Originally posted by sonshipLet me be clear. I am not interested in your proselytizing on this thread. Nor am I interested in discussing your proselytizing. Don't do it for my benefit. I suggest you tee something up on another thread and I will join you there if I feel what you claim is relevant to me. Having said that, you are, of course, free to proselytize on this thread. Don't think that I am asking you to quit.
What have you proved by pointing this out [that the axioms or beliefs I mentioned form a theology]? [...] I prefer just that you grasp that Jesus Christ is a living Person.
That aside, as I have said to you before ~ twice now? Three times? ~ I am not seeking to "prove" something. I am simply interested in whether your fellow Christians [here at least] agree that re-defining "religion", so that it doesn't mean what it actually means, 'works well' in some way or whether it legitimately or coherently applies the stress you mentioned two posts ago "that Jesus Christ is a living Person".
Surely, "Jesus Christ is a living Person" is a tenet of the Christian religion that is not promoted or strengthened in any way by asserting "Christianity is not a religion"?
2 edits
Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Let me be clear. I am not interested in your proselytizing on this thread. Nor am I interested in discussing your proselytizing. [Don't do it for my benefit.
Sometime in discussing the New Testament the Holy Spirit begins to convict someone. That is not my proselytizing. That could simply be the Holy Spirit touching the conscience of someone.
I suggest you tee something up on another thread and I will join you there if I feel what you claim is relevant to me. Having said that, you are, of course, free to proselytize on this thread. Don't think that I am asking you to quit.
Did I answer your question about what Christians mean, I think, when they say "Christianity is not a religion"?
That aside, as I have said to you before ~ twice now? Three times? ~ I am not seeking to "prove" something. I am simply interested in whether your fellow Christians [here at least] agree that re-defining "religion", so that it doesn't mean what it actually means, 'works well' in some way or whether it legitimately or coherently applies the stress you mentioned two posts ago "that Jesus Christ is a living Person".
I don't know how or what some others would say.
We do not always, as you know, always express everything in exactly the same way - (Lord knows).
But often we all have a relationship in life with that living Person - the Lord Jesus.
Surely, "Jesus Christ is a living Person" is a tenet of the Christian religion that is not promoted or strengthened in any way by asserting "Christianity is not a religion"?
That is not my experience. For many it helps and continues to help some seekers to realize that the main matter is the living Person of Christ.
Saying "But that is a tenet" or "But that is a doctrine" or "But that is an item of teaching" ?
Yea. So ?
Its a matter like being on a desert island and someone comes with some food and a menu to go along with the food. You can EAT and live. Or you can study the MENU until you keel over and die of starvation.
That Jesus made it emphatic that we had to receive HIM was put in such words as are most memorable -
"As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)
He stressed taking Him in. He taught taking Him internally in our innermost spiritual being - eating Him to live by Him.
We may ask "Did you eat Jesus today ?"
Originally posted by sonshipWords are for communication. I don't see how deliberately distorting the meaning of the word "religion" lends your "Jesus is a living Person" doctrine any additional traction. You seem to be suggesting that distorting the meaning of the word religion "helps and continues to help some seekers" to be more certain about their religious beliefs. I think partisan wordplay of this kind undermines communication rather than enhances it.
For many [asserting that "Christianity is not a religion"] helps and continues to help some seekers to realize that the main matter is the living Person of Christ.
Saying "But that is a tenet" or "But that is a doctrine" or "But that is an item of teaching" ?
Yea. So ?
2 edits
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiAs a footnote on "communication":
I think partisan wordplay of this kind undermines communication rather than enhances it.
"Christianity is not a religion" is a Grampy Bobby catchphrase. On a personal level, he does not come across to me as much of a spiritual person per se ~ more as a kind of 'Christian technocrat', whose status is dependent on obfuscating terminology (like technocrats the world over ~ communicating conventionally is frequently not their objective!), a myriad of self-serving bits of circular logic, and odd quirks like capitalizing words incorrectly apparently in order to give assertions some kind of sanctified or portentous air.
