CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[T.Lex]

The creator of the religion (going back to Mormon again) could have misled and lied to what became today's practitioners... I mean, the creation of it, today, sounds so absurd that you have to believe it was a crock... so I'm not blaming the practitioners...

I think Smith was a fraud, but that's not to say anything negative about today's practitioners of Mormonism.

So while it may fit your two factors, could it still be considered illegitimate? Or perhaps we need a different word, if that one doesn't jive well.

Similar with Scientology... it's absolutely a cult, we all see it, we all know it... but those that are deep into it may see it a different way.

Maybe "traditional" instead of legitimate?

Hinduism, even discounting its age, seems legitimate because it carries the badges of what we think of as a polytheistic religion. It is traditional, not just because it has traditions, but because it fits with our concept of what a religion feels like.

 

[PaulF]

For me, the question centers around exploitation.

I certainly understand the desire to gather with like-minded people to discuss matters of importance. From there, I can easily understand why people would choose to group-up based on shared spiritual experiences and questions. I think this is a rather natural and organic process that can lead to the consolidation of ideas and beliefs that ultimately spawns institutional religion.

I have a problem with groups that prey on this natural human tendency for nefarious personal (or institutional) gain.

Im thinking of Scientology, which is clearly a for-profit business. Also LDS...their early leadership seemed far too interested in sex with little girls for me to take their “message” seriously. These groups don’t really seem interested in spiritual enlightment in and of itself...rather as a product to sell to the masses.

I tend to [strike]favor[/strike] be more open to religions that grow from a community of like-minded individuals, and not a top-down religious autocracy. Like government and business, I think growing too top-heavy ultimately works against the core mission of the organization.

Beyond that...I leave it to the believer himself: whatever spiritual paradigm they adopt is valid to me if they come to it earnestly and without coercion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Exploitation is a good word, that's sort of what I was angling for with the deception/fraud terms.

 

[JettaKnight]

So here's a general religion question for the audience.

Thinking about the many religions in the world... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Many you could probably look at and say, yeah, that's a legitimate religion... based on whatever it's based on.

Then there are some that you see... and you think, yeah, that probably formed from a cult/fraud/deception/lie/joke, etc (Church of Scientology, the Cannabis Church, Jedi, Spaghetti Monster, etc)

Which ones do you think fit into the latter group?

I'd probably put Mormons somewhere in there. They aren't a bad group these days, and I think it's one of those religions that Christianity has just accepted because they're mostly harmless and get along.

Point of order - All evangelical churches and believers reject Mormonism/LDS, and I believe most mainstream are on the fence.

There's a Pew or Barna poll that has actual survey data, but I'm too busy to look this up.


Now if you mean "accept" as in, aren't bothered when they seek tax exempt status or build a [STRIKE]mosque[/STRIKE] temple, then yeah, OK.

 

[ATM]

...I tend to [strike]favor[/strike] be more open to religions that grow from a community of like-minded individuals, and not a top-down religious autocracy...

 

[T.Lex]

That touches on a somewhat different context, too.

US prisoners concoct different "religions" to get certain advantages in diet or exercise or reading materials. That would seem to suggest an effort to exploit rules intended to protect religions. That may also apply to the Cannabis thing that seeks some sort of legal leverage from the designation of being a "religion."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Now if you mean "accept" as in, aren't bothered when they seek tax exempt status or build a [STRIKE]mosque[/STRIKE] temple, then yeah, OK.

Right. These days, they tend to keep to themselves, harmless, stay isolated in Utah, ain't hurtin' nobody... some weird quirks, but mostly stuff we can look away from.

That's what I mean by "accept". They co-exist :P

 

[Benp]

"Acceptance" is rampant these days. If you don't "accept" someone's religion then you have a problem. This makes me wonder when the tide is going to turn in the future, when the followers of Christ will be persecuted for their beliefs.

 

[T.Lex]

"Acceptance" is rampant these days. If you don't "accept" someone's religion then you have a problem. This makes me wonder when the tide is going to turn in the future, when the followers of Christ will be persecuted for their beliefs.

Here in the US, I don't see it ever happening.

That is, as you note, the arc of history is bending toward acceptance/non-interference with a broader range of religions, ideas, and ethoses than ever before.

What is more likely IMHO is that Christianity risks being diluted in the marketplace of ideas. That's why I think evangelization remains important to share Christ's "blueprint" for life as the superior framework.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't share T. Lex's sort of universal salvation theology. Since you're asking for opinions, IMO something can be a "legitimate" religion by worldly standards but be erroneous. I'm not talking about Christians that argue who is in error by who holds old earth vs. young earth or dunk vs. sprinkle or musical instruments vs. no instruments or knee benders vs. non-knee benders type views. I'm talking about whether you believe Jesus was God incarnate who is the perfect sacrificial lamb that justified us to the father and sent His Holy Spirit to us to dwell in us. From what I understand the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, universalists, etc. believe in God and use a lot of Christianese in their theology and I think they are "legitimate" religions but they're erroneous. I'm guessing Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, legitimately believe they are practicing a real religion but because they choose to reject Christ they're erroneous. Some of these others like scientologists, the mj church, FSM, and even atheists churches, I guess they have to speak for themselves as to whether they're practicing a religion or not-- My guess is most of them are there to mock or play the system, etc. But it's not for me to say if they're a real religion or not. But in my view, if they reject Christ, they too are erroneous.

