Is a personal belief a religion?

Your insults are unwarranted; no where did Ozymandias say what you imply. You could for example go back and read the post again.

 

Yawn. Powers that violate or otherwise go beyond natural forces are mysterious, peculiar and uncanny, so ... do you have a point or are you just trying to recloak your subterfuge?

 

Lol, how do you even get to this conclusion?

 

OK. So therefore, when Jesus said the things He was saying He was not preaching religion, but a way of life that those who are of the kingdom of God will live by. And a kingdom is not a religion but a government.

 

"THEOCRACY. A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.
2. La religion qui, dans l'antiquite, s'associa souvent au despotisms, pour regner. par son bras ou a son ombrage, a quelquefois tents de regner seule. Clest ce qu'elle appelait le regne de Dieu, la thiocratie. Matter, De l'influence des Moeurs sur les lois, et de l'influence dos Lois sur les moeurs, 189. Religion, which in former times, frequently associated itself with despotism, to reign, by its power, or under its shadow, has sometimes attempted to reign alone, and this she has called the reign of God, theocracy."

 

A personal belief that brings humans together loving all as one saving the soul forgiving 7x 70 even as Jesus forgives is communicating to the one spirit who is God. Any belief going contrary to that is not of God. God is good. God is life.The devil is evil being death in all things. The devil in our body ends up turning Gods living gifts into a substance humans would rather keep out of sight, and smell. That is the devil in our body, but he does not have to be in the soul. Die at the hands of a hateful raving maniac, and the soul will live, but if the raving maniac does not repent will face Gods light that will wipe him out of existence when God judges the living, and the dead.

 

Yes, I know you claim that. I read your post. Which is why I worried about an egg nog OD.

So, seriously, a theocratic government is established by God??

 

1) Why is that in french?
2) You stated that God establishes theocracies, but that isn't true, now is it? A claim that a government is directed by God and God's laws is not the same thing. The theocracy is still created BY PEOPLE.

 

There is the magic word I was waiting for one of you "think inside the box" people to use.

Of course it would be 'peculiar'.

"1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. "

So, yes! Such a government would be comprised of a 'peculiar' people... a people that understand and comprehend the supernatural.

Remember now, "peculiar" was one of your choice words.

 

How very peculiar.

 

To get back at the original topic, bottom line is that an absence of supernaturality is what distinguishes the non-religious from the religious (but not necessarily the other way around). Personal beliefs that are void of anything supernatural are non-religious. Per definition.

Personal beliefs that imply supernaturality may be religious while beliefs that are founded directly on and because of declarations of supernatural powers are always religious in nature.

 

Indeed. "peculiar" being associated with 'supernatural'. Who would have thought? Words are so 'peculiar'... having a power of their own.

 

And how is it possible that 'personal beliefs' might be separated from the supernatural... when in fact the beliefs themselves are not found in nature? Freewares experience in the forest: "Walking through the forest, I came across a strange thing laying on the ground close to the edge of the pond, and immediately recognized it... lo and behold I had stumbled upon a rare and unique "personal belief". It was like nothing that I had ever encountered in nature before that time."

 

Simply not found in nature is not a criterion for supernaturality. Something is supernatural if and only if it is particularly related to a transcendence of the natural world.

Secondly, your argument (if it is an argument) amounts to saying that colors are supernatural. Living organisms are part of the natural world with all that they are and do, Incorporeal. So if an organism can distinguish refractions of light and call such refractions for colors then colors are natural. If they are able to hold beliefs then holding a belief is also natural. Even supernatural beliefs are part of the natural world (though I bet you will refrain from trying to wrap your head around that one).

 

Strange: I do not see that criterion you suggest here:
"su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous."

Really? Who taught you what the colors are? Something that is learned through some teaching aid. Where did the names of those colors come from? The mind of man? Creatures of the mind those colors are.

As for refraining from something: I think you have refrained from using any type of dictionary when forming your infantile suggestions:
"be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."


Nothing there about NATURE or NATURAL. Hmmm. So I guess those beliefs are not so natural as you would like to suggest.

 

You don't see the criterion? Are you sure? How do you think something is related or attributed to transcendence of the natural world?

Man thought up the names of the refractions he could distinguish .. and so? Isn't man part of the natural world?

Belief is a mental act, mental acceptance or whatever words or phrase you want to play it on .. and so? Aren't the organisms capable of mental acts etc. part of the natural world?

 

"tran·scend (trn-snd)
v. tran·scend·ed, tran·scend·ing, tran·scends
v.tr.
1. To pass beyond the limits of: emotions that transcend understanding.
2. To be greater than, as in intensity or power; surpass: love that transcends infatuation. See Synonyms at excel.
3. To exist above and independent of (material experience or the universe): "One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena" (Hilaire Belloc).
v.intr.
To be transcendent; excel."

Obviously, to transcend, something would have to start at the natural and then move beyond the natural. So something that is 'supernatural' was always supernatural and not of the natural. Try again hotshot.

Only the physical part (the body) of man. Man is made in the image of God... Spirit... supernatural... but of course I would not expect you to understand that.

Are they part of the natural world, or are they merely a part of your perception of the natural world? Is your perception (your consciousness) a part of the natural world? If you think it is, then please show your proof.

 

You're saying it but you're not getting it. How do we detect this something that was always supernatural?

The physical part of living organisms suffices. But I don't expect you to unlearn anything in order to understand that.

I am of the natural world. I am capable of perception. Ergo, my perception is of the natural world.

Now counter this.

 

Well, obviously science cannot do it, else it already would have. So, the only other way to 'detect' that supernatural is through supernatural means. Which requires the use of a tool that science cannot explain.... spiritual discernment.

Oh, then you admit that you don't want to accept or even consider ALL of the elements that comprise man. I kinda figured you would do that.

Yes! I already know you are of the natural world and are considered by the Bible as a "natural man". That is precisely why you cannot fathom the spiritual things.

I just did... in my previous statement above.

 

Ok, and how does this work?

I will at any time admit that I have no means of detecting any part of any living organism that does not belong to the natural world. And at no time will I pretend that I do.

You're going to tell me now that you are not the one attributing something to a realm beyond the natural world, aren't you?

Should I happen to ask, that is.

 

Read your Bible. Learn. Educate yourself. You didn't seem to have any problem learning the science rendition of detecting things... so learn something new.

Well, I do appreciate honest answers. Now in showing that appreciation, I will offer you this:
"1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. "

That will get you started.

Why would I want to tell you something like that? What I am telling you is that it did not start in the natural world where it would require 'transcending'.

 

Circular poppycock.

I really won't ask you again how you're able to detect this. Honestly, I won't.

 

As I suspected.. with the wave of a hand, immediate dismissal. No attempt to put it to a test. No scientific method being applied. So your interest in asking was just for show. Well, whether you ask again or not, is irrelevant, as I have done my duty and informed you.

 

You can't apply the scientific method to something that is "spiritual". How would you do so?

 

Perhaps you should instruct the other non-theists on that fallacy that they are constantly involving themselves in?

Actually, in the comment of mine and its preceding information that was posted, the evidence was supplied and the testing procedures were given... yet the scientific method was not applied... ya know,,, that part about following testing procedures.... Really inexcusable conduct for someone who holds such an admiration for that specific type of conduct (testing).