It is, to me anyway, revealing that the foremost propagator of the "Christianity is not a religion" meme on this forum has so far demonstrated no interest in discussion of what is, after all, his own often-trotted-out catchphrase [itself something that has parallels with unresponsive technocrats in the 'real world'].
Instead he is busy reposting identical and repeated technocratic screeds over and over again across multiple threads elsewhere! 🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Words are for communication. I don't see how deliberately distorting the meaning of the word "religion" lends your "Jesus is a living Person" doctrine any additional traction. You seem to be suggesting that distorting the meaning of the word religion "helps and continues to help some seekers" to be more certain about their religious beliefs. I think partisan wordplay of this kind undermines communication rather than enhances it.
In the situation of the tares and the wheat, I said that the custom of most of the world is to regard the whole conglomerate of true and false Christians as "Christianity."
Do you think it is "partisan" for believers in Christ to want to help some people discriminate between the real experience of knowing Christ from a facade of knowing Christ ?
1 edit
Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Like I said. I am not interested in your proselytizing. Don't do it for my benefit.
We may ask "Did you eat Jesus today ?"
NB:
Like I said. I am not interested in your proselytizing. Don't do it for my benefit.
I am interested in speaking well and accurately about the Spirituality of the Christian experience.
If every reply sounds like it is getting too personal to you, that is just the nature of how I discuss genuine "Spirituality" as it relates to Jesus.
This is the Spirituality Forum.
Originally posted by sonshipThe "real experience of knowing Christ" that Christians such as yourself purport to have had can surely be communicated without hijacking vocabulary. I don't endorse distorting language for partisan purposes.
Do you think it is "partisan" for believers in Christ to want to help some people discriminate between the real experience of knowing Christ from a facade of knowing Christ ?
2 edits
Nick,
Language changes. Words take on new meanings.
For example the word Hell.
If I said "Everyone who is saved and dies goes to Hell" [which actually is true] would you understand what I really meant ?
I would be using the word Hell as it really originally was intended.
But culture and religion has changed the meaning somewhat.
So it is not necessarily "partisan" to embark on a discussion on how the word has taken on a new connotation.
PS - sometimes I forget to his the reply button.
Originally posted by sonshipWell I did not "eat Jesus" today. I shall just consider myself proselytized. 🙂We may ask "Did you eat Jesus today ?"
NB:
Like I said. I am not interested in your proselytizing. Don't do it for my benefit.
I am interested in speaking well and accurately about the [b]Spirituality of the Christian experience.
If every reply sounds like it is getting too personal to you, that is just the nature of how I ...[text shortened]... scuss genuine "Spirituality" as it relates to Jesus.
This is the Spirituality Forum.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiGood luck in winning some converts to your doctrine there Nick.
I realize that "Christianity is not a religion" is not a conventional Christian claim, nor is it one that is made by most Christians.
It's an interesting claim nevertheless.
I will offer a rebuttal.
Christianity advocates a belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny.
Christianity has members by virtue of their common subsc ...[text shortened]... ligion.
Who wants to make the case in favor of the motion: "Christianity is not a religion"?
You might just pick up a few recruits.
Way to go.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThe poster who bandies the "Christianity is not a religion" catchphrase about the most here - Grampy Bobby - is evidently refusing to embark on a discussion on how the word might or might not have taken on a legitimate new connotation, and I presume that this is because his distortion of the vocabulary is most certainly being attempted for partisan reasons. But I know you don't speak for him. You on the other hand seem to be making a case for the word "religion" being available as a tool for Christians engaged in holier-than-thou bickering.
[...] it is not necessarily "partisan" to embark on a discussion on how the word has taken on a new connotation.
Originally posted by sonshipI don't have a "doctrine". And I am not seeking to pick up "converts" or "recruits". You are the proselytizer, not me.
Good luck in winning some converts to your doctrine there Nick.
You might just pick up a few recruits.
Way to go.
Incidentally, what do you make of the definition of religion implicitly/explicitly laid out in the OP?