What is religion ?

[Immanuel Can]

I hope you agree with me that supernatural miracles are that is

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

Not to you, perhaps.

But then, as you've declared, you're one of the people who already has decided that nothing you ever see, or nothing anyone else has ever experienced, is allowed to be a real miracle. And the same happened in Jesus' own day, especially in his home town, as Mark records it: he did many miracles, but they were not allowed by the townspeople to count as miracles. So they learned nothing from all they saw.

That can happen, for sure. There's plenty of precedent for that. It's called "confirmation bias," in psychology: it means that people tend to only see things the way they expect to.

Church congregations are dwindled into non-existence and church buildings are being used as carpet showrooms, or as architectural museum pieces if they merit that.

That's certainly true of all the Churches that compromised with Modernity...they call them the "Mainline churches." They tend to be loosely Protestant in some form, but not deeply committed to Scripture or spiritual truth. And they've simply lost their whole reason to exist, because they became like mere social clubs...and people really don't patronize social clubs today.

But you'll find that the churches that kept their basic mandate, like the evangelical conservatives and Pentecostals, are not only not shrinking but are expanding faster than anything -- especially in the Developing World, where they're the fastest growing spiritual phenomenon of all. The problem for us, in the West, is that we look at the closed Anglican or United church down the street, and assume that what's happened to them is a general phenomenon, when it's not.

Evangelical churches are increasing in popularity but they too will fail in line...

I don't think they will. They certainly haven't, so far. And I think they've learned, by watching the "mainliners," important messages about not compromising with Modernism. They're unlikely to go that route because they can now see that Modernism itself is failing, as Postmodernism replaces it, and then further post-Postmodernism patterns of contemporary belief. It's clear now to them that Modernism was a fad, not a permanent fixture. And it's secular, not Christian critiques, that have made that really apparent to everybody.

It's now apparent that by selling out, in the hopes of being "relevant" to Modernity, the mainliners cut their own throats. They didn't believe anything firmly, or take anything to be worth standing on, so they were unable to stand. And their passing is not at all a loss to the Christian community, because they had long ago ceased to be Christian, and became just another modern institution of social self-congratulation, really.

[Skepdick]

Freedom is a motive and an aspiration not an essence. As motive and aspiration , freedom is relative to each Dasein.
Do you think that each Dasein faces the constant or ever-recurring question 'How free might you be?'

It's a limiting function on motives and aspirations.

There's degrees of it. Less limits - more freedom.

[Belinda]

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

Not to you, perhaps.

But then, as you've declared, you're one of the people who already has decided that nothing you ever see, or nothing anyone else has ever experienced, is allowed to be a real miracle. And the same happened in Jesus' own day, especially in his home town, as Mark records it: he did many miracles, but they were not allowed by the townspeople to count as miracles. So they learned nothing from all they saw.

That can happen, for sure. There's plenty of precedent for that. It's called "confirmation bias," in psychology: it means that people tend to only see things the way they expect to.

Church congregations are dwindled into non-existence and church buildings are being used as carpet showrooms, or as architectural museum pieces if they merit that.

That's certainly true of all the Churches that compromised with Modernity...they call them the "Mainline churches." They tend to be loosely Protestant in some form, but not deeply committed to Scripture or spiritual truth. And they've simply lost their whole reason to exist, because they became like mere social clubs...and people really don't patronize social clubs today.

But you'll find that the churches that kept their basic mandate, like the evangelical conservatives and Pentecostals, are not only not shrinking but are expanding faster than anything -- especially in the Developing World, where they're the fastest growing spiritual phenomenon of all. The problem for us, in the West, is that we look at the closed Anglican or United church down the street, and assume that what's happened to them is a general phenomenon, when it's not.

Evangelical churches are increasing in popularity but they too will fail in line...

I don't think they will. They certainly haven't, so far. And I think they've learned, by watching the "mainliners," important messages about not compromising with Modernism. They're unlikely to go that route because they can now see that Modernism itself is failing, as Postmodernism replaces it, and then further post-Postmodernism patterns of contemporary belief. It's clear now to them that Modernism was a fad, not a permanent fixture. And it's secular, not Christian critiques, that have made that really apparent to everybody.

It's now apparent that by selling out, in the hopes of being "relevant" to Modernity, the mainliners cut their own throats. They didn't believe anything firmly, or take anything to be worth standing on, so they were unable to stand. And their passing is not at all a loss to the Christian community, because they had long ago ceased to be Christian, and became just another modern institution of social self-congratulation, really.

Liberal education leads children to think for themselves, and not need to be told what to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

Liberal education leads children to think for themselves, and not need to be told what to believe.

Not in my experience. In my experience (which is considerable, I might add) what we call "liberal" education, while very smug and self-assured, is actually highly illiberal.

It teaches things like that religion is unimportant, that there are no solid grounds for any ethics, that relativism is right and Socialism is good, that in basic maths, 2+2 might not equal 4, that the state owns people's children, and that a woman can be a man...or a cat, among other lunatic things. But while it teaches lunacy, it simultaneously preens itself on being "open minded" and "fair."

And it is utterly intolerant to dissent. Just try to contradict these sorts of lunacies, and you'll find out very quickly how "liberal" their liberalism actually is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One cannot be "born a Christian." One has to be "born again to become a Christian." (See John 3:16) Christianity is a personal faith, not a communal birthright.

As I had always asserted, a Christian must enter into a "contract" [new covenant] with a binding agreement to form a relation with Christ/God by accepting the 'offer' from John 3:16 and pay the 'consideration' with the surrender of one's life to God.
The terms of the contract is solely within the words of Christs, i.e. the Gospel and no where else. The OT, Acts and epistles are merely appendixes and guides to the terms of the contract.

