Religion

[AAA]

You seem to want to ignore the fact that it was the religious majority that had Jesus crucified and if He came back today, as He did then, it would be the religious marjority that would reject Him. Some seem to take solice in the fact that they are in the mainstream of religious thought. In reality they should be extremely worried.

No, nothing in what I have written indicates that I "want to ignore the fact that it was the religious majority that had Jesus crucified and if He came back today, as He did then, it would be the religious marjority that would reject Him".

You, however, seem to want to ignore the plain meaning of the word religion.

Your particular version of religion is the belief that what is important is what your god has done for you, rather than the other way around. I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that your particular belief is itself, a religion. What separates your version has nothing to do with the definition of the word "religion", as much as you would like it to, because there is nothing about the word "religion" that requires or implies specific acts as opposed to specific beliefs.

I'm not really criticizing the point you are trying to make about acts and beliefs, but if I were you, I would try to find some way other than trying to re-define the word religion to make your point.

 

[RichardBurger]

You seem to want to ignore the fact that it was the religious majority that had Jesus crucified and if He came back today, as He did then, it would be the religious marjority that would reject Him. Some seem to take solice in the fact that they are in the mainstream of religious thought. In reality they should be extremely worried.

No, nothing in what I have written indicates that I "want to ignore the fact that it was the religious majority that had Jesus crucified and if He came back today, as He did then, it would be the religious marjority that would reject Him".

You, however, seem to want to ignore the plain meaning of the word religion.

Your particular version of religion is the belief that what is important is what your god has done for you, rather than the other way around. I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that your particular belief is itself, a religion. What separates your version has nothing to do with the definition of the word "religion", as much as you would like it to, because there is nothing about the word "religion" that requires or implies specific acts as opposed to specific beliefs.

I'm not really criticizing the point you are trying to make about acts and beliefs, but if I were you, I would try to find some way other than trying to re-define the word religion to make your point.

Well thanks, but no thanks, for your suggestion. There is not one word about what Jesus (God) did on the cross in the definition of religion. If there is show it to me. But you want to just shut your eyes to that fact. It seems to be your mission to make me change my mind and you will never do that.

There are no works that I do in religion. God did it all on the cross and He deserves ALL the credit and glory. ---- Now don’t go off on your tangent that I am saying I have never done a good work. But if and when I do a good work I don’t do it because it is a commandment. And I don’t do them to get credits before God or men. You can’t command good works any more than you can command someone to love somebody else. But the religious sure think it can be done.

 

[Free]

It seems to be your mission to make me change my mind and you will never do that.

And that about sums it up. :gah

 

[francisdesales]

In #1, you've just re-defined religion as "works and rituals", and excluded beliefs from that definition. Everybody accepts that the word religion includes having certain beliefs. I can re-define the word "salad" to mean "porkchops", but I'm going to have a hard time ordering supper tomorrow night.

MMM, pork chops...

 

[Adullam]

From the book “hard to believe†by John MacArthur.

Man-made and demon-designed systems of religion are based on the assumption that we don't really need a Savior, or aren't fully dependent on Him, because we have the capacity to develop our own righteousness. Just let God give us a little religious environment to aid our natural goodness, dispense a little power to us, or infuse a little strength into us. Give us a few rules, a few religious routines and rituals, and we'll crank up salvation on our own. The lie of human achievement comes under myriad different titles, but it's all the same system, because it's spawned out of the same source: Satan himself. He packages it in different boxes, but it's all the same product. On the other hand, the truth of divine accomplishment is Christianity. And it stands alone.

Tragically, most of humanity is religiously speeding down the wide highway of human achievement, convinced it's headed toward some fabulous heavenly destiny because of its own basic goodness, noble works, and religious deeds. By contrast, Jesus said the only true way to heaven is the narrow pathway of trusting Him alone as Lord and Savior.

The Jews taught that they could make it on their own. That's why it was so shocking when the apostle Paul said, "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom. 3:20). He also said that the law came in order to stop our mouths from any claim to righteousness and to render the whole world guilty before God. The Law came to show us our sinfulness, but when self-righteous, ego-centered man saw that he was sinful by the Law, he didn't want to face his sinfulness. Fallen people set their sinfulness aside and are constantly inventing new systems that accommodate their shortcomings, then affirming that they are okay before their gods, based on their own personal criteria or religious beliefs and behaviors.

This would appear to be going in the right direction but the conclusion is incorrect. All the verses must fit in for authenticity, and they don't here. If I have a puzzle I can't claim to have finished it and still have half the pieces in the box.

Here are a few verses that don't fit in to this hypothesis.

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Rom 2:13

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?†James 2:20

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Mat 7:24

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom. 2:16

He that "hath done that which is lawful and right shall live" (Ezek. 33:16).

"I give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (Jer. l7:10)

And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. Rev 20

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:27




Any scheme that leaves out obedience to the will of God is not of God. The gospel gives men the power over sin through the effective working of the blood of Christ. Jesus' sacrifice is not just something to believe in... but walk in.

 

[RichardBurger]

The NT teaches emphatically that it is impossible for any man to keep the perfect law of God and therefore impossible to be justified by law keeping. (see Acts 13:39, Rom. 3:20, Gal. 2:16, 21,3:11).

It was never God’s intention that anyone be saved by the law. In fact the law kills. Even if a person could keep it perfectly from this day forward, he still would not be justified, because God requires that which is past. So when Romans 2:13 says that doers of the law will be justified, we must understand it as meaning that the law demands obedience, and if anyone could produce perfect obedience from the day the person is born, he would be justified. But the cold, hard fact is that no one can produce this.

Paul’s intention is to show the above.