What is religion ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have discussed the above with many Christians and they agree with me on 'covenant' albeit with reservation on the term 'contract'.
But I believe is a polemical situation covenant aka contract or agreement has an advantage for the Christians.

Re covenant in Quran:
From google search AI {"covenant in quran"}, in [mine]

The Qur'an uses the concept of covenants, or mithaaq, to describe the relationship between God and humanity, as well as other relationships:
Between God and humanity: The Qur'an describes a covenant relationship between God and humanity [re individual believes].
Between the Prophets: The Qur'an describes covenants between the Prophets, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.
Between people of scripture: The Qur'an describes covenants between people of scripture.
Between Prophet Muhammad and people of his time: The Qur'an describes covenants between Prophet Muhammad and the people of his time.
Within families: The Qur'an describes covenants within families.
Between spouses: The Qur'an describes covenants between spouses.

The Qur'an describes covenants as both a blessing and a responsibility. It calls on people to remember the covenant, including:
Remembering the blessings that God has given people
Remembering the pledge that God made to people
Re-examining the components of the covenant
Re-iterating the promise

The Qur'an also describes the punishment for those who break their covenant with Allah, including:
Being cursed
Being deviated away from the truth
Being expelled from guidance
Having hard hearts
Changing words from their proper places
Betraying Allah's Ayat

[Immanuel Can]

I have discussed the above with many Christians...

I very highly doubt that. The amount of real knowledge you exhibit of Christianity is miniscule.

The Qur'an...

Not a Christian document. Of no relevance here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have discussed the above with many Christians...

I very highly doubt that. The amount of real knowledge you exhibit of Christianity is miniscule.

The Qur'an...

Not a Christian document. Of no relevance here.

For your information from AI [wR]:

ChatGpt writes:
To convince your interlocutor that many Christians accept they are in a covenant or binding relationship with Christ/God, you can use several approaches:

1. Biblical Evidence of Covenant Language
Old Testament Foundations: Covenants form the backbone of God’s relationship with humanity throughout the Bible. For instance:
God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:9–17).
The Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15).
The Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:5–6).

New Testament Fulfillment:
Jesus explicitly introduces the concept of a new covenant: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20).
Hebrews 8:6 calls Jesus the mediator of a "better covenant."
These passages provide direct biblical evidence that the Christian faith is inherently covenantal.

2. Historical and Theological Perspectives
Reformed Theology: Covenant theology is central in many Protestant traditions, particularly in Reformed theology, which emphasizes that believers live under the "new covenant" inaugurated by Christ.
Theological Resources: Authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and Wayne Grudem write extensively about the covenantal relationship between Christians and God.
Denominational Statements:
Many Christian denominations (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist) use covenant language in their creeds, confessions, or liturgical practices (e.g., baptismal vows and communion liturgies).

3. Contemporary Christian Belief
To demonstrate that many Christians believe in a covenantal relationship with God, you can find articles, sermons, or denominational statements online. Search for terms like:

"New covenant in Christ."
"Christian covenant relationship with God."
"Covenant theology explained."
Websites such as Desiring God, Ligonier Ministries, or denominational pages (Presbyterian Church USA, Southern Baptist Convention) often discuss these themes.

4. Practical Evidence: Covenant in Christian Practices
Sacraments:
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are commonly described as covenantal acts. Baptism is an outward sign of entering into the covenant community of believers, and the Eucharist commemorates the "new covenant" in Christ's blood.
Christian Marriage:
Often referred to as a covenant before God, reflecting the broader concept of covenantal relationships in Christian theology.

5. Engaging Your Interlocutor
Ask for Their Definition of Covenant: They might associate "covenant" with something overly legalistic. Clarify that a covenant in Christianity is relational, not merely contractual.
Focus on the Relational Aspect: Emphasize that a covenant is not only about terms but about a relationship of love and faithfulness initiated by God.
Highlight Shared Beliefs:
If they affirm John 3:16 or Christ’s sacrifice, point out that this exchange implies a relational commitment—Christ offers salvation, and the believer responds in faith and obedience.

