Having a personal relationship with God

[Sky Dancer]

requires no religion.

 

[syrenn]

requires no religion.

Agreed. Religions are not required or anything. Nor is anyone's "help" in getting you right with god.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Having a personal relationship with God requires no religion.

True.

All that’s required is an imagination.

 

[Smartt33]

That is why God created man. It is all about relationships. I continue to say that I am not anchored to any religion, but rather a real and poersonal, living and loving, walking and talking, daily relationship with God in Christ and his Word.

 

[L.K.Eder]

requires no religion.

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

 

[Sky Dancer]

requires no religion.

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

Well, yes, of course. One does not need religion to have a relationship with God. That's my point.

 

[eots]

requires no religion.

Agreed. Religions are not required or anything. Nor is anyone's "help" in getting you right with god.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_9aTfGgF0c]"Get Right With God" - Lucinda Williams - YouTube[/ame]

I would risk the serpent's bite
I would dance around with seven
I would kiss the diamond back
If I knew it would get me to heaven

Chorus:
'Cause I want to get right with God
Yes, you know you got to get right with God

I would burn the soles of my feet
Burn the palms of both my hands
If I could learn and be complete
If I could walk righteously again

I would sleep on a bed of nails
'Till my back was torn and bleeding
In the deep darkness of Hell
The Damascus of my meeting

I asked God about his plan
To save us all from Satan's slaughter
If I give up one of my lambs
Will you take me as one of your daughters?

 

[Truthmatters]

Organizing religion has caused this world many lives

 

[Sky Dancer]

Organizing religion has caused this world many lives

Unfortunately, religion is linked with colonialism, and ethnocide or cultural genocide.

 

[syrenn]

requires no religion.

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

No... all it requires is a following. Even if that following is only one person.

 

[L.K.Eder]

requires no religion.

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

No... all it requires is a following. Even if that following is only one person.

interesting concept of a personal relationship.

i have one of those with salma hayek.

 

[Intense]

requires no religion.

From a different perspective, it is True Religion. Core Religion. Inward, stemming outward.

 

[Intense]

requires no religion.

Agreed. Religions are not required or anything. Nor is anyone's "help" in getting you right with god. [/QUOT Nah. We play out in the physical. We need each other for that.

 

[Intense]

requires no religion.

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

Well, yes, of course. One does not need religion to have a relationship with God. That's my point.

I think you are confusing the definition of Religion with the example, every example.

 

[Intense]

but it requires a god,

and possibly one who is reciprocating.

No... all it requires is a following. Even if that following is only one person.

interesting concept of a personal relationship.

i have one of those with salma hayek.

Dusk Till Dawn? You were the snake?

 

[syrenn]

requires no religion.

Agreed. Religions are not required or anything. Nor is anyone's "help" in getting you right with god.

Nah. We play out in the physical. We need each other for that.

Why? Why do you need anyone other then your self and what you believe?

 

[Intense]

Agreed. Religions are not required or anything. Nor is anyone's "help" in getting you right with god.

Nah. We play out in the physical. We need each other for that.

Why? Why do you need anyone other then your self and what you believe?

Do you go through Life knowing everything and all outcomes before they happen, with nothing to learn or experience? Does not God working through People in the physical realm, interest you or effect you in any way? Of course He does. Do you live Life from your own perspective? Do I? Do we not still learn from each other? Do we not still rely on others? Of course we do. The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity, is putting God First in All things. Islam makes that claim too. It's the stuff that comes after, when we make claims over others, that we have no right to make, where the problems start.

 

[syrenn]

Nah. We play out in the physical. We need each other for that.

Why? Why do you need anyone other then your self and what you believe?

Do you go through Life knowing everything and all outcomes before they happen, with nothing to learn or experience?

No one does. Religion also has nothing to do wit that... nor does god.

Does not God working through People in the physical realm, interest you or effect you in any way?

As far as i am concerned.... no. That is unless some terrorist is calming he is doing gods work.

Of course He does.

First off... how do you know its a he? And... of course he does not.

Do you live Life from your own perspective? Do I?

yes... we all live from our own perspective.

Do we not still learn from each other? Do we not still rely on others? Of course we do.

Of course... we all do. But religion or god has nothing to do with it.

The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity, is putting God First in All things. Islam makes that claim too. It's the stuff that comes after, when we make claims over others, that we have no right to make, where the problems start.

The problem is when the cults think their way is the only way and will not tolerate any dissension.

 

[Intense]

Why? Why do you need anyone other then your self and what you believe?

Do you go through Life knowing everything and all outcomes before they happen, with nothing to learn or experience?

No one does. Religion also has nothing to do wit that... nor does god.




As far as i am concerned.... no. That is unless some terrorist is calming he is doing gods work.






First off... how do you know its a he? And... of course he does not.





yes... we all live from our own perspective.

Do we not still learn from each other? Do we not still rely on others? Of course we do.

Of course... we all do. But religion or god has nothing to do with it.

The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity, is putting God First in All things. Islam makes that claim too. It's the stuff that comes after, when we make claims over others, that we have no right to make, where the problems start.

The problem is when the cults think their way is the only way and will not tolerate any dissension.

God is spirit and Truth.

Everything is Religion, Thought, Word, Action, Value, Principle, Ideal. You do not turn it off with a switch on your end.

Madison on Conscience, the Individual, Society, and Government.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4271544

Madison on Conscience.

 

[syrenn]

God is spirit and Truth.

Everything is Religion, Thought, Word, Action, Value, Principle, Ideal. You do not turn it off with a switch on your end.

Madison on Conscience, the Individual, Society, and Government.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4271544

Madison on Conscience.

I still meas nothing.

All religion is a cult following. Does god require a cult following? Do you need to be told or conform or follow to.... know?