How does one know God without religion?

[dpmartin]

How does one know God without religion? Truly religion is a part of mankind’s societies, and in the hands of mankind. Therefore corruptible. And it has been evident through out history and even today that mankind can make a religion out of kneeling to a stone. So most certainly religion is not the way.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

[boagie]

dpmartin,

Interesting,could you expand upon your thoughts.Most religious people have a very particular image wrapped in a particular narration and that, to them is an absolute.God cannot be a generalized or be a universal concept,indeed he/she/it must be seen as a very particular human like personality with human like passions.Spirtuality seems an innate quality in humans,I do not think it necessarly applies to organized religions.

I have found for many people religion limits as well as it embraces.Religious people I know are really without wonder,their lives totally taken with domestic affairs.As defenders of the literal text of the bible, born again Christians often put themselves on the defensive.Any new idea is a potental threat,is a new evolutionary theory which is going to jump up and smack them.Perhaps you could share with us what you mean, by truth and the way?

dpmartin,you ask how could a man/women know God without religion.I guess that would depend upon who is defineing it.Perhaps if being in the world is a unique experience,as most people seem able to agree upon.Then religion would only be crediable when it is the man's immediate personal experience,as unique as his individuality.

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing,only the illusion is the grasp of the ring!

[dpmartin]

boagie
As I am sure you know where I stand already, but for the record:
My Way to know the Living God is through Jesus the Christ. Under His Lordship with both feet within His Kingdom of everlasting Life.
Not necessarily the opinion of others, but that is their choice.

Now that said, it is no religion at all, religion is an institution of mankind and the "Christians" then known, (from what I understand), as the people of the Way, were given the opportunity to take advantage of the institution after experiencing many years of brutal persecution. Would consider it a gift from God not to be persecuted when Constantine decided that their God was to be the official God of the Roman Empire. Which was common practice with emperors, pharaohs, and kings. What mankind did with and in the institution is their responsibility, but dose not change the Truth. There are institutions of all manner such as businesses, or nations, or families, that proclaim God, but it dose not make, in my case, Jesus a business, or a nation, or a charitable foundation just because they proclaim Him or not. If your experiences with churches or church goers are less then desirable. It is regrettable but that is not my fault, nor is it God’s fault. The world is what it is, with powers therein, given into the hands of mankind. In the hand of God there is mercy, but in the hand of mankind there is no mercy.


The theme pops up( understandably ) through out this site that religion sucks. So, what is the solution? If there is a Way, which there is, then it is incorruptible which would have to be the Word of God.
It is my contention that if there is an honest question, there is a answer that is True.It is my position that God is right, or correct if that’s better, and I am wrong.
To barrow from a most excellent song writer:
Yes, I have reason to believe that we can all be received in Graceland.


**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

[Mr. Fight the Power]

If there exists a god, there is nothing that implies it must relate to us through religious belief. There is nothing to imply that there must be a conscious understanding, knowledge, or connection to the god.

By creating an omnipotent god, christianity has made its own religion unnecessary.

[Last22]

This is no doubt interesting. I'd like to ask how exactly we are defining "religion." If we say that to practice a religion is to adhere to certian customs/traditions/rituals, etc., then I think a Christian could know God without knowing religion. As I myself am not a Christian, I may be wrong here (and please correct me if I am), but to be a Christian and to know God requires a faith that Christ is the true Lord and Savior. One really doesn't have to attend church to hold such a faith. So if we define religion as rituals/etc., it is possible to know God without religion.

However, if religion is a belief in the "structure" (for lack of a better word) of the Universe, then it's not so simple. A belief in Christ would be a belief in how the Universe came to be (Genesis creation), and would be a religion.

To be honest, I can't come up with any definitive answer without a clear definition of religion. What did you have in mind, dpmartin?

[dpmartin]

Mr. Fight the Power

There is nothing to imply that there is not a Living God, other then that which can come out of the mouth of mankind. All that there is, implies that there is a Living God that can be known, understood, or have a relationship with, other then that which can come out of the mouth of mankind.

An omnipotent God, proves, that religion is unnecessary.

Last22

One could make a religion out of what some consider Darwinism. But the general public’s understanding is that it is not a religion, but yet it is a set of beliefs. Many believe that it is true that mankind evolved from primates but yet it is not a religion. The big bang is also a theory that is believed by many, and that is not considered a religion ether. But kneeling to a stone x amount of times a day is a religion, no matter what the individual that kneels believes in their heart.

As Mr. Fight the Power has so graciously has helped me to explain: An omnipotent God, proves that religion is unnecessary.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

[Mr. Fight the Power]

dpmartin:

First off, when you refer to a "Living God", do you mean an active, interventionary god, or is there some greater meaning?

