Where does religion begin and end?

[Dawnofhope]

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

As an example, lets take Christianity. We have competing and contradictory claims from different sects of Christianity as to what represents true Christianity and what doesn't? Catholics and Protestants used to vilify and denigrate each other, each denomination claiming to be the true Christianity and denouncing the other as false, not even Christian. Who gets to decide who is right or wrong? Where does Christianity or any religion for that matter begin and end?

Does it really matter and why?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Who gets to decide who is right or wrong?

For Christians? Jesus. (Actually, for everyone eventually, IMO....after their resurrection, then they’ll be judged on their actions following their coming back to life.)

Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

Take care.

 

[lukethethird]

Does it really matter and why?

It matters because money changes hands.

 

[Enoch07]

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

As an example, lets take Christianity. We have competing and contradictory claims from different sects of Christianity as to what represents true Christianity and what doesn't? Catholics and Protestants used to vilify and denigrate each other, each denomination claiming to be the true Christianity and denouncing the other as false, not even Christian. Who gets to decide who is right or wrong? Where does Christianity or any religion for that matter begin and end?

Does it really matter and why?

God decides, humans like to bicker because of ego.

 

[osgart]

Interpretation and the ability to influence people will decide who follows what and why.

Strict literalism has survived even in this modern age because of the preservation of culture, and the commitment to influence people grows in sophistication.
The culture of it is to be separate from worldly influences that run counter to their convictions. So that type of objectivity is avoided.

Overall naturalism seems to be doing a great job of wrecking balling religion.

But ultimately religion will survive and adapt, because it can speak the language of heartfelt experiences. Whereas naturalism seems to reduce people to merely mental sponges who are chemical reactions without free will.

If religion doesnt adapt it will die out, and only the fewest number of people will subscribe to it.

Mythology as fact is religion's biggest adversity. Also there is a big lack of scientists with religious perspectives that do straight forward honest science. It seems that religious science will have to break camp with the naturalist scientists.

 

[Dawnofhope]

For Christians? Jesus. (Actually, for everyone eventually, IMO....after their resurrection, then they’ll be judged on their actions following their coming back to life.)

Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

Take care.

But who is resurrected and who is saved according to the JWs?

Who Will Be Resurrected? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Who determines whether the JWs represents the best understanding of Christianity or not?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Interpretation and the ability to influence people will decide who follows what and why.

Strict literalism has survived even in this modern age because of the preservation of culture, and the commitment to influence people grows in sophistication.
The culture of it is to be separate from worldly influences that run counter to their convictions. So that type of objectivity is avoided.

Overall naturalism seems to be doing a great job of wrecking balling religion.

But ultimately religion will survive and adapt, because it can speak the language of heartfelt experiences. Whereas naturalism seems to reduce people to merely mental sponges who are chemical reactions without free will.

If religion doesnt adapt it will die out, and only the fewest number of people will subscribe to it.

Mythology as fact is religion's biggest adversity. Also there is a big lack of scientists with religious perspectives that do straight forward honest science. It seems that religious science will have to break camp with the naturalist scientists.

I think we’re on the same page here, even though you haven’t really answered my question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Where does religion begin and end?: When it asks the people to be humane. All the rest is bull ....?

 

[osgart]

Religion begins and ends with its sincerity, truth, and effectiveness.

As to the true religion, those who stand on the right side of justice will prevail.

The wrong side of justice only creates more wars, and spreads immorality.

We live in an age of rampant immorality. I hope the true religion surfaces sooner then later.

Humans are perhaps way to fallible to decide what true religion is.

 

[Vinayaka]

The term is vast, full of diverse meanings, so any consensus within such diversity is night impossible. Just as an example, regarding belief system, it is often declared: "Hinduism isn't a religion, but a way of life." When a person says, "I'm religious'I really have no idea what that means.

For me personally, I try to go with what the individual person says. If they say, "I'm religious,' so be it. If they say, "'I'm a Muslim," I believe them. After all, who am I to judge or label another person? This respects the individual and their POV.

But in the end, it's not all that important to me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

As an example, lets take Christianity. We have competing and contradictory claims from different sects of Christianity as to what represents true Christianity and what doesn't? Catholics and Protestants used to vilify and denigrate each other, each denomination claiming to be the true Christianity and denouncing the other as false, not even Christian. Who gets to decide who is right or wrong? Where does Christianity or any religion for that matter begin and end?

Does it really matter and why?

Does it matter? In western religions, it would appear so. Eastern religions are much more tolerant of the beliefs of others in my experience, at least for the most part. Western religions tend to be much less tolerant of each other to the point where they vilify and condemn beliefs.

As for the why, as I see it, it boils down to ego. Ego is what leads us to judgment of others; of who is right and who is wrong. It is my understanding that learning about ego, what it is and how to manage it, is a core teaching in most eastern religions, while western religions don't discuss it much, if at all.

 

[joe1776]

Religion begins and ends with its sincerity, truth, and effectiveness.

As to the true religion, those who stand on the right side of justice will prevail.

The wrong side of justice only creates more wars, and spreads immorality.

We live in an age of rampant immorality. I hope the true religion surfaces sooner then later.

Humans are perhaps way to fallible to decide what true religion is.

I agree with most of what you wrote but I would express it differently: Those moral instincts that we refer to collectively as "conscience' are reforming religion. For example, the liberals in control of the Catholic Church are winning out over the conservatives who, if they could, would return to the old arrogant Church which asserted that it was the one true church and the only path to Heaven, a position that put them in conflict with other Christians, Jews and everybody else.

Ironically, this moral progress has cost the church (less fannies in the pews on Sunday) because it lost its great appeal to the arrogant side of human nature.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The term is vast, full of diverse meanings, so any consensus within such diversity is night impossible. Just as an example, regarding belief system, it is often declared: "Hinduism isn't a religion, but a way of life." When a person says, "I'm religious'I really have no idea what that means.

