What is religion ?

[Immanuel Can]

My original point:

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."

And yet, the "terms" of what you call "the contract" (i.e. the gospel) are in the Acts and Epistles, too.

[Immanuel Can]

I look on religions as existing to fulfil a human purpose,...

Maybe some do, in fact. That's possible. But what's your reason for thinking they all do?

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.

The US Is overwhelmingly "religious," in fact. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/. So if you did as you "urge" me to, you would view the situation more "objectively" yourself, perhaps.

[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.

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.

That is a spiritual interpretation for what has happened, which is otherwise unpredictable or inexplicable. That is fine. You will have to trust your intuition on that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My original point:

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."

And yet, the "terms" of what you call "the contract" (i.e. the gospel) are in the Acts and Epistles, too.

In any contract, the terms of "contract" must be specified within the pages of the said "contract" as mutually agreed and "signed" by both parties.

If you buy a house and signed a Sales & Purchase Contract [Agreement] surely the terms of contract stipulated within the pages of the contract on what you have signed for.

If there are appendixes or notes to the contract that refer to the terms of contract, they are not legally part of the contract.
If the terms of that purchase contract is mentioned outside the contract [e.g. Acts and Epistles], they cannot be part of the original contract.

[Immanuel Can]

My original point:

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."

And yet, the "terms" of what you call "the contract" (i.e. the gospel) are in the Acts and Epistles, too.

In any contract, the terms of "contract" must be specified within the pages of the said "contract" as mutually agreed and "signed" by both parties.

That's why you're also wrong to call it a "contract." It's not. It's a covenant...which is what the Bible calls it. And a covenant, like the Abrahamic one, can be introduced unilaterally, by God. It does not require such terms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And yet, the "terms" of what you call "the contract" (i.e. the gospel) are in the Acts and Epistles, too.

In any contract, the terms of "contract" must be specified within the pages of the said "contract" as mutually agreed and "signed" by both parties.

That's why you're also wrong to call it a "contract." It's not. It's a covenant...which is what the Bible calls it. And a covenant, like the Abrahamic one, can be introduced unilaterally, by God. It does not require such terms.

Covenant:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/covenant
-a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement
- a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action

A unilateral covenant [contract, agreement] is an oxymoron.
If it is called a covenant, then there must be at least an implied covenant.

The analogy is the implied contract between a couple staying together for many years like any marriage couple but without any explicit contract.
It is so evident in legal precedents, the court will recognize an implied contract even there is no legal marriage certificate between them.

In the case of the Gospels, the covenant [contract, agreement] is very obvious with all imperative elements of a covenant, i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration, intentions.

[Immanuel Can]

In any contract, the terms of "contract" must be specified within the pages of the said "contract" as mutually agreed and "signed" by both parties.

That's why you're also wrong to call it a "contract." It's not. It's a covenant...which is what the Bible calls it. And a covenant, like the Abrahamic one, can be introduced unilaterally, by God. It does not require such terms.

A unilateral covenant [contract, agreement] is an oxymoron.

It's not. I pointed you to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was unilateral. While it was made, Abraham was asleep, actually. And as for the Mosaic Covenant, that, too, was made by God, without any consultation of human beings at all. And the New Covenant: it was established without human agency, save that of Jesus Christ Himself.

You just don't know what a Biblical Covenant is. You're mistaking it for some sort of "deal" or "contract." But God isn't interested in what you have to offer Him, which obviously is nothing anyway (Eph. 2:8-9). What's of interest to Him is only what He has to offer you.

And that covenant is the subject of all the books of the Bible, actually.

[puto]

Found it in my lecture notes. The best ideas you can come up with are copy and paste that is why your responses are so disjointed.

[Belinda]

I look on religions as existing to fulfil a human purpose,...

Maybe some do, in fact. That's possible. But what's your reason for thinking they all do?

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.

The US Is overwhelmingly "religious," in fact. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/. So if you did as you "urge" me to, you would view the situation more "objectively" yourself, perhaps.

I do not think they all do! You yourself do not think religions exist to fulfil a purpose ,but that religions exist by edict of God, a priori.
Like yourself, many people's religiosity is a priori.

The UK is unlike the US in that the UK is not largely a Christian country despite the C of England's being established.

Do pay attention Manny!

[Immanuel Can]

I look on religions as existing to fulfil a human purpose,...

Maybe some do, in fact. That's possible. But what's your reason for thinking they all do?

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.

The US Is overwhelmingly "religious," in fact. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/. So if you did as you "urge" me to, you would view the situation more "objectively" yourself, perhaps.

I do not think they all do!

Do you mean the religions? If you don't believe that "religions exist to fulfill a human purpose," then why did you say that?

Or do you mean the Pew Study? If so, then what you think, and what the independent research shows seem to be very different things.

[Belinda]

Maybe some do, in fact. That's possible. But what's your reason for thinking they all do?


The US Is overwhelmingly "religious," in fact. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-l ... /database/. So if you did as you "urge" me to, you would view the situation more "objectively" yourself, perhaps.

I do not think they all do!

Do you mean the religions? If you don't believe that "religions exist to fulfill a human purpose," then why did you say that?


Or do you mean the Pew Study? If so, then what you think, and what the independent research shows seem to be very different things.