Online Evidence Examples:
You can find articles or resources from:

Ligonier Ministries (ligonier.org) discussing covenant theology.
Desiring God (desiringgod.org), exploring the believer’s relationship with God under the new covenant.
The Gospel Coalition (thegospelcoalition.org), which often emphasizes covenantal themes in its articles.
By presenting these theological, scriptural, and practical points, you can demonstrate that many Christians do view their faith as a covenantal relationship, offering both intellectual and spiritual validation for this perspective.

[Belinda]

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.

You should worry about the decline of " liberal " religions. Evangelicalism works for people who have not accepted the scientific enlightenment. "Liberal" Christianity has not engaged with the scientific enlightenment insofar as liberal Christians actually conflate the Christ of Faith with the Jesus of history.
Christianity's power, universality, and greatness as a main idea in the history of ideas and in the everyday , the political ,and the technological worlds is in the icon of Christ , an icon which can move between the minds of children and other simple thinkers to the most sophisticated sceptics.

Your mistake, Manny, is your Biblical literalism. You do well when you argue for Biblical references such as whether or not God made covenants with man and which covenants, but you fail to impress when we need to re-interpret Christ for the years 2024-5.

[Belinda]

I have discussed the above with many Christians...

I very highly doubt that. The amount of real knowledge you exhibit of Christianity is miniscule.

The Qur'an...

Not a Christian document. Of no relevance here.

For your information from AI [wR]:

ChatGpt writes:
To convince your interlocutor that many Christians accept they are in a covenant or binding relationship with Christ/God, you can use several approaches:

1. Biblical Evidence of Covenant Language
Old Testament Foundations: Covenants form the backbone of God’s relationship with humanity throughout the Bible. For instance:
God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:9–17).
The Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15).
The Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:5–6).

New Testament Fulfillment:
Jesus explicitly introduces the concept of a new covenant: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20).
Hebrews 8:6 calls Jesus the mediator of a "better covenant."
These passages provide direct biblical evidence that the Christian faith is inherently covenantal.

2. Historical and Theological Perspectives
Reformed Theology: Covenant theology is central in many Protestant traditions, particularly in Reformed theology, which emphasizes that believers live under the "new covenant" inaugurated by Christ.
Theological Resources: Authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and Wayne Grudem write extensively about the covenantal relationship between Christians and God.
Denominational Statements:
Many Christian denominations (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist) use covenant language in their creeds, confessions, or liturgical practices (e.g., baptismal vows and communion liturgies).

3. Contemporary Christian Belief
To demonstrate that many Christians believe in a covenantal relationship with God, you can find articles, sermons, or denominational statements online. Search for terms like:

"New covenant in Christ."
"Christian covenant relationship with God."
"Covenant theology explained."
Websites such as Desiring God, Ligonier Ministries, or denominational pages (Presbyterian Church USA, Southern Baptist Convention) often discuss these themes.

4. Practical Evidence: Covenant in Christian Practices
Sacraments:
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are commonly described as covenantal acts. Baptism is an outward sign of entering into the covenant community of believers, and the Eucharist commemorates the "new covenant" in Christ's blood.
Christian Marriage:
Often referred to as a covenant before God, reflecting the broader concept of covenantal relationships in Christian theology.

5. Engaging Your Interlocutor
Ask for Their Definition of Covenant: They might associate "covenant" with something overly legalistic. Clarify that a covenant in Christianity is relational, not merely contractual.
Focus on the Relational Aspect: Emphasize that a covenant is not only about terms but about a relationship of love and faithfulness initiated by God.
Highlight Shared Beliefs:
If they affirm John 3:16 or Christ’s sacrifice, point out that this exchange implies a relational commitment—Christ offers salvation, and the believer responds in faith and obedience.

Online Evidence Examples:
You can find articles or resources from:

Ligonier Ministries (ligonier.org) discussing covenant theology.
Desiring God (desiringgod.org), exploring the believer’s relationship with God under the new covenant.
The Gospel Coalition (thegospelcoalition.org), which often emphasizes covenantal themes in its articles.
By presenting these theological, scriptural, and practical points, you can demonstrate that many Christians do view their faith as a covenantal relationship, offering both intellectual and spiritual validation for this perspective.