For me personally, I try to go with what the individual person says. If they say, "I'm religious,' so be it. If they say, "'I'm a Muslim," I believe them. After all, who am I to judge or label another person? This respects the individual and their POV.

But in the end, it's not all that important to me.

Which is where I'm going with this thread. The boundaries we create in regards religion are highly subjective and largely in our own minds.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which is where I'm going with this thread. The boundaries we create in regards religion are highly subjective and largely in our own minds.

I'm not saying there aren't boundaries. Boundaries are what creates the diversity. I'm saying respect the individual, and their choice to call themselves whatever they wish, despite the boundaries. If we could all respect the individual, that would end proselytizing completely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

As an example, lets take Christianity. We have competing and contradictory claims from different sects of Christianity as to what represents true Christianity and what doesn't? Catholics and Protestants used to vilify and denigrate each other, each denomination claiming to be the true Christianity and denouncing the other as false, not even Christian. Who gets to decide who is right or wrong? Where does Christianity or any religion for that matter begin and end?

Does it really matter and why?

I think they're all Christian, though I personally think that it makes more sense to think of Christianity as an umbrella term for a group of religions than as a single religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think they're all Christian, though I personally think that it makes more sense to think of Christianity as an umbrella term for a group of religions than as a single religion.

Under the umbrella of Christianity are a vast and diverse array of different beliefs.

What about people who hold Christian beliefs but don't attend church? Are they Christian? Then there are those who attend church, call themselves Christian but don't even believe in God.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

As an example, lets take Christianity. We have competing and contradictory claims from different sects of Christianity as to what represents true Christianity and what doesn't? Catholics and Protestants used to vilify and denigrate each other, each denomination claiming to be the true Christianity and denouncing the other as false, not even Christian. Who gets to decide who is right or wrong? Where does Christianity or any religion for that matter begin and end?

Does it really matter and why?

Jesus is the author and finish of saving faith. I think it's appropriate that the book of Hebrews while complex has a simple goal 'let us go out of the gates to Him and bear reproach with Him" and don't love money 'because He Himself has said I will never leave you or forsake you" and we should "fix our eyes on Jesus'

While there are many denominations there are more like a handful of major views differing in emphasis on and much more cooperation within those major view. On issues like Jesus dying for sins and rising from the dead there is substantial agreement

What about people who don't attend church? Depends on why. Let me change the question? If you go to a doctor and they ask about your appetite and there is no desire for food he might diagnose you as unhealthy and if you haven't eaten or drank for 6 months he might diagnose you as dead. Saving faith produces desires and love, if it ain't there perhaps there is no real life there.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus is the author and finish of saving faith. I think it's appropriate that the book of Hebrews while complex has a simple goal 'let us go out of the gates to Him and bear reproach with Him" and don't love money 'because He Himself has said I will never leave you or forsake you" and we should "fix our eyes on Jesus'

While there are many denominations there are more like a handful of major views differing in emphasis on and much more cooperation within those major view. On issues like Jesus dying for sins and rising from the dead there is substantial agreement

What about people who don't attend church? Depends on why. Let me change the question? If you go to a doctor and they ask about your appetite and there is no desire for food he might diagnose you as unhealthy and if you haven't eaten or drank for 6 months he might diagnose you as dead. Saving faith produces desires and love, if it ain't there perhaps there is no real life there.

Your view of Christianity is similar to many people I have spoken to over the years who identify as Christians, but there are many who would identify as Christian who would disgaree. In some respects your worldview is very clear and easy to understand. We can define who is and isn't a Christian and specify the all important beliefs and actions for one who desires salvation.

I agree that being part of a community is an important aspect of any faith, so in some instances not attending church may be indicative of an underlying malaise.

Thanks for sharing your Christian Faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Under the umbrella of Christianity are a vast and diverse array of different beliefs.

Yes; that's why I say it makes more sense to think of Christianity as a group of religions.

What about people who hold Christian beliefs but don't attend church? Are they Christian?

I would say so. Wouldn't you?

Then there are those who attend church, call themselves Christian but don't even believe in God.

I take the perspective that I heard from a minister who was the Christian host on the podcast "A Christian and an Atheist:" a Christian is a follower of Christ.

If someone identifies as Christian and follows Christ - as they understand "Christ" - I consider them a Christian.

This leaves room for, say, atheist Christians who follow Christ as a moral teacher. This isn't an approach I'd personally take, but it's one that I recognize that some others take.

Now... this is different from someone who doesn't actually identify as Christian but pretends to be one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thread title is where does religion begin and end

The question is about the boundaries of what it means to be a religious adherent or not.

Religion permeates the person and is not confined. If you want to be the real deal avoid situations where you are having to or can look more respectable than you are. Also if you have no relationships you can't really be religious either. Are you one thing to your family and another thing to the public? That's not very religious. That's how I know I'm not very religious, but I have been.

Of course sometimes some of us are very uncomfortable being ourselves, and it can be painful to be exposed. In this case all that can be done is to work at being real and try to be the same thing all the time, love ourselves, give ourselves some space when we need it. We also can try to become the person that we want to be, but the challenge in this case is to be that person consistently.

Does it really matter and why?

Religion should be like a friendly town where adults aren't in a competition and aren't hiding behind false faces. This feels different ways to different people, but it is like feeling that your own body is many. It is a lot like feeling self respect and self love, but you feel it in every face you see. Religion should help people overlook and ignore differences to the point that they don't matter and don't need to be hidden.

Unfortunately sometimes religions get caught up in appearing to be what they are not, so that is where religion ends.