Or to use a less appetizing example, it’s like if one person said “So I think A is true, and you think A is false. Right?” and the other person responded “Wrong. You mistakenly believe that A is true, and I know that A is false.”
That sounds more like the description of a hypocrite.
I have no arguement, I was agreeing with your post in relation to “cheesy taglines” etc being something that makes one appear to be religious usually in a superior attitude. Of course anyone can be a hypocrite without being religious.
I like your thoughts here. The original posting question could have been asked without the quotation marks on the word religion. Makes a difference to how I interpret the word.
seen your reply to me, and responded, should have read the rest of thread before responding , sorrry…The Jews had Scriptoria (a kind of library or storage area) containing scrolls belonging to what we now consider to be the scrolls of the Old Testament. They didn’t have “a Bible” in the sense that we understand that term today, and they didn’t have any particular set canon. Some Jews kept only the five books of the Law, while others kept several others besides, anywhere from 36 to 52 different scrolls, depending on the region and depending on the tastes of the local Rabbi.
Thanks, I have not made myself clear really. Sometimes when I go back and look at what I posted i wonder why I didn’t say something differently. To me a merely religious person is one who knows about God, meets all the expectations of behaviour etc within whatever church but can’t tell you who Christ is to them because they do not know Him.
there many good people who are religious yet live very quiet lives. No one notices them.
I know of the type of people you use as an example,(of being merely religious) and i would be willing to bet that other people would not use the term religious or merely religious when
describing these people.
I have failed in understanding what is meant by being merely religious.
If you want to be “saved” then you had better be “religious” I think.
there many good people who are religious yet live very quiet lives. No one notices them.
I know of the type of people you use as an example,(of being merely religious) and i would be willing to bet that other people would not use the term religious or merely religious when
describing these people.
I have failed in understanding what is meant by being merely religious.
The Jews still considered the scrolls (which are still used today) to be Torah / Holy Scripture, and if I recall, God gave the Torah to the Jews. It really is their Bible with the New Testament added to it.The Jews had Scriptoria (a kind of library or storage area) containing scrolls belonging to what we now consider to be the scrolls of the Old Testament. They didn’t have “a Bible” in the sense that we understand that term today, and they didn’t have any particular set canon. Some Jews kept only the five books of the Law, while others kept several others besides, anywhere from 36 to 52 different scrolls, depending on the region and depending on the tastes of the local Rabbi.
It was Pope St. Innocent I who promulgated the first settled canon of the Scriptures to the Catholic Church, back in the late 400s AD, for the use of St. Jerome so that he would know which books he was supposed to translate and make into the world’s first Bible as we now understand it, and this is the basis of the Bible that we know and love today.
God inspired Jews to write the Torah, and the Law, and the Wisdom. and the Prophets - yes. The Jews didn’t have a set canon of the Scriptures, other than the Torah (which consists of five books) so when we think of what the Catholic Church added to the Jewish canon of Scripture, it’s not only the New Testament, but also most of the Old Testament, as well.
Using your description the same person could easily do what you stated in the top quoted post.
I would disagree. Perhaps one of our Jewish friends would like to take this up.
Since it’s off topic, let’s not, but last time it came up, we were informed that the Jews don’t worry about it too much.
For Christianity to not be a religion, the term has to be re-defined in a unique way. The answer to the question is dependent on whether you put any value in rhetoric devoid of meaning, or whether you think we should allow words to mean what they naturally mean.
Of course Christianity still has aspects of religion. But you see, Jesus did not come to start a new religion because there was nothing wrong with Judaism. It already was the perfect religion because it was established by God. It only lacked someone who was capable of perfectly fulfilling it.Jesus fulfilled the requirements of religion for those who trust in Him. Now we can relate to God on a personal basis rather than a religious basis of keeping the law and all the requirements of religion. Notice that in the NT there are not even any celebrations or feasts or new moons to observe except for the Lord’s Supper which has nothing to do with a specific day. Is this making sense?
This is a self-contradicting statement.
Indeed, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. That is a Catholic teaching. However, it is not even relevant to what is being discussed.
But if you think I am still not understanding you, I am open to more explanation on your part if you care to.I will explain something another way. I am a Mexican American. We are called “Chicanos” For many years, I never liked being called a “Chicano” I simply wanted to be called a Mexican American. I did not even know where the heck the word “Chicano” came from. I did not care what people though I was, I was not “Chicano” in my eyes for various reasons. Then one day I was explaining that I did not like being called a “Chicano” to my friend and that I was NOT a “Chicano” My friend pulled out a dictionary and asked me to look up the word “Chicano” I did… It said “Someone of Mexican decent who was born in the united states”… I was a “Chicano” by definition no matter what my reasoning and argument was to say “I am not a Chicano” LOLIndeed, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. That is a Catholic teaching. However, it is not even relevant to what is being discussed.
So Christianity is not a religion because God did not come to start a new religion? We know God did not come to start a new religion. I have never heard a Catholic say that or read that in Catholic literature. This is not a theological debate. It is if Christianity fits the definition of religion. It does according to the dictionary. Even if all Christians, Catholic or non Catholic AND Jews were to unanimously agree tomorrow that no Christian or Jew shall ever refer to Christianity OR Judaism as religion, it would still fit the definition of religion. No more, no less. That is all I am saying. Did The Jews only know God on a religious and not a “personal” basis?
I guess what I am saying is that I do understand what you are trying to say in a way but what you said is not really relevant to whether Christianity can be considered a religion or not, according to the real definition of religion. If you want to explain your position further, I will gladly listen. I probably will not agree
It’s funny, because when I first saw the topic question I thought the thrust of the discussion was going to be whether Christianity is one religion. There are so many different strains of Jesus-believing people I cannot imagine how they are subsumed under one religion called Christianity. In what sense are Catholicism, Reformed Calvinisim and Seventh Day Adventism all the same religion? So some broke apart in the fourth century, some in the 16th and some in the 20th, but the differences are so vast they are different religions. Is a Catholic “allowed” to go to a Baptist church and participate? I also find it interesting that there’s this whole discussion of whether LDS are Christians. But from a Catholic viewpoint, Lutherans are Christians? I guess you can define them as Christians because they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity but heretics for other reasons. So they’re heretical Christians, but LDS aren’t even that. Whatever, I don’t get it!
You make some excellent points. There are certainly some huge differences in the foundational assumptions behind all these different forms of Christianity.