I agree with Veritas A. The OT covenants are examples of all-powerful God's grace towards his creation. The coming of a Messiah was prophesied by OT prophets. The Trinitarian Christian sect of Judaism claimed and claim that Jesus Christ as incarnation of God is the culmination of God's grace as the final covenant to save humanity from destruction by man's own folly.
Those who interpreted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah probably , in view of how people actually behave in order to influence each other, deliberately imitated what the Prophets foretold.

[attofishpi]

...keep reading those books


You'll never find GOD there.


...but you were never looking for GOD...just ways to find fault in the premise

[Immanuel Can]

I have discussed the above with many Christians...

I very highly doubt that. The amount of real knowledge you exhibit of Christianity is miniscule.

The Qur'an...

Not a Christian document. Of no relevance here.

For your information from AI [wR]:

How do you think any of this helps your argument for a "contract"? All it mentions is covenant, so it supports what I've been saying. Moreover, it doesn't give any indication at all that you personally understand a word of it.

So you'll have to say what you think you're demonstrating here. It's not obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

You should worry about the decline of " liberal " religions...

Nobody does, and nobody will. They're hypocritical. Even their own adherents have given up on them. They do nobody any good.

Evangelicalism works for people who have not accepted the scientific enlightenment.

Wow. You sound like somebody who went to school in the '50s. You're trotting out the old, "now we're Enlightened" nonsense that died long ago, on the strength of critiques mounted not so much from Christianity as from the Postmoderns. You really need to update your own thinking. Nobody's "Enlightenment" thinking today.

"Liberal" Christianity has not engaged with the scientific enlightenment

Well, the Enlightenment wasn't scientific, but rather ideological. And as I say, it's secular critiques that debunked that old canard about Christianity being "unscientific" and the Enlightenment as being some high point of new human wisdom that couldn't reconcile with it. Nowadays, the Enlightenment is exposed as rather naive, you'll find.

Your mistake, Manny, is your Biblical literalism.

I'm not mistaken.

You do well when you argue for Biblical references such as whether or not God made covenants with man and which covenants, but you fail to impress

"Impress"? I dont' care about that, of course. I was merely pointing out that the source that all Christians believe in denies what VA was trying to argue. And it does. And there's no better source of information than the founding documents.

...we need to re-interpret Christ for the years 2024-5.

So you think that past facts change to fit new prejudices?

[Belinda]

You should worry about the decline of " liberal " religions...

Nobody does, and nobody will. They're hypocritical. Even their own adherents have given up on them. They do nobody any good.

Evangelicalism works for people who have not accepted the scientific enlightenment.

Wow. You sound like somebody who went to school in the '50s. You're trotting out the old, "now we're Enlightened" nonsense that died long ago, on the strength of critiques mounted not so much from Christianity as from the Postmoderns. You really need to update your own thinking. Nobody's "Enlightenment" thinking today.

"Liberal" Christianity has not engaged with the scientific enlightenment

Well, the Enlightenment wasn't scientific, but rather ideological. And as I say, it's secular critiques that debunked that old canard about Christianity being "unscientific" and the Enlightenment as being some high point of new human wisdom that couldn't reconcile with it. Nowadays, the Enlightenment is exposed as rather naive, you'll find.

Your mistake, Manny, is your Biblical literalism.

I'm not mistaken.

You do well when you argue for Biblical references such as whether or not God made covenants with man and which covenants, but you fail to impress

"Impress"? I dont' care about that, of course. I was merely pointing out that the source that all Christians believe in denies what VA was trying to argue. And it does. And there's no better source of information than the founding documents.

...we need to re-interpret Christ for the years 2024-5.

So you think that past facts change to fit new prejudices?

It's silly to try to ignore a revolutionary new movement that revolutionised thought on such a scale as did the scientific enlightenment.