See where I'm going? I don't care if they're legitimate or not...whatever that means. Legitimacy is a subjective decision based on whatever criteria you wish to measure them by. I have a Christian lens by which I view all of these. I happen to believe it is the correct lens and it appears to me they are misleading their believers whether the world views them as legitimate religions or not.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't share T. Lex's sort of universal salvation theology.

See, when you use shorthand phrases with a certain history, it requires clarification: I don't believe in universal salvation/reconciliation. At least not as I understand the phrase you are using.

I do believe in the omnipotence of God. I also believe that humans are handicapped in a way and do not fully comprehend the mystery of God's omnipotence.

But, because of free will, some/many/most will make decisions contrary to God's will for them and go to Hell. That is not universal salvation/reconciliation.

But it's not for me to say if they're a real religion or not.

That's pretty much what I said.

For me, I kinda reject the presumption that I can even label something as "legitimate." (This is separate from the dogmatic/doctrinal question of whether anything other than a specific religion is the "correct" one and all others are false gods.)

But in my view, if they reject Christ, they too are erroneous.

That's pretty much what I said.

What is more likely IMHO is that Christianity risks being diluted in the marketplace of ideas. That's why I think evangelization remains important to share Christ's "blueprint" for life as the superior framework.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

See, when you use shorthand phrases with a certain history, it requires clarification: I don't believe in universal salvation/reconciliation. At least not as I understand the phrase you are using.

I do believe in the omnipotence of God. I also believe that humans are handicapped in a way and do not fully comprehend the mystery of God's omnipotence.

But, because of free will, some/many/most will make decisions contrary to God's will for them and go to Hell. That is not universal salvation/reconciliation.

Full disclosure, the only reason I think people like that might have a "legitimate" religion is that the God I believe in is unlimited. He could present Himself to people in ways that they don't fully understand and are a bit confused about. They may have the terminology wrong, but at some core level, it is the same God.

So maybe I misunderstood this statement. You've made this statement of others similar to it before. If Christianity is true, can a muslim, a jew, a hindu, or what have you that rejects Christ as their savior, as part of the triune nature of God, get to heaven?

 

[T.Lex]

So maybe I misunderstood this statement. You've made this statement of others similar to it before. If Christianity is true, can a muslim, a jew, a hindu, or what have you that rejects Christ as their savior, as part of the triune nature of God, get to heaven?

I don't know for sure.

And neither do you.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know for sure.

And neither do you.

Then either Jesus is a liar or the writers that wrote down what he said are. The language is pretty cut and dried.

 

[Woobie]

Then either Jesus is a liar or the writers that wrote down what he said are. The language is pretty cut and dried.

One of many:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18

 

[T.Lex]

Then either Jesus is a liar or the writers that wrote down what he said are. The language is pretty cut and dried.

No. It isn't. Only if you reject God's omnipotence is it cut and dried.

I will elaborate a bit, though.

You said "reject Christ as their savior." To be precise, I think it is "reject Christ." Christ is not bound by our understanding. He certainly can reach anyone, anywhere, as He sees fit to reveal Himself to them. Do you not believe that?

 

[T.Lex]

One of many:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18

For fullness of quotation, John 3:20-21:

[SUP]20 [/SUP]For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. [SUP]21 [/SUP]But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

 

[Woobie]

For fullness of quotation, John 3:20-21:

That is certainly the full quote, but it doesn't change the meaning of verse 18. Those verses show the condition of man, not the limited way in which he can escape it.


Christ can do anything He wants. But what He has chosen for the salvation of lost souls is revealed in His Word.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. It isn't. Only if you reject God's omnipotence is it cut and dried.

I will elaborate a bit, though.

You said "reject Christ as their savior." To be precise, I think it is "reject Christ." Christ is not bound by our understanding. He certainly can reach anyone, anywhere, as He sees fit to reveal Himself to them. Do you not believe that?

Sure he can reach anyone anywhere. But he would then he'd be a liar if he reached out to a muslim and let them continue on in their error believing he was but another human prophet that died and that was it. He told us that only through him can we come to the father. He is the door. He's not some dude that smiles at your good deeds and says 'yep, that's good enough'. If he is then Christianity is a lie.

 

[T.Lex]

First, guys, I feel like we've played this soundtrack before.

That is certainly the full quote, but it doesn't change the meaning of verse 18. Those verses show the condition of man, not the limited way in which he can escape it.

Christ can do anything He wants. But what He has chosen for the salvation of lost souls is revealed in His Word.

That is one thing He chose. He can certainly choose to do other things, too.

Sure he can reach anyone anywhere. But he would then he'd be a liar if he reached out to a muslim and let them continue on in their error believing he was but another human prophet that died and that was it. He told us that only through him can we come to the father. He is the door. He's not some dude that smiles at your good deeds and says 'yep, that's good enough'. If he is then Christianity is a lie.

Christ can absolutely reveal Himself to a muslim, even in the context of the Koran, and the muslim can listen to Him and follow Him while still being a muslim. (Particularly for certain groups of muslims for whom Christ is a real figure.)

"Christ" has many names. Some of them we may not even know.

This whole "If it isn't the way I think it is then Christianity is a lie" is a non-Biblical absolutist emotional appeal. That there may be a misunderstanding does not make something a lie.