The Unique Move of God

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

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.

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

Two words Ohio, double standard.
Just as a brother spoke on hierarchy. When others do it, it's hierarchy. When we do it, it's not.
Yes it is incredible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

No kidding. He stole door-knocking from the Mormons/JWs. And he even admitted as much!

Bottom line with the LCM: When they do it, it's anointed. When anyone else does it, it's dead. Doesn't matter what it is--establishing a seminary (or cemetery!), setting up a secular profit center, suing other Christians. Shoot, even allowing the leader's son to molest sisters in the movement headquarters is apparently part of the blessing, given how they all kissed up to Philip Lee and swept the sisters under the rug.

All joking aside it's a serious error, because they can use it to justify anything they do and condemn anything anyone else does. It's the ultimate consummation of "even when we're wrong we're right." This is dark corruption. This is the deep things of Satan.

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.

Quoting any site that does not reveal its own sources is not very meaningful. I looked into a few items there and found it to have its own collection of particulars on issues for which the solution is not so simple. And they quote from authors that are strongly at odds with each other as if they are no the same page.

As for the statement "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship," even that is not a correct assessment of Christianity. The whole "it is a relationship" is to ignore that it is also a requirement. It is commands that are to be obeyed. Not just emotions and feelings flowing between persons in "a relationship." The simplistic "not religion" but "is relationship," as if that is all there is to it, is a denial of the requirement for action and obedience. It distills the Christian life down to "spiritual" activities of prayer and praise and "secular" activities like living in this world. It denies the commands of Christ and removes all burdens to do more than "learn more about Jesus." Get to know him better.

It needs lots of grace because we are constantly short of the glory of God since we don't even try. (And it despises the word "try.")

You love to find someone who sort-of-kinda-seems-to-agree-with-you and stick them out there as if that is the end of the search.

Try again. Find the real analysis that determines from the scripture that putting the label "religion" on the fullness of activities and life of the Christian is incorrect or is rejected by the scripture. You won't find it. It is only the ones who want to stuff things in a box so as to hide the truth about them and then declare that everything in the box is bad who say religion is just bad. Or people who have never really thought about what they are thinking or saying.

[Evangelical]

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.

Let us agree to disagree on the meaning of the word religion and religious activity, and try to agree on what we mean. I or we (i.e. Rick Warren and I ) , might say that religious activity is anything we do for God without using our spirit. What doth thou sayest?