Now, I will agree that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the nonexistence of a god or gods, living or otherwise. It is only interpretations that cause men to believe that.

I also believe that the counter is true, though, that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the existence of god or gods, either. I attribute the belief in a god or gods to the individual subjective interpretations of men.

I do not posit that your interpretation is wrong, only that it is subjective, and that what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I suggest that in the end, nature will never be sufficient to prove either of our interpretations correct.

[dpmartin]

Mr. Fight the Power
"First off, when you refer to a "Living God", do you mean an active, interventionary god, or is there some greater meaning?"

The Living God who speaks and does what He says, the Provider/Creator of all things.


"Now, I will agree that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the nonexistence of a god or gods, living or otherwise. It is only interpretations that cause men to believe that."
"I also believe that the counter is true, though, that there is nothing inherent to nature that implies the existence of god or gods, either. I attribute the belief in a god or gods to the individual subjective interpretations of men."


I would say, that depends on what one considers what the Truth is. And what is the source of everything that is.

"I do not posit that your interpretation is wrong, only that it is subjective, and that what might be true for you is not necessarily true for me. I suggest that in the end, nature will never be sufficient to prove either of our interpretations correct."

There is no doubt that a point of view from where one stands in this world expressed honestly is a valid point of view. But what are you seeing, and what direction you are facing. And what it is your looking for. The eyes can show one what is within oneself. And if desired, others can see also.

But my main contention is; to know the Living God, or to have a relationship with the Living God, is in the Truth of His Word, by the Way of His Word, and is Life, Life everlasting. And that is not a religion, tho the human institution of religion has and still is used to convey that message to the public. Correctly or not.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by dpmartin

I would say, that depends on what one considers what the Truth is. And what is the source of everything that is.

Not at all. Even you are not relying on nature for your proof, you are using some Descartian circle and relying on the truth of God to display the truth of God.

There is no doubt that a point of view from where one stands in this world expressed honestly is a valid point of view. But what are you seeing, and what direction you are facing. And what it is your looking for.

This is very true. Perhaps you should turn this thought back on to yourself.

But my main contention is; to know the Living God, or to have a relationship with the Living God, is in the Truth of His Word, by the Way of His Word, and is Life, Life everlasting. And that is not a religion, tho the human institution of religion has and still is used to convey that message to the public. Correctly or not.

But isn't your reliance on the "Truth of His Word" and the "Way of his Word", but a rather direct appeal to the authority of the Church?

If the omnipotent God makes the church irrelevant, doesn't he also make his own word irrelevant?

[dpmartin]

Mr. Fight the Power

"Not at all. Even you are not relying on nature for your proof, you are using some Descartian circle and relying on the truth of God to display the truth of God."

The Word of God is the proof of the Word of God. When God says something, it is fulfilled.
Therefore one knows it’s from God, and not the words of man.

All thoughts of mankind go into the ground just as the body. Just as one’s physical strength many give one more athletic capability than another, so is the mind. The mind makes nothing true. It can be used to contemplate Truth. Or it can be used to contemplate lies, or desirers of the flesh or to justify what is in the heart, or retain and or analyze information. And of course that is only some of it. What ever the soul commands it to do within it’s own capabilities. Of course there are some if not many, who have reasoned by observation of themselves, or others, or their environment around them, that there must be a God. But there are just as many who argue otherwise. Some genuine in the effort to proof, some not. The Maker knows exactly how to communicate to that which He has made, in a manner which one can understand. The Knowledge of God is not exclusive to intellectual might.
It is the soul, which all have at same strength, that shares the Knowledge of God.. Surly one should fear for the life of one’s soul more so then the rest of oneself. Otherwise one is nothing more than an animal that can dominate to consume for it’s own pleasure.


"This is very true. Perhaps you should turn this thought back on to yourself."

One can look to one’s environment, one can look to oneself, or one can look to God.

"But isn't your reliance on the "Truth of His Word" and the "Way of his Word", but a rather direct appeal to the authority of the Church?
If the omnipotent God makes the church irrelevant, doesn't he also make his own word irrelevant?"

Buy what authority is the church? Should not the church be under the authority of the Word of God? Then how is it that the church controls the Word of God. If the church be obedient, then it follows Jesus. The church does not control the Word of God. Nor is Jesus exclusive to the church. Jesus is for all. Not just for church goers.
In the past, the church has been known to think it was in control, and the Gospel went on without them. Martin Luther is a good example. Even Rene Descartes had his reservations about publishing his writings in his day, for probably some of the same reasons.

**********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********