(May 21, 2013 at 9:41 am)Tonus Wrote: We have one or two of them here, don't we? If I am not mistaken, enrico and goodnews eschew religion for a direct personal relationship with god, Jesus, or "the spiritual." Some people abandon religion because they're at odds with a particular teaching or doctrine(s); they still believe in god or Jesus, but are soured by their experiences with religion and decide that Jesus didn't want no religion after all. Which strikes me as another case of shaping your beliefs to fit your circumstances.

I've seen others state that the Bible doesn't support the idea of an earthly organization or congregation, and that Christians were meant to be a sort of loose association bound by their acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. Which means that in addition to the tens of thousands of different denominations of Christianity, you have countless additional "personal relationships with god" to contend with.

but I guess you got it right?

why would we even question people trying to change based on new information? Going from what grandma told me to what we see today? You guys actually find that bad? It is bad to change over time?

Fitting what "you think" to what is going on around you is bad?
really, guy?

(May 20, 2013 at 6:54 pm)swata224 Wrote: "I'm a Christian and I have a relationship with Christ but I don't believe in religion."

I'm just wanting a bit of help deciphering what motive would be behind this oxymoronic statement, and maybe a bit of insight into why someone would believe this?

Hi, swata224. Being a Christian, I might be able to offer some insight.

This statement comes from a general desire to distance oneself from the the word "religion" and any of the negative connotations that it might have; the word has become somewhat taboo, particularly in more liberal circles,(for lack of a better word) but increasingly, the idea that Christianity is not a religion is finding its way even further into conservative territory.

The Christians who want to avoid being labeled as "religious" tend to entertain the false notion that the word "religion" is necessarily synonymous with words such as "legalism, Pharisaism, judgementalism, etc." Another false notion they oft entertain is the notion that Jesus of Nazareth taught against practicing religion.

As for motive: I generally try not to psychoanalyze people via a second-hand account of them, over the internet, but let me offer a hypothesis:

People who subscribe to this view generally also subscribe to the view that people(atheists, for example) "may not be interested in religion, but perhaps they would be interested in a relationship with Jesus Christ." It might be an attempt to increase the probability that you will make a choice leading to [what she would consider to be] a saving "relationship" with Jesus Christ, rather than instantly make your mind up because of the stigma attached to the word "religion." If this is the case, the motivation is rather altruistic.

Another obvious possibility is that people say "relationship" rather than "religion" in order to avoid some sort of perceived persecution(however minor) of all things religious.

(May 30, 2013 at 11:05 am)ReasonableRuben Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 6:54 pm)swata224 Wrote: "I'm a Christian and I have a relationship with Christ but I don't believe in religion."

I'm just wanting a bit of help deciphering what motive would be behind this oxymoronic statement, and maybe a bit of insight into why someone would believe this?

Hi, swata224. Being a Christian, I might be able to offer some insight.

This statement comes from a general desire to distance oneself from the the word "religion" and any of the negative connotations that it might have; the word has become somewhat taboo, particularly in more liberal circles,(for lack of a better word) but increasingly, the idea that Christianity is not a religion is finding its way even further into conservative territory.

The Christians who want to avoid being labeled as "religious" tend to entertain the false notion that the word "religion" is necessarily synonymous with words such as "legalism, Pharisaism, judgementalism, etc." Another false notion they oft entertain is the notion that Jesus of Nazareth taught against practicing religion.

As for motive: I generally try not to psychoanalyze people via a second-hand account of them, over the internet, but let me offer a hypothesis:

People who subscribe to this view generally also subscribe to the view that people(atheists, for example) "may not be interested in religion, but perhaps they would be interested in a relationship with Jesus Christ." It might be an attempt to increase the probability that you will make a choice leading to [what she would consider to be] a saving "relationship" with Jesus Christ, rather than instantly make your mind up because of the stigma attached to the word "religion." If this is the case, the motivation is rather altruistic.

Another obvious possibility is that people say "relationship" rather than "religion" in order to avoid some sort of perceived persecution(however minor) of all things religious.

that aint bad Ruben.

But why then must we say that "the body literally rose" when all indication is that is not true? God is truth to me, God is reality. why would they try and teach a "false". Not that it is bad for 2000 years ago. I understand no malice and they did what they did back then. But why hold onto it?

Do you know how a Jesus could rise using today's understanding? when you see that, Christ lives and the body is irrelevant. Religion then becomes irrelevant and all can share in compassion and understanding.

archangel, I am sorry, but I found it really hard understanding what you were actually asking, though I have a feeling it has little to do with the question that the OP is asking. Perhaps you could create a thread outlining your main concerns.(?)

"Hi, I'm a cyclist and a footballer and I play cricket on the weekends,but I don't believe in sports."

(May 30, 2013 at 11:51 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: "Hi, I'm a cyclist and a footballer and I play cricket on the weekends,but I don't believe in sports."

I should add that I also think that Christians claiming they "aren't religious" is this stupid.

Ruben seems to be living up to his name so far.

It also isn't limited to just Christians. Surely you've heard the "I'm not religious, but I'm totally spiritual" line? Granted, in a certain sense of the word "spiritual" it may make sense to say this, but I find that most people that say something like this can't even articulate what it really is they actually believe. Like others said, I think it really just comes down to wanting to have it both ways.

(May 30, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Zarith Wrote: I find that most people that say something like this can't even articulate what it really is they actually believe.

In order to do that, they would quickly find themselves needing some sort of system, creed, doctrines, etc. Far too religious if you ask me.

(May 30, 2013 at 9:29 am)archangle Wrote: but I guess you got it right?

why would we even question people trying to change based on new information? Going from what grandma told me to what we see today? You guys actually find that bad? It is bad to change over time?

Fitting what "you think" to what is going on around you is bad?
really, guy?

What a curious response. I pointed out the claims of others who have rejected religion or religious organizations for a direct relationship with Jesus, and you infer a whole lot of things that I neither mentioned nor hinted at. Projection? Misdirection?