Posted on 10/11/2004 12:00:35 PM PDT by skellmeyer
“It's not a religious film, it's a philosophical film. It uses themes and elements from various religions and spiritual beliefs. Stop simplifying things...”
“Look, I’m not religious, I just have my own spirituality.”
How many times have we heard, or perhaps even made, remarks like this? Better yet, what in blazes do these remarks mean? It seems that people throw around words like “philosophical”, “religious”, and “spiritual” without having more than a vague idea of what the words signify. As long as we are vague on the definition of the words we use, we cannot say precisely what we mean. So, in order to see how these terms fit together, we have to know their precise meanings.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
St. Paul describes liturgy in his letters, "the cup of blessing which we bless..." - that's straight out of the Passover meal liturgy, which is the precursor to the Mass. I guess you haven't read the Pauline letters?
I'm talking about Paul's (Saul) conversion. It wasn't through religion.
What a remarkable idea...
"Philosophy (the pursuit of wis-dom) leads to theology (discussion of God).
"Theology leads to religion (binding that which is broken).
"Religion leads to wisdom (right judgement).
"Wisdom is the only real spirituality (the breath of life).
I thought Saul of Tarsus persecuted those of the 'Cross.' Wasn't his conversion caused by a direct revelation?
I repectfully disagree with this writer's assertion that spirituallity can only come through religion (as he has defined religion).
Saul's conversion, by his own words was immediate (Acts 26:9-21). and came from Jesus, not religion. One COULD argue it was his persecution of christians that prepared him for his role, hence religion was responsible for his conversion.
I don't agree with that.
St. Paul had a spiritual experience or spiritual awakening or whatever you want to call it, that didn't first come through religion.
I only use Paul as an example of why I disagree with this writer.
In a sense perhaps. Wasn't Saul fully convicted that he was doing God's will in persecuting Christians? If that were the case, he may have taken his 'religion' as far as his human, or natural understanding could take him, qualifying him for the new paradigm.
Saul's conversion came from the power of the Cross, which is a religious act (unless you wish to argue that the Cross did NOT bind anything back together).
Now, Paul was blind until Ananias laid hands on him (a religious act). Immediately afterwards he was baptized (a religious act).
Paul was a teacher and prophet but he was NOT an apostle until Acts 13:3 when the Church laid hands on him. None of his speeches are recorded (it's acts of the APOSTLES after all), until after the Church laid hands on him, he is never called an apostle until after the Church laid hands on him.
Paul shows forth the importance of religion.
Pauls conversion came by the direct intervention of Jesus Christ. The labels matter not at all. The dissection less. We however must believe by faith. Recall Jesus' words to Thomas:
Joh 20:29* Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Do you have faith, or not? One leads to eternal life, the other to eternal damnation.
Col 2:8* Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
If Jesus blinded you, then spoke to you, you'd probably convert. But that is not the cross, that is intervention. Quit wasting your time with this and go tell a Hell bound sinner about Jesus. Please.
For those of you who are lost, BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST, there is no other mediator between God and you.
1Ti 2:5* For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
to the glory of God.
Scripture witnesses to that.
You can deny the clear words of Scripture if you like. That's your business. But I prefer to believe what God's word says.
First one must believe. Faith is the outworking, or the activation of the belief. Faith is the 'works' of the belief and knowledge is the goal.
If I may offer an analogy:
Supposing I offered you ten dollars to mow my lawn and you trusted me to fulfill my promise to pay you upon completion. You believed I would pay you IF you mowed the lawn. That is a belief, whether it was activated or not.
If you chose to mow my lawn, that is the outworking, the activation, the works of your belief which would then qualify you to receive the ten dollars. In a very real sense, the activation of your belief is the work you do, the mowing of the lawn You are showing me your faith by your works.
When you receive the money, you now KNOW that your belief was true and your faith (works) was justified.
Isn't it so with the promises of God? To have the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ and He who sent Him is eternal life. To have the knowledge of the FINISHER of our faith --the very one who authored it? That is the goal.
But first, belief in the promise. Then the work (faith) of preparing our heart and mind to receive Him. No easy task, but performable, according to the intensity of your desire to have His government on your shoulders.
Saul found it hard to kick against the pricks of the Gospel, but as a consequence he became infected with that belief -- a belief that was brought to fruition on the Road to Damascus.
Cheers.
Prove it
Prove it, that faith isn't the singular critical factor in being born again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.