The World's Newest Major Religion - No Religion

[2timothy316]

Article from NATGEO: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -religion/

Article from the Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ous-nones/

They are called 'Nones' or people that are religiously unaffiliated. Perhaps you have asked someone their religion and they answered 'I'm spiritual but don't believe in religion'.

For debate: Is the 'None' dogma trend healthy or good for society? Is it scripturally supported to be a 'None'? Are all 'Nones' beliefs acceptable to God? What scriptures support or condemn the idea of 'many beliefs and teachings all serving one God'.

[dio9]

What scriptures support or condemn the idea of 'many beliefs and teachings all serving one God'. " In that day All the nations will come to the Lord God" , or something like that by Isaiah.

All nations? You mean every person in every nation is going to follow Lord God? North Korea?

Is an individual a nation?

I'll give you this credit though. at least you gave a part of a scripture. Most have just given an opinion.

Its universal ; the Lord is the Lord of everyone and everything . every religion creed and belief is centered and focused on one God and all that we understand God to be. God simply is the focus of all religion. All the religious cultural ethnicity which separates is chafe to be let go of. Then we are left with God. God and me you us.

[William]

What in you opinion did Jesus mean when he told Peter to feed his sheep?And why in your opinion was that same Peter to be found with a body of other men making spiritual decisions as to what would be the accepted Christian teachings sending letters to the various groups throughout Asia and Europe through appointed reprsentatives to be applied by said groups? Why did those groups have regular meetings? Selected men to make decisions regarding worship and teaching? Know many in the same location by name? And engage in preaching together? Why were they told to have unity of belief? And how could that be maintained if they were not organised?

That was then - this is now. one has to understand what unfolded from then to now in relation to what organised religion did over that time period and why people prefer not to be associated with it.

We see clearly the result of 'maintaining' a religion through organisation. You speak as if these arguments are relative to something unquestionable. How do you think schisms began? Through questioning organisations and leaving those organizations.

Those organizations become the daughters of the mother organization. This is because when leaving, they always take something with them - and in that they haven't really left at all.

One does not require church organization or holy script to engage with GOD.

Now if that is your preference, then fine. Different strokes for different folks, but come to my door and preach at me - or even infer - that I am somehow God-less because I have no congregation, and I will point you to the street and say "depart from me, I care not to know you."

[JehovahsWitness]

What in you opinion did Jesus mean when he told Peter to feed his sheep?And why in your opinion was that same Peter to be found with a body of other men making spiritual decisions as to what would be the accepted Christian teachings sending letters to the various groups throughout Asia and Europe through appointed reprsentatives to be applied by said groups? Why did those groups have regular meetings? Selected men to make decisions regarding worship and teaching? Know many in the same location by name? And engage in preaching together? Why were they told to have unity of belief? And how could that be maintained if they were not organised?

That was then - this is now.

Okay so would it be fair to say when you say "That was then... this is now" you are saying that yes, that first century christianity as depicted in scripture did indeed meet what one would normally catagorize as "an organized religion" but that for various reasons you don't believe that Christians need follow that first century model?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 40 by tam]

AN ORGANIZE RELIGION

• Individuals united under a common set of religious belief (1 Cor 1:10)
• Individuals organized into groups based on locality called "churches" or "congregations"
• Individuals within said congregations, duly appointed to handle matters of finance and distribution of provisions at a local and on occasions on an international level between various congregations (Acts 6:1-4; 1 Cor 16:1)
• Certain men within those congregations appointed as "overseers" (1 Tim 3:1; Tit 1:5)
• Congregations looking to a group of men at a specific location to inform them about religious "requirements" and answer concerns brought to them relating to the faith of all said members (Act 15:28)
• Certain Individuals being sent out to the "body" of fellow believers to give encouragement and spiritual food.
• Holding regular meetings to discuss Christ and God and faith with fellow believers in the locality
• Preaching, ie working in a united way to a common purpose (Mat 28:19, 20)¤

¤ An ORGANIZATION is defined as "an organized group of people with a particular purpose"

Given the above...

Since Christianity of the first century meets all the criteria of an organized religion, what makes Christians today believe they should not be part of one?

[tam]

Peace again to you!

He and others did not really make the decisions; they listened to holy spirit and answered a concern that had been brought to them.

But who are you refering to when you say "them"

The apostles and elders (those who are eldest/mature in the faith) who were there with the apostles in Jerusalem.

and why didn't the groups and individual Christians decide for themselves what those "requirements" would be?

What do you mean, 'decide for themselves'?

There was no issue except that false men came and spread a false teaching, all the while claiming to have been sent by the apostles (and elders) in Jerusalem. This caused confusion among the people because this was not what they had learned at first.

Did they not have holy spirit?

All of them?

I do not know. A disciple is not necessarily yet a Christian (an anointed one - having been anointed with holy spirit), but a Christian a disciple (and usually starts out as one before being chosen/anointed with holy spirit).

