The easiest religion to follow?

[Aupmanyav]

Probably you are not following your 'dharma'.
(It is not as easy as it seems).
p.s.- You would not be alone.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My response was a play on words with regard to attachment and desire to vyavaharika.

 

[idesofice]

I don't know if this has been done before, it seems like such an obvious thing to bring up...

Question: Out of all the world’s religions, which one would you say is the easiest, most low maintenance to follow?

I say Christianity:

• No dietary rules
• No mandatory system of regular ritual prayer (unless in a monastery)
• Forgiveness of sins if you repent and promise never to do it again
• Love God
• Love others as you love God
• Do unto others
• Accept Christ as your Lord and saviour and receive eternal life
• Follow the ethical and spiritual teachings of Christ - make him your Lord
• Make more followers of Christ, as best you can
• Turn the other cheek
• Forgiveness of sins through Christ's horrible death
• Forgive those who have wronged you
• Blessed are the meek

…and probably many more…

But that’s not why I became a Christian!

Do you think your religion is more or less easy to follow than Christianity?

i agree

 

[Quintessence]

Sorry, no. Christianity =/= easy religion.

Easiest religion is the one someone makes up to suit their own comfort.

That sounds like a lot of work, actually. "Making something up" requires doing a lot of research, soul-searching, and trial-and-error experimentation. Living religions that work well in people's lives all tend to engage in this process to some extent or another, though referring to it pejoratively as "making stuff up" isn't what I prefer to call it. And one's religion should suit one's own comfort - surely it is not healthy to be practicing a religion that causes one discomfort on a regular basis.

 

[74x12]

... so Christianity, often.

True but not the Christianity of Christ or the apostles ... Jesus taught take up your cross and follow me or else you're not worthy of me.

Paul claimed that without hope of the afterlife/resurrection "we are of all men most miserable".

 

[Quintessence]

To add, as I've been thinking about this topic I think "easy" and "hard" will also be largely a reflection of one's own preferences and inclinations. Attempting to adhere to something that is against one's nature is going to be not only hard, but inauthentic and perhaps even damaging to one's health. On the flip side, following a path that is already an extension of one's identity and nature is going to be easy in that there will be motivation to pursue it and it'll be an enjoyable experience.

Thinking about this in my own life, my folks attempted to raise me Catholic for the first few years of my life. It was not "easy" for me because Christianity was a terrible fit for me. It still would be today, which would easily make Christianity one of the most difficult religions for me to practice unless we're talking the more mystical/progressive strands of that tradition. On the other hand, my current religion is "easy" in that it's a natural fit for who and what I am. That's not to say it isn't a lot of hard work (because it is), but the work feels "easy" when it is an extension of who you are already.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True but not the Christianity of Christ or the apostles ... Jesus taught take up your cross and follow me or else you're not worthy of me.

Anyone practicing "the Christianity of Christ or the apostles" isn't on any internet forum; they're out wandering and preaching with no more posessions than the clothes on their back and a begging bowl.

Paul claimed that without hope of the afterlife/resurrection "we are of all men most miserable".

Enh. I'm pretty happy.

 

[74x12]

That sounds like a lot of work, actually. "Making something up" requires doing a lot of research, soul-searching, and trial-and-error experimentation. Living religions that work well in people's lives all tend to engage in this process to some extent or another, though referring to it pejoratively as "making stuff up" isn't what I prefer to call it.

Well, I mean that they don't want to find the truth. They want their own version of it. Whatever suits them best so they don't have to worry about it anymore. I'm not saying everyone is like this but many people approach the topic of religion this way.

And one's religion should suit one's own comfort - surely it is not healthy to be practicing a religion that causes one discomfort on a regular basis.

There is no growth in comfort. There is no virtue to be gained there. "It's a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." - Seneca

 

[74x12]

Anyone practicing "the Christianity of Christ or the apostles" isn't on any internet forum; they're out wandering and preaching with no more posessions than the clothes on their back and a begging bowl.

Christ or the apostles didn't really beg. As for not using modern tech I don't see that in the Bible.

Enh. I'm pretty happy.

