You’re thinking of the sentencing.
I still stand by my claim, there is nothing new to judge. There is “a great judgment” coming that will reveal the truth for all to see, but the outcome is predetermined. The unmerciful in heart will not escape.
Unless they repent?
Really, you should not dwell on such things. They are none of your concern. Leave the judgeing to God. If you discern ill intent then avoid it. If you are a victim then forgive it. Ours is not to reap vengeance or justice.
Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Judge not or be judged.
Hmm, we seem to have got off the subject.
About the purpose of religion? Not to sit in judgement that’s for sure.
Richard
1 Like
Self-defamation does not appease, nor is it an excuse to defame others. Your attempt at humour has failed twice. I am not amused.
Richard
No joke. I really am a bigot. No joking . No humour
I just have the guts to admit it
We are going around in circles Richard because you ignore what I say.
I did leave judgment to God, there is nothing left to judge that is not already judged. You keep insisting I shouldn’t judge, I don’t have to. The trial is over.
If I do something out of hatred, will you open a trial and let me try to justify my hatred. As if hatred is justifiable? NO! Call out my hatred in spite of everything else and sentence me just on acting out of hatred. No new trial or new judgment is needed. Go strait to sentencing.
Regardless of their topic, even if 100% true. I will kick them out (a sentence) for their attitude. Did I judge something new? No. Anger has already been judged, I don’t have to judge it again, the only thing left is the punishment (sentence). “I don’t allow anger here, leave now!”
Repent means to change your mind. My reference was on the day of the trial, changing your mind because you are forced to, or to evade punishment won’t count. Even in today’s courts.
I read the following as if you add anything else, as many do, then it is no longer pure or acceptable to God.
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
As a side: I do note the ones being mentioned above have a common theme of not being at fault. I’ve always taken that to mean Christians do not have to help people out of the messes they get themselves in just because we’re a Christian. And supports the “don’t cast your pearls before swine” idea.
James is primarily concerned with the practicalities of Faith. Faith without deeds is worthless being the most remembered. I do not tink this qute of yours was a complete definition of religion especially when you couple it to the previous verse giving the following
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world
Certainly how we behave is an expression of out faith, and negativity reflects badly, but there is more to faith and religion than doing good works.
What James is really addressing is the idea that Christians may not need to do good works to be forgiven but that does not mean they do not need to do good works at all.
But as Christ HImself said, good works are a fruit of true faith so should come naturally.
Richard
Religion consists of beliefs which guide behavior. But it can be about many different things.
It most certainly is not behavioral psychology concerned only with understanding human behavior, nor is it behavioral conditioning concerned only with methods for modifying human behavior.
In Isaiah chapter 1, God makes it crystal clear that behavior matters more, and that religion which does not bring a change in behavior is nothing but tiresome and of no value.
I don’t think so. It has more to do with your own personal identity and choices.
??? matter to whom and what ???
I believe in a gospel of salvation by the grace of God and neither a gospel of salvation by works nor a Gnostic gospel of salvation by believing the “right things.” So Pascal’s wager is nonsense.
But why should what is socially acceptable be the standard, and why would behaving according to something like that be the only thing that matters?
All matters of truth are important to those who love the truth. And the truth is that Jesus was NOT the first to have said this. Confucius said the same thing 5 centuries earlier. Of course it was a different language so different words were used obviously.
Indeed. I think has seemed to many here that this describes you as well. It is probably the nature of the discussion forum.
I am not sure that is accurate. The following verse seems to define religion as the action based on beliefs, as if beliefs is not the context of religion, but religion is confined to the actions.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
My reading is it does not list any beliefs, but the actions as the religion. Analogous to religion being just the engine, not the car.
As a side reading, I also note the verse is claiming that if we add anything else then it is no longer pure or acceptable as a religion or religious practice.
Thoughts?
Maybe not 100% but perhaps 99% LOL
James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
this echoes Isaiah chapter 1 which I mentioned in my own post
12 “When you come to appear before me,
who requires of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread forth your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow.
The passage itself is a belief which guides behavior. 
INCOHERENT. The passage is verse 27 of an entire chapter which is one chapter of a book with 5 chapters which is only one of 66 books in the Bible. To claim that this passage means all the rest of the Bible makes religion impure is just absurd. So I am sure that last phrase (“keep oneself unstained from the world”) refers to something quite different contrasting with first sentence. I think what it is talking about is the “dog eat dog” cynical self-serving standard of the world which sees all other people as something to use and climb over in order to do well in life.
Then perhaps you read me wrong. I have never tried to recruit. There is bound to be an element of certainty when posting beliefs and when challenging another. As I see it the point of discussion is to explain where our beliefs come from rather than dictating that others must agree with us. If someone posts a controversial or conflicting interpretation of scripture I see no problem in “correcting” them. You have done this elsewhere and I have answered it. But it is still your belief and miine rather than some sort of competition as to which is correct or not.
Richard
Reworded for clarity.
Our difference is the definition of religion. I am suggesting as does the verse that religion is an action verb. Your definition is both verb and noun, they can’t be separated. Are you sure?
The following are translated to “religion”
Threskeia: Definition
- religious worship
- esp. external, that which consists of ceremonies
1. religious discipline
For the “customs” H2708 חקּה
Chuqqah statute , ordinance , custom , appointed , manners , rites
Being consistent with the verse I mentioned. Religion is the acts , rites, rituals of a belief. An error is like me insisting the engine means the automobile too.
