News-Record.com

Is this a trick question?

The answer is, of course, that we don't need a religion. Not if the goal of life is to live in harmony with one's neighbors, and to be productive members of society. In many parts of the industrialized world, societies have finally learned that it is possible for people of diverse cultures and religions to live in peace together. This means that the divisive nature of religion is counterproductive to the goal of living in peace with one's neighbors. This is why religion is considered impolite as a conversation topic.

Others might counter that the goal of life is to get the best outcome for the "afterlife." Such people miss out on some of the most beautiful and satisfying parts of life. Oh well.

"In many parts of the industrialized world, societies have finally learned that it is possible for people of diverse cultures and religions to live in peace together."

Yeah, like France - what are few car burnings and rampages?

Or England - bombs and gore and airplane plots. Harmony is such a wonderful thing. Oh, I almost the forgot how harmonious the Jihadists and Spaniards. Blowing up trains is no biggie. (You know, the Muslims want Moorish Spain back – once Muslim, ALWAYS Muslim – such a wonderful peaceful religion). And how did Pakistan and India come to be two nations? REMEMBER!!

It is most advantageous to have ONE predominant religion in a culture, as also is having a single language. We are stupidly allowing the Humanist multi-everythings to destroy a once largely homogeneous Judeo-Christian culture - who also naively champion Islamic incursions because it gives them multi-goosebumps in their liberal souls; even though ALL the evidence of history screams: “stop and deport them while you still have a chance!” The English, the Dutch the Germans and the French are only now beginning to see the truth of this.

Now we have continual disruption and division regarding head scarfs in schools, footbaths in airports, and bilingual everything. Religions especially, are by nature and purpose predisposed to making the living environment of a social unit conform to the mega principles (morals, social organization, etc) of that religion.

“Not if the goal of life is to live in harmony with one's neighbors, and to be productive members of society”
This is precisely the goal and purpose of the Christian way – what salvation is all about. If sin is left ot foment and pervade a society, you will NOT have your “harmony with one’s neighbor.” Was it not the Master who said, “Love they neighbor.” One of the main purposes of religion is to give us wisdom so that we will not deny God and His revealed truth.
“Others might counter that the goal of life is to get the best outcome for the ‘afterlife.’ Such people miss out on some of the most beautiful and satisfying parts of life. Oh well.”
Oh well – I guess you’ll find out soon enough, my friend.
I believe that one of the reasons the Bible does not spend much time giving the details of the afterlife, is that 1. It would be very difficult indeed to adequately describe it, and 2. The primary emphasis in the Scriptures is on THIS life – living it God’s way, to His honor and glory. “Thy Kingdom come on EARTH, as it is in heaven.”
The concept of personal continuity after the mortal life is over is a key component of Biblical truth. It gives ADDED meaning, impetus and dimension to earthly live; especially the struggle and sacrifice experienced in God’s service. The writer says,
“ . . . without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a REWARDER of those who diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11.6)
Christianity, although the afterlife is a key component in its weltanschauung, is a Kingdom-building, live-it-to-the-full spiritual way. That some have misunderstood this and focused too much on the rapture or afterlife is unbiblical and unfortunate, but irrelevant to the truth Jesus enunciated:
“I have come that they might have LIFE, and that MORE abundantly.”
So biblical religion is dynamic, rich and fulfilling – a way of “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;” designed to enable us to experience “the most beautiful and satisfying parts of life.”

.

Nikos, one insight....the US does not have "...ONE predominant religion...if it is called Judeo-Christian. So, which would one prefer?

Shalom

Judeo-Christian is another way of saying Christian as it sprang frorth, according OT ("Judeo" part) prophecy and preparation through Messiah. It is a way of acknowledging the debt the New Covenant owes to the Old, not reverting to the OT.

Nikos, recheck the definition of Judeo-Christian and get back to the blog after doing that. One may be surprised at what could be learned by investigating before typing.

Shalom

"Judeo-Christian is another way of saying Christian as it sprang forth, according OT ("Judeo" part) prophecy and preparation through Messiah. It is a way of acknowledging the debt the New Covenant owes to the Old, not reverting to the OT."

Darryl, if you are concerned about my saying it means “Christian” I simply meant that it did not imply a "fusion" of Jewish and Christian thought – a hybrid-anity as it were; which is incorrect; even though it does imply a commonality.

As the term Franco-American implies French aspects of a decidedly American whatever, so “Judeo” is a qualifier that implies a Judaically influenced Christian worldview. The opposite would be something like, “Christiano-Judaism.” This is why I said it means “Christian,” although modified to infer a common body of belief. I do apologize if this was not clear.

Wikipedia: "Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and ADAPTED BY CHRISTIANITY (mine). . ."

By "reverting to the OT" I simply meant that the "Judeo-" part did not mean that Christianity is not a discrete religious entity apart from Judaism, even though it is grounded in the OT Law (Pentateuch) and Prophets. It does imply a cultural thought-system that is founded on both testaments, including the Law; i.e. “adapted by Christianity.”

Again, Wikipedia: “In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.”

I, therefore, stand by my definition, imperfect though it may be.

What other definition would you suggest?

Nikos, generally when one seeks to know the definition of a word, a dictionary is consulted. In this case, try www.dictionary.com and/or www.merriam-webster.com. Either gives a good description. Wikipedia is a culmination of what the general public thinks, not always accurate.

I stand that the definition stated for Judeo-Christian from wikipedia is erroneous.

Shalom

For those who care, wikipedia also notes that the term Judeo-Christian is "...criticized by some for suggesting more commonality than may actually exist." It seems that a good deal of the information at wikipedia on this term was not included in the post above. The full text can be found at this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-christian.

Shalom

So what subtle difference of definition would you offer, Darryl, and for what reason? - without being petty and quibbleaceous (not in dictionary).

If my concerns regarding the more proper definition of the term were really true and honest, one would not have to ask me for a "subtle difference of definition" I would offer. It is apparent that my posts are not read comprehensively.

Shalom

I think I can read an entry of a few lines "comprehensively."