The World's Newest Major Religion - No Religion

[2timothy316]

Article from NATGEO: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... -religion/

Article from the Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ous-nones/

They are called 'Nones' or people that are religiously unaffiliated. Perhaps you have asked someone their religion and they answered 'I'm spiritual but don't believe in religion'.

For debate: Is the 'None' dogma trend healthy or good for society? Is it scripturally supported to be a 'None'? Are all 'Nones' beliefs acceptable to God? What scriptures support or condemn the idea of 'many beliefs and teachings all serving one God'.

[Tcg]

That's what I would call nit-picking.

You can call it whatever you want. Making up names to call my post isn't an argument against it, but rather a failure to address it.

What he meant, I'm sure, is that the world's newest religious stance is that there is no religion that is approved of by the majority.

I've never found mind reading to be an effective argument.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by 2timothy316]

This subheading is very confusing, "The World's Newest Major Religion - No Religion". How could "No Religion" be "The World's Newest Major Religion".

How could no religion be a religion? This would be the equivalent of claiming having no gas at all in your car's tank would be evidence of a full tank of gas.

That's what I would call nit-picking.

What he meant, I'm sure, is that the world's newest religious stance is that there is no religion that is approved of by the majority.

To Tcg: I did not fail to address the content of your post. I did exactly that---explain what the subheading meant---which was appropriate to the discussion.

[Tcg]

To Tcg: I did not fail to address the content of your post. I did exactly that---explain what the subheading meant---which was appropriate to the discussion.

All you did was claim that my post was nit-picking. How exactly is that addressing my post?

[2timothy316]

To Tcg: I did not fail to address the content of your post. I did exactly that---explain what the subheading meant---which was appropriate to the discussion.

All you did was claim that my post was nit-picking. How exactly is that addressing my post?

Check the links in the OP. There you will see a detailed description of what the title of the thread means. No need to guess.

[Tcg]

To Tcg: I did not fail to address the content of your post. I did exactly that---explain what the subheading meant---which was appropriate to the discussion.

All you did was claim that my post was nit-picking. How exactly is that addressing my post?

Check the links in the OP. There you will see a detailed description of what the title of the thread means. No need to guess.

I haven't guessed about anything. I asked onewithhim how claiming my post was "nitpicking" addresses my post. Are you attempting to answer for onewithhim while onewithhim answers for you? Wouldn't it be much more effective if each of you answered for yourself?

[showme]

What scriptures support or condemn the idea of 'many beliefs and teachings all serving one God'. " In that day All the nations will come to the Lord God" , or something like that by Isaiah.

All nations? You mean every person in every nation is going to follow Lord God? North Korea?

Is an individual a nation?

I'll give you this credit though. at least you gave a part of a scripture. Most have just given an opinion.

The "nations" come together to make their confession after the "day of distress". That confession is "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood". (Jeremiah 16:19)

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]

Okay so would it be fair to say when you say "That was then... this is now" you are saying that yes, that first century christianity as depicted in scripture did indeed meet what one would normally catagorize as "an organized religion" but that for various reasons you don't believe that Christians need follow that first century model?

No.

Ok so how would you define an organized religion?

One does not have to define an orgaised religion. One simply identifies an organized religion as that entity which is organized enough to define itself.

One could then examine its self definition and find such are redefinions of former redfinitions etc.

One could trace that all the way to its source definition and then examine if that definition is correct.

Theism is the source [foundation] where religion is built off of.