Paul meant Christians like himself. Since we base our whole life on the fact we'll be resurrected then if this hope fails us; we wasted our time. That's what he means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christ or the apostles didn't really beg. As for not using modern tech I don't see that in the Bible.

It's not about what Christ did; it's about what he commanded.

It's not about technology; it's about possessions.

Paul meant Christians like himself. Since we base our whole life on the fact we'll be resurrected then if this hope fails us; we wasted our time. That's what he means.

In that case, I agree with him. Christianity - the mainstream forms of it, anyway - are somewhere between useless and forces for evil unless they're rooted in truth.

 

[74x12]

It's not about what Christ did; it's about what he commanded.

I don't remember the commandment to be a beggar.

He taught "occupy until I come". And he used the parable of investing money and making a profit. Also, he often spoke parables about laborers in vineyards etc. So, Jesus wasn't really against actual working for a living. But, He was against people who put service to worldly possessions(mammon) ahead of service to God.

There were apostles(messengers) which lived off of other people's charity but it wasn't begging. They looked at it as the provision of God and basically as a kind of payment since if they bring the bread of life (the gospel) then it shouldn't be a problem for the people who are benefited by it to provide their earthly needs while they are in town. So it's reasonable and they were not taught to ask for charity. Rather, they were taught God would have people there that would provide their needs. All they had to do was accept the help.

He made 12 apostles at first and later added 70 more. So that is one thing. That doesn't mean all his disciples were doing this. For example we see that Lazarus, Mary and Martha had a house. So, many of Christ's disciples were not literally following Jesus around. They followed His teachings but weren't apostles.

It's not about technology; it's about possessions.

Again, I don't see that in the Bible.

In that case, I agree with him. Christianity - the mainstream forms of it, anyway - are somewhere between useless and forces for evil unless they're rooted in truth.

And if it is rooted in truth? What then?

 

[MJFlores]

in addition to my Independent Church I also go to a [mainstream protestant] Church (I alternate between the two) and sometimes attend evening mass at a Catholic Church (although I don't take communion there)

The independent church I'm talking about has been going strong for 20 years, some of the people there were there from the beginning and the congregation is actually growing

The [mainstream protestant] Church I also regularly attend has been going on for centuries

No wonder you got things mixed up from attending one after another.
One existed for centuries - Lutheran church not much difference with the Catholic church.
The devil also existed for centuries.
But your search for the truth is commendable.

How can one denomination's doctrine agree with another?
You would attend the Catholic church then one Protestant church.
One church have statues [idols] around then one preaches that such things are detestable.
One church you were a bonafide member and the other just a sit in guest.
One church you believe and the other one not so much.
It is like being a jack of all trades and master of none.
It is time consuming and achieves nothing.

The winner for most easiest religion to follow is the Roman Catholic Church.
They do not require attendance and they don't require you to observe their form of religion.
One can attend Sunday Mass just once a year or once in a blue moon.
In Mexico, a Catholic can worship Mary with Santa Muerte side by side

Is it good or is it bad?
The Lord Jesus Christ has this to say:

Matthew 7:13 English Standard Version (ESV)
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

So good luck looking for the narrow gate.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I mean that they don't want to find the truth. They want their own version of it.

That's probably fair. Many religions and ways of life are simply unconcerned with "The Truth" for various reasons, such as not believing such a thing is a thing to begin with. To such paths, there are only "versions" of truth, not "the" truth.

Whatever suits them best so they don't have to worry about it anymore.

Heh... speaking as a practitioner of a tradition that rejects a "the" truth approach, that's not really what happens. It's not a one-and-done, in part because when truths are viewed as plural there's inevitably more to explore and experiment with.

There is no growth in comfort. There is no virtue to be gained there. "It's a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." - Seneca

I find that a simplification, but to each their own - and it also seems likely I didn't communicate my point correctly. When I mention it not being healthy to practice a religion that causes discomfort on a regular basis, I mean that quite literally. When folks try to practice a religion that is well outside of their "comfort zone" it will accomplish but mental and physical breakdown - sometimes to a very serious degree. I suppose if one finds masochism to be a virtue, there is virtue in such self-torture, but.... well... that's not my dig. Religion is not supposed to bring misery to its practitioner and if it does, to me that's a huge red flag that one is practicing the wrong religion for themselves.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Firstly, I wish to state that I believe in Christ and the Bible as from God.