That's not even remotely accurate, I have to say. The Acts and Epistles are very clear on the gospel. I could prove that to you very, very easily.

Sorry to be so contradictory, but a statement so wildly wrong can hardly go without comment.

The Acts and Epistles are not the direct words of Christ-God.
Show me if otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

The Acts and Epistles are not the direct words of Christ-God.

It looks to me like your claim was that they don't contain the gospel. They do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Acts and Epistles are not the direct words of Christ-God.

It looks to me like your claim was that they don't contain the gospel. They do.

My point is they are not based on the direct words from Christs but are merely secondary and interpretations of the Gospels by Christians who did not have any contact with Christ.
Show me if otherwise.

My point is, where there is a contract [covenant], there must be the contractual terms of the contract [covenant]. I believe they are only in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

[godelian]

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

That is because lots of people mistakenly believe that in the physical universe the epistemic truth would be a large part of the ontological truth, while in reality it is just a very small fraction of it, leaving ample scope for unpredictable and inexplicable events that may even be perceived as, or truly be, miraculous.

One way to understand at a fundamental level why all these people are wrong, is to become familiar with Tarski's undefinability of the truth and to understand the implications of a Pythagorean structural mapping or structural similarity between the arithmetical and physical universe.

In my worldview, a miracle is a perfectly normal occurrence, because the fact that it is unpredictable or inexplicable is in itself not a problem.

[Immanuel Can]

The Acts and Epistles are not the direct words of Christ-God.

It looks to me like your claim was that they don't contain the gospel. They do.

My point is they are not based on the direct words from Christs...

That's not what you said, actually. You changed what you're now calling "my point" because you were already wrong. You're trying to make a different "point" now. And it's also going to be wrong...

There's only one Christ.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It looks to me like your claim was that they don't contain the gospel. They do.

My point is they are not based on the direct words from Christs...

That's not what you said, actually. You changed what you're now calling "my point" because you were already wrong. You're trying to make a different "point" now. And it's also going to be wrong...

There's only one Christ.

My original point:

"As I had always asserted, a Christian must enter into a "contract" [new covenant] with a binding agreement to form a relation with Christ/God by accepting the 'offer' from John 3:16 and pay the 'consideration' with the surrender of one's life to God.

The terms of the contract are solely within the words of Christs, i.e. the Gospels and no where else. The OT, Acts and epistles are merely appendixes and guides to the terms of the contract."
viewtopic.php?p=741263#p741263

[puto]

Proving, my point of faith was all you did.

[puto]

You people are smart because you do bring-up a lot of questions.

[Belinda]

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

Not to you, perhaps.

But then, as you've declared, you're one of the people who already has decided that nothing you ever see, or nothing anyone else has ever experienced, is allowed to be a real miracle. And the same happened in Jesus' own day, especially in his home town, as Mark records it: he did many miracles, but they were not allowed by the townspeople to count as miracles. So they learned nothing from all they saw.

That can happen, for sure. There's plenty of precedent for that. It's called "confirmation bias," in psychology: it means that people tend to only see things the way they expect to.

Church congregations are dwindled into non-existence and church buildings are being used as carpet showrooms, or as architectural museum pieces if they merit that.

That's certainly true of all the Churches that compromised with Modernity...they call them the "Mainline churches." They tend to be loosely Protestant in some form, but not deeply committed to Scripture or spiritual truth. And they've simply lost their whole reason to exist, because they became like mere social clubs...and people really don't patronize social clubs today.

But you'll find that the churches that kept their basic mandate, like the evangelical conservatives and Pentecostals, are not only not shrinking but are expanding faster than anything -- especially in the Developing World, where they're the fastest growing spiritual phenomenon of all. The problem for us, in the West, is that we look at the closed Anglican or United church down the street, and assume that what's happened to them is a general phenomenon, when it's not.

Evangelical churches are increasing in popularity but they too will fail in line...

I don't think they will. They certainly haven't, so far. And I think they've learned, by watching the "mainliners," important messages about not compromising with Modernism. They're unlikely to go that route because they can now see that Modernism itself is failing, as Postmodernism replaces it, and then further post-Postmodernism patterns of contemporary belief. It's clear now to them that Modernism was a fad, not a permanent fixture. And it's secular, not Christian critiques, that have made that really apparent to everybody.

It's now apparent that by selling out, in the hopes of being "relevant" to Modernity, the mainliners cut their own throats. They didn't believe anything firmly, or take anything to be worth standing on, so they were unable to stand. And their passing is not at all a loss to the Christian community, because they had long ago ceased to be Christian, and became just another modern institution of social self-congratulation, really.

As for miracles, I confess to being subject to confirmation bias like everyone else. I look on religions as existing to fulfil a human purpose, whereas you I understand look on religion as established a priori by God.
However I urge you to view the religious situation in the US objectively. US is unique as to its statistics for religiosity considering that the US is a technologically -developed modern country.

[Belinda]

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

That is because lots of people mistakenly believe that in the physical universe the epistemic truth would be a large part of the ontological truth, while in reality it is just a very small fraction of it, leaving ample scope for unpredictable and inexplicable events that may even be perceived as, or truly be, miraculous.

One way to understand at a fundamental level why all these people are wrong, is to become familiar with Tarski's undefinability of the truth and to understand the implications of a Pythagorean structural mapping or structural similarity between the arithmetical and physical universe.

In my worldview, a miracle is a perfectly normal occurrence, because the fact that it is unpredictable or inexplicable is in itself not a problem.

But I don't define the miraculous by reason of unpredictable or inexplicable. I define the miraculous by reason of it's direct intervention into history by God.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

There's only one Christ.

Yes, but a man can imitate Christ and many do so pretty spectacularly.