Why did they need a "them"?

Perhaps they were uncertain; perhaps they were still learning to come to and to hear Christ; perhaps they were less mature in their faith; BUT CERTAINLY because an actual claim had been made (that the men had been sent by the apostles with that false teaching) that they could VERIFY with the actual apostles.


Plus these were the actual apostles; those Christ commissioned to go and make disciples and teach others to obey all that Christ had commanded them. They were firsthand witnesses to what Christ had commanded while in the flesh. As long as the apostles were alive, it was easier to keep the false christ and false teachings at bay (since 11 of the 12 apostles were chosen specifically by Christ and the twelfth was appointed because he had also been with them and Christ from the start).


There is no 'apostolic succession'.


Regardless, people are not called to remain immature. We are supposed to help build one another UP in Christ. Not keep people reliant upon us (or upon men).

"My sheep hear MY voice."


Unfortunately people prefer to walk by sight (it is easier, perhaps), listening to men and following their rules; not truly living free... free as can only be found when the SON (who is the Truth) sets one free.


And as you can see from the examples I listed in my previous post, Christ is quite capable of speaking to individual people, teaching, guiding, directing and assigning each members of His body exactly as He wants, including sending them on assignments and missions to others who are seeking Him (but do not yet know Him).

Given the above...

There is no 'given the above' yet. I responded to all of your questions, and asked a few questions of my own. Those should also be included in the 'given the above'

In short if Christianity of the first century meets all the criteria of an organized religion, what makes Christians today believe they should not be part of one?

Did you give a list of the criteria of organized religion? I did respond to your question earlier about a distinction between religion and the Body of Christ. There are other distinctions as well, so why don't you make a list of the criteria of religion and others can join in.

I can think of one other difference right off the top of my head though. Taxes. Religions do not pay taxes (and that, coupled with real estate purchases and such, can be and often is big business).

Christ paid His and his disciple's tax.

It may seem to be just a small thing, but what Christ said about it is not so small:

“What do you think, Simon?� He asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs and taxes: from their own sons, or from others?�

“From others,� Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt," [Jesus] declared.


How do people not see that religions are 'sons' (or daughters) of this world?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited to fix quote box)

[JehovahsWitness]

Did you give a list of the criteria of organized religion?

Yes, the points are listed above in my post #44 . If you disagree feel free to post what you feel meets the criteria for an "organized religion" and why, if that is the case, you do not believe first century Christianity can be described as such.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]

Okay so would it be fair to say when you say "That was then... this is now" you are saying that yes, that first century christianity as depicted in scripture did indeed meet what one would normally catagorize as "an organized religion" but that for various reasons you don't believe that Christians need follow that first century model?

No.

The first century model as you call it was not meant to be for the purpose it evolved into. Indeed it was functioning as intended and the Romans specifically reacted to it by literally trying to kill it dead. That ended up not being cost effective so they devised a way of infiltrating it in order to take it over, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

The result was an organised religion which had artifacts of the original movement embedded into it, which they HAD to include, but were still able to work around by bringing in their subtle changes which worked against those original artifacts in a subtle, hard to notice, manner.

However, because of the original artifacts being included, some where able to deduce something WRONG therein and in doing so eventually schismed from the main and created alternatives. However, in doing so they were unable to completely eradicate the false from the true because they did not KNOW and could not easily differentiate because they had been indoctrinated sufficiently enough to be confused and thus they took the chaff and the wheat with them and incorporated these their doctrines as well.

And this process has continued throughout history and one of the mainstay devices of control that NO daughter of the mother have ever been able to let go of is the notion of the bible being the irrefutable 'word of GOD' - a notion that was invented BY organised religion from the go-get. The bible represents the Mother-churche's cannon

So in as much as the organization you support and represent THINKS it has 'come out from her' (the mother) it has not and still clings to ideas which were seeded in organised religion but NOT in GOD.

Is that clear enough for you?

[tam]

Did you give a list of the criteria of organized religion?

Yes, the points are listed above in my post #44 . If you disagree feel free to post what you feel meets the criteria for an "organized religion" and why, if that is the case, you do not believe first century Christianity can be described as such.

Did you not read the entire post? I gave you an example where organized religion differs from what the first Christians had. It directly follows the words you quoted.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

Yes and I asked for you to give the criteria for an organized religion. Can you do that?

For me an organized religion is that which meets the criteria in post 44 if you agree fine, then the first century Christianity was an organized religion.

If not can you provide the criteria for an organized religion. Don't tell me what it isn't just tell me what it is.

JW

[tam]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

Yes and I asked for you to give the criteria for an organized religion. Can you do that?

I gave you one, JW. Respond to it or don't respond to it, but I did indeed give you one. (more than one if you go back a page or two.)


Peace again to you.