But which of the more than 40,000 sects does one follow when they contradict one another?

But more unacceptable to me is that Christians today do not accept Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha’u’llah as being equal Messengers of God. If I joined Christianity in its form today, I would have to reject all these Messiahs Whom I consider equal to Jesus in every way. I would be taught that They are imposters when in truth I believe Them all to be the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega. So the message sent to me if it were by Christians is to accept Jesus only and reject all the other Prophets as false. Yet the Bible only warns not to accept false prophets not to reject true ones. So there’s a huge discrepancy between what the Bible actually teaches and how Christians interpret it to mean only Jesus is acceptable. I believe the Bible teaches to accept all Prophets and all the major religions as being from God.

So the easiest religion to follow for me is the one that teaches to accept all the major religions as being from God and to love all humankind religious or not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Trust Jesus and make no effort to follow His example, love others only if they can be of benefit to you, and go around with a self-righteous contempt for people whose beliefs may differ from yours? That does sound easy.

No, trust Jesus.

I've been given a great gift, someone fell on a hand grenade for me. Why wouldn't my life change?

But to be sure, as opposed to LDS doctrine, salvation is an irrevocable gift, not of works.

 

[Katzpur]

No, trust Jesus.

I've been given a great gift, someone fell on a hand grenade for me. Why wouldn't my life change?

But to be sure, as opposed to LDS doctrine, salvation is an irrevocable gift, not of works.

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you you're wrong, you just keep repeating the same old lies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It doesn't matter how many times I tell you you're wrong, you just keep repeating the same old lies.

It's a lie to tell you that since Jesus saved me completely, I desire to live for Him and aspire that way?

It's a lie to tell you that Jesus judges His people as a loving father, correcting them (Hebrews 12) but does not remove their assurance of salvation (Romans 6:23, John 3:16)?

" " to say a key difference between LDS and evangelicals is we both trust Jesus by faith, but we maintain assurance while LDS keeps self-insured by works?

 

[Katzpur]

It's a lie to tell you that since Jesus saved me completely, I desire to live for Him and aspire that way?

It's a lie to tell you that Jesus judges His people as a loving father, correcting them (Hebrews 12) but does not remove their assurance of salvation (Romans 6:23, John 3:16)?

" " to say a key difference between LDS and evangelicals is we both trust Jesus by faith, but we maintain assurance while LDS keeps self-insured by works?

Latter-day Saints try to obey God's commandments because we love Him and for no other reason. We also believe that Jesus Christ will reward every man according to his works. If those two statements are contradictory to you, there's nothing more I can say.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Latter-day Saints try to obey God's commandments because we love Him and for no other reason. We also believe that Jesus Christ will reward every man according to his works. If those two statements are contradictory to you, there's nothing more I can say.

I don't think those are contradictory, but we should try to resolve this contradiction:

"We also believe that Jesus Christ will reward every man according to his works" and "The Bible says that salvation is a gift, is gifted without any works whatsoever".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know if this has been done before, it seems like such an obvious thing to bring up...

Question: Out of all the world’s religions, which one would you say is the easiest, most low maintenance to follow?

I say Christianity:

• No dietary rules
• No mandatory system of regular ritual prayer (unless in a monastery)
• Forgiveness of sins if you repent and promise never to do it again
• Love God
• Love others as you love God
• Do unto others
• Accept Christ as your Lord and saviour and receive eternal life
• Follow the ethical and spiritual teachings of Christ - make him your Lord
• Make more followers of Christ, as best you can
• Turn the other cheek
• Forgiveness of sins through Christ's horrible death
• Forgive those who have wronged you
• Blessed are the meek

…and probably many more…

But that’s not why I became a Christian!

Do you think your religion is more or less easy to follow than Christianity?

Why is "easy" the standard???? It should be truth, and the ability to help you become all that God wants you to be and to do all that God wants you to do.

As it stands, you do not need to become a Jew. Judaism wishes for the world ethical monotheism. You can do that within a monotheistic religion, or on your own.