07-03-2017, 02:52 PM
|
#32
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Repetition, Ritual, Religion
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
First, out of context is often still as written. That is the reason it is so difficult to put the "name it and claim it" (or blab it and grab it) preachers out of business. And it sometimes cripples very good Christians. My cousin, the son of an evangelical preacher (well mostly so — AOG) broke his back in a bicycle accident. Because of their belief in healing as something that could be claimed (at least at some level, or by those with the right "gift") they had a hard time over the years as he has remained a paraplegic and has some ongoing health problems as a result. They are praying from the Bible. But they do not fully understand it, so they do not realize that the "promise" they have been holding onto is not quite what they think it is.
If you pray the words of so many portions that are claimed to be continual "promises," but were actually specific to Israel, you will not get what you expect. They are not entirely vain because you are praying to God. But they are vain because they are requests for what will not be granted.
When I say "religious duty," I am referring to going through a motion because it was learned or seems required, but not because your heart, mind, and will are engaged (other than t do what you think is required). It does not negate my otherwise positive use of the word "religion." If you think it does, it demonstrates that you are still mired in the "one definition" world that Lee doped us all into believing. It is worse than a garlic room. More like a smoky opium den. Drugged so that fantasy and hallucination seem to be reality.
"religion" and "religious duty" are not necessarily of the same kind. If you have a duty and it is religious, it may or may not be something negative. The key is to how you engage in it. If your heart, mind, will, etc. are engaged to meet God in it, then there is nothing negative to say about it. If it is merely that thing you do occasionally because it is what you learned to do years ago and your heart is far away, then there is a problem.
Once again, "religion" — even religious duty — is not the problem. It is the participant. Your inability to see beyond the hollow rhetoric of your sect is evidence of a closed and ignorant mind.
|
I dont think Pauls prayer for healing was in vain. He was genuine to pray for healing but God had other plans.It is not a princple that we shouldn't pray for healing. Though if Paul persisted more than 3 times I think it would be vain.
We talk about the spirit vs the natural man and what you said about the heart is very similar to that. Religion is trying to be pleasing God without Christ. Your definition is missing Christ. I mean a Hindu could visit widows with their heart in it.
|
|
|