The Christ of Faith moved through all levels of understanding and is on the move again, as this icon is too good to ignore. This time round , the reasonable faith will not be supernaturalist and will inspire all reasonable people that love is more effective than fear.

[Immanuel Can]

It's silly to try to ignore a revolutionary new movement that revolutionised thought on such a scale as did the scientific enlightenment.

We're not "ignoring" it. Rather, we're knowing a little history, and thus calling it exactly what it was: not the final stage of human wisdom leaping into light out of darkness, but rather a fairly naive (a secular historians of intellectual history, skeptics, critical thinkers and Postmodernists have made us realize) and partial weigh-station in the story of human understanding.

The Enlightenment is ancient history now. We've moved well beyond the naivete of Rousseau, Voltaire, the Jacobins, Kant, Hume, and the rest of that lot. If you're still living back then, then I think it's time you updated, don't you?

The Christ of Faith

I know this term: I've seen in before. And because I know it, I also know that what people usually mean when they use this term is not "I have regard for Christ, the real one who actually lived," but rather, "I have no faith in the Christ who actually lived."

Moreover, it's a very dangerous concept, because it also means, "I get to make up whatever I want, call it divine, and make you feel it's morally superior, so I can control you." That phrase is the first one you should banish from your vocabulary, if you want to be a moral person.

So you'll have to forgive me: I will not follow your "Christ of Faith." What it really means is "not the real Christ," and thus, "Antichrist." (If you know Greek, you'll know that "anti" doesn't just mean "against"; it also means "in the place of...") So what it is is a version of "Christ" created out of human fantasy, and endowed with phony moral authority to back whatever power play somebody wants to make."

Run.

[Belinda]

It's silly to try to ignore a revolutionary new movement that revolutionised thought on such a scale as did the scientific enlightenment.

We're not "ignoring" it. Rather, we're knowing a little history, and thus calling it exactly what it was: not the final stage of human wisdom leaping into light out of darkness, but rather a fairly naive (a secular historians of intellectual history, skeptics, critical thinkers and Postmodernists have made us realize) and partial weigh-station in the story of human understanding.

The Enlightenment is ancient history now. We've moved well beyond the naivete of Rousseau, Voltaire, the Jacobins, Kant, Hume, and the rest of that lot. If you're still living back then, then I think it's time you updated, don't you?

The Christ of Faith

I know this term: I've seen in before. And because I know it, I also know that what people usually mean when they use this term is not "I have regard for Christ, the real one who actually lived," but rather, "I have no faith in the Christ who actually lived."

Moreover, it's a very dangerous concept, because it also means, "I get to make up whatever I want, call it divine, and make you feel it's morally superior, so I can control you." That phrase is the first one you should banish from your vocabulary, if you want to be a moral person.

So you'll have to forgive me: I will not follow your "Christ of Faith." What it really means is "not the real Christ," and thus, "Antichrist." (If you know Greek, you'll know that "anti" doesn't just mean "against"; it also means "in the place of...") So what it is is a version of "Christ" created out of human fantasy, and endowed with phony moral authority to back whatever power play somebody wants to make."

Run.

Christ the Messiah was not created "out of human fantasy" but was created out of Judaism, was and is a seminal idea and no fantasy. You don't have exclusive rights to the interpretation of The Bible and neither does the religious sect you belong to.

There is no moral authority , there is only the examples of good people with their good ideas, who we may call saints and seers. We are on our own in a scary world and must try to find our ways along the dusty road, in the company of other seekers if we are fortunate.

"The real Christ" has been investigated by the Jesus Seminar people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar who sought to discover which bits of text in the NT were most likely to have been authored by Jesus of Nazareth.

[Immanuel Can]

Christ the Messiah was not created "out of human fantasy."

You didn't say "Christ the Messiah." You said, "the Christ of faith," which is a liberal synonym for "whatever I happen to make up."

[Veritas Aequitas]

I very highly doubt that. The amount of real knowledge you exhibit of Christianity is miniscule.

Not a Christian document. Of no relevance here.

