link, that would just mean that all other definitions are false, as the top link is most popular/visited.
Its like asking everyone what do you think faith and religion means. It has a different meaning to each one according to their life experience(s). Although faith is most likely to boil down to the same end-meaning for most people, religion on the other hand is something that changes with people.

 
Flag Post

Religion is a system, faith is an attitude – unless when used as full synonyms.
As simple as it could be.
The rest doesn’t matter after we accept the aforementioned.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by heavenlyray:
Originally posted by Tetsuo_Shima:


Try a “define: religion” and “define: faith” on google and this topic is solved. LOL

1. Tried google search and found 974,000,000 results for “define: religion”.
2. Tried google search and found 617,000,000 results for “define: faith”.

Please don’t say pick the top link, that would just mean that all other definitions are false, as the top link is most popular/visited.
Its like asking everyone what do you think faith and religion means. It has a different meaning to each one according to their life experience(s). Although faith is most likely to boil down to the same end-meaning for most people, religion on the other hand is something that changes with people.

I don’t think I’m even going to dignify you with an exhaustive response here, try googling on how to use google and what a dictionary is for! Also try reading what I wrote instead of reading a single line out of context! =D

 
Flag Post

I’m not arguing which Church is “real” or not, and certainly never meant that it would be the Roman Catholic Church. I’m only pointing out that to say that Jesus was good, but the church is bad, when Jesus gave authority to the Church, is misinformed.

Personally, I go to a non-denominational Church, which is an autonomous group of people who attempt to follow the Bible as well as possible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Azolf:
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

So are you saying that having ‘faith’ in Jesus is not a ‘religious’ faith?

Great summary. Yes, I believe there is a big difference between faith in Jesus and his teachings, and adherence to the church and it’s politics and doctrines.

There is also a very big difference between believers, the institutionalized church, and the way both a presented in the media.

So, Jesus yes, but the Church no? Jesus is right, but the Church is wrong?

Jesus said this:
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And this:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

So, do you still believe in Jesus but not the Church?

You said it yourself, that Christ would build his Church starting with Peter. Peter followed Jesus, yet most Christians seem keen on following the teachings of Paul, many of which are in conflict with the teachings of Christ.

 
Flag Post
Well there you have it.

So as impressed as I am by lists of famous people, can’t say I am all that swayed. Certainly there are other philosophers worth reading, perhaps better, perhaps worse. But lets not pretend that your opinion in that matter has the least to do with any philosophical or moral standpoint of theirs; it’s simply an extension of your contempt for Christianity as a whole. Even as you criticize others for overlooking notable philosophers as a consequence of their narrow mindedness you are really only highlighting the exact same behavior in yourself.

how in the world did you come up with that? i am merely speaking out against dogmatising, mythifying etc of someone you consider an example. if people were to solely, exclusivistically revere Socrates that way, i would speak out against it as well, obviously.

do you please have a better retort than this, because this was absolute nonsense that you just made up.

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

I’m not arguing which Church is “real” or not, and certainly never meant that it would be the Roman Catholic Church. I’m only pointing out that to say that Jesus was good, but the church is bad, when Jesus gave authority to the Church, is misinformed.
Personally, I go to a non-denominational Church, which is an autonomous group of people who attempt to follow the Bible as well as possible.

I may have inferred too much on your end, sorry about that. I kind of got caught up on a tangent. Nevertheless. I do feel I have two questions to undercut your assertions. When did Jesus give authority to the church? What exactly “is” a church? – I know the latter seems a trivial semantics dispute. But if you consider that you are suggesting the transfer of divine orthodoxy – pretty much the biggest thing ever – then, the exact semantics of “Church” becomes rather important.

OmegaDoom,

how in the world did you come up with that? i am merely speaking out against dogmatising, mythifying etc of someone you consider an example. if people were to solely, exclusivistically revere Socrates that way, i would speak out against it as well, obviously.
do you please have a better retort than this, because this was absolute nonsense that you just made up.

What you suggest now seems fine enough and I have no dispute with. Nevertheless, I find it a little different then what you previously said, but it doesn’t really matter. I agree that the dogmatizing and the mystification of a figure is problematic. We both agree, I believe, that it is rather pertinent to the Jesus mythos. I would just like to suggest that there is thought provoking philosophy in there worth consideration. First, at the level of mass presentation, the big dogma, big religion, big show as we know it. But further then that, there is what came before that – what remains when the rest is stripped away or reconsidered. That stuff I must say I have personally found very interesting.

 
Flag Post

Yah earheam hadued