The Unique Move of God

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not good is it, that's a religious activity.

You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Besides you, noone would describe Paul's three prayers here as "repetition."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.

Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

[Cal]

How To Succeed in Demagoguery

Step 1: Establish that "religious activity" is bad.

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Precede similarly with phrases like "of the natural man," " out of the flow," "being negative," "not aligned with the vision," "just your opinion," "having the right scent" (a personal favorite) and any others you can think of.

Repeat.

Congratulations! You are a demagogue!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How To Succeed in Demagoguery

Step 1: Establish that "religious activity" is bad.

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Precede similarly with phrases like "of the natural man," " out of the flow," "being negative," "not aligned with the vision," "just your opinion," "having the right scent" (a personal favorite) and any others you can think of.

Repeat.

Congratulations! You are a demagogue!

Brilliant!

Now I have the tools to "prove" that all of LSM's lawsuits are organic!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Several good illustrations would be door-knocking, SSOT/VBS and FTT/YWAM. When others do it it's a religious activity and a movement of man. When I do it, it's organic and not a religious activity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)

The insistence on changing the definitions of words and terms in the manner you do is a form of equivocation. By not using the standard meaning of the terms, you imply that what is covered by the term "religious activity" is definitionally deficient. When you admit that you use a different definition, then you admit that this is the game you play.

Maybe you would be better served by speaking directly to what is problematic. It is not that it is "religious activity" because there is no agreed upon definition for that term that gets you what you want. Instead, just state that vain repetition is not a spiritual activity. We would all agree upon that. But whether "religious activity" is not spiritual is not agreed upon.

The Bible itself does not agree with you that "religion" is bad. And it does not address "religious activity." And if religion is not bad, then the activities that are associated with it would not be bad.

So work with what is true rather than just what you want to be true.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

For years, Lee encouraged people to chant "O Lord Jesus" over and over until it became vain repetition. Eventually even he got tired of it and chastised his followers for doing it. I was there.