For your information from AI [wR]:

How do you think any of this helps your argument for a "contract"? All it mentions is covenant, so it supports what I've been saying. Moreover, it doesn't give any indication at all that you personally understand a word of it.

So you'll have to say what you think you're demonstrating here. It's not obvious.

I don't have a thorough knowledge of the Gospels and Christianity, what is critical here is I understand the fundamental principles involved.
You are very inefficient and unwise to ignore and exploit the semantic approach of this issue for polemical advantage.


Note the typical meaning of,
Covenant:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/covenant
-a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement

Synonyms:
Strongest matches:
compact: convention: stipulation:

Strong matches: agreement: arrangement: bargain: bond: commitment: concordat: contract: deal: deed: dicker: handshake: papers: transaction: treaty: trust:

Literally wise, there is nothing wrong in linking 'covenant' with 'contract' i.e. as a divine contract.

"It is reasonable and consistent with Christian theology to describe a covenant as a "divine contract," provided the relational and grace-filled aspects are emphasized over rigid legalism." ChatGpt see below

ChatGpt Wrote:
Your interpretation of the covenant within Christianity as a form of a divine contract is both reasonable and well-grounded, especially when viewed through the lens of theology and biblical interpretation. Here's an analysis of the points raised:

Covenant as a Divine Agreement
Definition of Covenant: The Merriam-Webster definition you provided highlights the binding and solemn nature of a covenant. In Christianity, covenants are foundational, appearing throughout the Bible, such as God's covenant with Abraham, Moses, and the New Covenant through Christ. The concept of covenant carries a sacred and relational significance, transcending the legalistic framework of a contract but still involving mutual obligations.

Covenant vs. Contract:
Similarities: Both involve agreement, terms, and mutual obligations. In John 3:16, God promises eternal life to those who believe in Jesus Christ and surrender their lives, representing a clear exchange (faith and surrender for salvation).
Differences: Contracts are legalistic and conditional, often with punitive measures for breaches. Covenants, especially divine ones, are relational, rooted in grace, love, and divine faithfulness. God's covenants are often seen as initiated and sustained by Him, with humans responding in faith and obedience.

Agreement Between Believers and Christ
Voluntary Acceptance: John 3:16 does present salvation as an offer extended to all, requiring voluntary acceptance through faith. Once accepted, this can be understood as entering into a covenantal relationship with God.

Rational Christian Perspective:

Rational Christians could acknowledge that they are in a covenant with God, as this aligns with biblical theology and the teachings of the New Testament. This covenant involves living in accordance with the terms outlined in the Gospels (faith, repentance, obedience, and love).
The idea of a covenant as an agreement is not foreign to Christian theology. In fact, sacraments like baptism and the Eucharist are often described as covenantal signs, symbolizing and renewing this relationship.

Compliance with Covenant Terms

Terms of the Covenant in the Gospels:

Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Repentance from sin and a life transformed by His teachings (love God, love neighbor, seek righteousness, etc.).
The promise of salvation and eternal life is contingent on the believer's genuine faith and commitment.
Binding Nature of the Covenant: While salvation is ultimately a gift of grace, the covenant relationship includes expectations of obedience and faithfulness. This mirrors the idea of a "contract" in the sense of reciprocal responsibilities, though divine covenants emphasize grace over strict legal reciprocity.

Conclusion
It is reasonable and consistent with Christian theology to describe a covenant as a "divine contract," provided the relational and grace-filled aspects are emphasized over rigid legalism. Most rational Christians might indeed agree that they are in a covenant with God, entered through faith and marked by an exchange of promises: surrender to Christ in return for salvation and eternal life. However, the term "contract" might feel too transactional for some, given the deeply relational and sacred nature of covenant theology in Christianity.

I noted many Christians accept the term 'divine contract' i.e. those who are intelligent, rational and wise.
If you don't [likely too emotional over it], just ignore it.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't have a thorough knowledge of the Gospels and Christianity,...

Almost none, it seems. I'm surprised it doesn't stop you from thinking you know what you're talking about.

[puto]

Immanuel Can

Faith is a large part of knowledge; with testimony believe them.