James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
So to me, the verse says it you add any other ritual to acts of Christianity, then it is not pure or acceptable.
p.s. I’m discussing, not insisting.
No. It does not say anything of the kind. Taking passages out of context and making them singular absolutes is a distortion of the meaning of the text.
Like I said, it reflects back on Isaiah chapter one in which God repudiates religion which consists ONLY of meetings, ritual, and worship but does not change human behavior specifically as mentioned by both Isaiah 1 and James 1:27, caring for widows and orphans (and this is primarily because these have been largely neglected and defenseless in the world, while Jesus extends this to all who are in desperate need Matt 25).
“Religion,” whether in the English or the Greek, is a noun. PERIOD.
We can quote the Bible to consider what it has to say about many topics. But it is not a dictionary any more than it is science text.
When studying religion of the world in general, the only rule is that there are none. Few human activities are so difficult to define as religion. They do not seek to do the same things or or answer the same questions. They only address the questions which they themselves ask and consider important.
As for Christianity I will not agree with any Marcion like effort to chop Christianity down to any small pieces of it. It consists and always has consisted of a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. It is not going to bother me if someone says their church is the forest and their gospel love. But I will repudiate an insistence that Christianity is no more than this. It is foolish to remake the God and the world in ones own image alone.
So are claiming that denominational differences are important or divisive? And, are they a necessary means of finding the “flavour” of Christianity that most suits you? Or is that trying to remake God to personal taste? Where does individuality fit into your view of things?
Richard
Diversity of thought is as important to the survival of Christianity (and human civilization in general) as the diversity of human genetics is needed for the survival of the species.
The only alternative to finding what (in Christianity) you can believe in is simply not believe (in Christianity) at all.
It is only remaking God and the world in your own image when you insist that everyone must think and do things your own way.
Probably too high of an emphasis. It was how I was raised… as if individuality was more important than anything else. Learning the problems with this is one of my life long challenges.
I did not use the bible for the definitions as you insist. “PERIOD” grin
Insistence has killed the exploration I was hoping for. We’re done.
It rather flies against the “one way” syndrome which is prevalent in Christianity and maybe even more so in philosophy. Trying to find a balance between a specific truth and an alternative belief would be problematic at best. And religion does like to be unique and exclusive.
Richard
I wasn’t raised Christian but by extreme liberals.
And then I went and explored Christianity on my own disdaining any guidance from a church.
So, I fly my own path on that issue to say there is not one way or many ways, but no way. Too much of Christianity (like Calvinism and the articles of remonstrance) is built on entitlement. My answer to that is Jesus’ words “With men this is impossible.” The gospel of Jesus and Paul is salvation by the grace of God and not the Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowledge (of dogma). And faith is primarily an acceptance of this to do (and believe) what is right for its own sake (and that is how I incorporate the words of James).
Ending up as orthodox as I am is quite a surprise: Trinitarian, not universalist, historical Genesis… Though there are definitely areas where I am not even close to following the crowd: open theist, views on atonement more like Eastern Orthodox, hell as something we do to ourselves…
Is that how you see mainstream Christianity?
I was brought up as a son of the manse. My father was a Methodist minister. Faith and God were second nature. At 15 I decided that it must be a lie. I told God that He did not exist (as only a precocious child can) Within 24 hours I decided that I needed God to exist. (Not really a good start on true faith) But the more I lived with that notion and the more I looked and learned the more my faith has grown. I was not going to follow my father! I was not going to be a preacher!
I am not ordained, not for want of trying but I was first too young and then too old. I have been a Lay preacher for 40 years. I am not really orthodox although I tow the party line when leading worship in the name of the denomination in question.
My problem is compassion. The hard-line Christian exclusivity does not wash. And neither, as you know, does any sort of human endemic evil. The usual form is Original sin, but yours is equally abhorrent to me.
As I have matured my thrust has been to preach a Gospel that helps people rather than condemns or frightens them. I do not think that I water it down as such, but I tend to gloss over the nasty bits. I preach repentance, and preach against bigotry or asking for forgiveness when there is no repentance, and they would do the same again. If you are a Christian there are standards, but if you are not then I do not ram it down people’s throats. I have even encouraged someone on this forum to explore their ideas of a corporate consciousness as opposed to a cental God.
I have enjoyed getting to know you and apologise if my trying to fathom you out has offended you.
Richard
Richard
What are you calling “mainstream Christianity?”
World Christianity, the majority of which accepts evolution?
The Roman Catholic Church?
Or are you taking about the majority in one small portion of the world?
The heart of which is John 14:6 right?
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
My response is… well duh… Jesus and the Father are one. There is no one without the other. This does not say… no way to God except by Christianity or no way to heaven except by chanting the name of Jesus or no salvation without accepting approved doctrines.
exclusivity??? I don’t have any. God is not the property of any religion.
Yes… you are a little incoherently irrational on that subject.
repentance of what? This is the incoherent part. Why should people repent if they have no sin?
oh I see… you go around judging people… saying to one you must repent… but not you or you… but definitely you…
BUT… if your point is that we should not teach people they have sin as a matter of doctrine and therefore must repent. WELL… I agree! Unless people realize and understand their own sin then repentance is pointless! Having little kids accept by rote that they have sin and have them go through the words and motion of repentance is a bit of a distortion… kinda sickening actually.