All religions exist to supply human needs(for governance, expressing awe of the numinous, once upon a time for explaining natural phenomena, and for persuading God or gods to be benevolent towards selected persons.)

The Pew study appears to be about numerical differences between religious faiths in the US.
But what I am comparing is not the matter addressed by the Pew Study.

My claim is that, with the exception of Evangelicals, the Christian faith is in decline in the developed world. Among other developed countries the US population seems to be exceptionally religious.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american ... _n_4780594

[Immanuel Can]

All religions exist to supply human needs

"All"?

Or just "some"?

The Pew study appears to be about numerical differences between religious faiths in the US.

Yep. But what it clearly shows is that the view that being modern and Western makes it impossible, or even difficult, for people to be religious is...(drumroll, please )...false.

My claim is that, with the exception of Evangelicals, the Christian faith is in decline in the developed world.

What's in decline is primarily what's called the "liberal," or "mainline churches." And since many of these these so-called churches long ago abandoned any commitment to Christ or to the Bible beyond the superficial use of such terms to dignify secular social justice, sexual permissiveness, consumerism and self-seeking of various kinds, it's pretty clear that superficial, socially-acceptable religiosity, rather than genuine Christianity, is what's actually in trouble numerically.

So I have to say you shouldn't waste a worry over that; I certainly don't, and I sincerely doubt that God does. It would seem quite evident that nothing He values is in decline.

[puto]

good questions for research

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's why you're also wrong to call it a "contract." It's not. It's a covenant...which is what the Bible calls it. And a covenant, like the Abrahamic one, can be introduced unilaterally, by God. It does not require such terms.

A unilateral covenant [contract, agreement] is an oxymoron.

It's not. I pointed you to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was unilateral. While it was made, Abraham was asleep, actually. And as for the Mosaic Covenant, that, too, was made by God, without any consultation of human beings at all. And the New Covenant: it was established without human agency, save that of Jesus Christ Himself.

You just don't know what a Biblical Covenant is. You're mistaking it for some sort of "deal" or "contract." But God isn't interested in what you have to offer Him, which obviously is nothing anyway (Eph. 2:8-9). What's of interest to Him is only what He has to offer you.

And that covenant is the subject of all the books of the Bible, actually.

You still don't get it.

IC: "What's of interest to Him is only what He has to offer you."

What is critical here is, the believer MUST accept God's offer; God cannot force any one to accept his offer as in John 3:16. This is why there are partially +/- 2.0 billion Christians out of >8 billion humans on Earth.

Whether you like it, in general, when an offer [by the offeree] is accepted [by an acceptor], that constitute a basic agreement between two parties. Depending on circumstance it can be labelled "agreement" [social] "contract" [legal] "covenant" [divinity] "treaty" and the like.

I used the term "contract" in ".." to get the essential elements across, i.e. where there is contract/covenant there is mutual agreement to comply with the terms of the contract or covenant.

I have asserted it is to the advantage of the Christians to accept their relationship with God in terms of a covenant and associated that as a "contract".
On a polemical situation, the Christians will always win morally, i.e.

Christians: We entered into a covenant ["contract"] with Christ/God where the overriding terms of contract is 'love all, even enemies'; "give the other cheek" to be complied to the best of our abilities.

Christians: You M...entered into a covenant ["contract"] with God where the critical term of contract is 'kill non-believers if they are a threat to our religion" Q5:33.

So, Christians should exploit the advantage of 'entering into a covenant/"contract" with Christs God' especially in a polemical situation.

[Immanuel Can]

A unilateral covenant [contract, agreement] is an oxymoron.

It's not. I pointed you to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was unilateral. While it was made, Abraham was asleep, actually. And as for the Mosaic Covenant, that, too, was made by God, without any consultation of human beings at all. And the New Covenant: it was established without human agency, save that of Jesus Christ Himself.

You just don't know what a Biblical Covenant is. You're mistaking it for some sort of "deal" or "contract." But God isn't interested in what you have to offer Him, which obviously is nothing anyway (Eph. 2:8-9). What's of interest to Him is only what He has to offer you.

And that covenant is the subject of all the books of the Bible, actually.

You still don't get it.

Well, somebody "isn't getting it," but on we go...

IC: "What's of interest to Him is only what He has to offer you."

What is critical here is, the believer MUST accept God's offer; God cannot force any one to accept his offer as in John 3:16. This is why there are partially +/- 2.0 billion Christians out of >8 billion humans on Earth.

Right: and because God does not take any quid pro quo from humans (after all, we have nothing we can offer HIm), it's not a contract. It's a covenant. There's a very significant difference between those two.

...the critical term of contract is 'kill non-believers if they are a threat to our religion" Q5:33.

You're quoting Islam, not Christianity. And you're not even quoting that quite right.

But okay. Whether Islamists attitude to God is contractual or not, they will have to answer, not me. And I don't think they even use the word "covenant." I don't remember seeing it in the Koran. But maybe they do, somewhere in the Haddiths or other traditions. I can't say. But the god they believe in is a very different god from that of Jews and Christians, and their religion operates by very different rules...which is why they hate Jews and Christians.

So when it comes to God, the real God, "contract" is the wrong metaphor. Sorry. It's not that.