<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Religion!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.imrah.org/2007/07/religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.imrah.org/2007/07/religion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:59:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sidharth Mohandas</title>
		<link>http://www.imrah.org/2007/07/religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5354</link>
		<dc:creator>Sidharth Mohandas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ns1.digital-ministry.com/~imrah/2007/07/31/religion/#comment-5354</guid>
		<description>The use of the word &#039;religion&#039; there isn&#039;t really the same as what we understand &#039;religion&#039; in our day. This particular word in Greek thréskeia as understood by the Jews referred to &quot;observances, rites or ceremonies practiced during worship&quot;. We must remember that James is writing to a Jewish audience, and he uses words the Jews were familiar with, and used those words to get the truth across that he meant to convey.

This is just like how John used the term &quot;word of God&quot; (logos tou theou). For a Hellenized Jew, logos was the principle thing that governed everything, from the universe to the intricate affairs in a man&#039;s life. But according to the belief then, logos never related directly to man, but governed from afar. So when John said &quot;And the word became flesh&quot;, it probably shocked the readers. The very essence of God, the principle thing that governed everything came into the depths of our world and embraced us. We can&#039;t fully appreciate this, because we don&#039;t understand what terms meant to the original audience. 

In England, what you refer to as chips, I refer to as fries. So in order to relate to you, I would have to use words in such a way that you&#039;d understand what I mean....;) Hope this clears.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The use of the word &#8216;religion&#8217; there isn&#8217;t really the same as what we understand &#8216;religion&#8217; in our day. This particular word in Greek thréskeia as understood by the Jews referred to &#8220;observances, rites or ceremonies practiced during worship&#8221;. We must remember that James is writing to a Jewish audience, and he uses words the Jews were familiar with, and used those words to get the truth across that he meant to convey.</p>
<p>This is just like how John used the term &#8220;word of God&#8221; (logos tou theou). For a Hellenized Jew, logos was the principle thing that governed everything, from the universe to the intricate affairs in a man&#8217;s life. But according to the belief then, logos never related directly to man, but governed from afar. So when John said &#8220;And the word became flesh&#8221;, it probably shocked the readers. The very essence of God, the principle thing that governed everything came into the depths of our world and embraced us. We can&#8217;t fully appreciate this, because we don&#8217;t understand what terms meant to the original audience. </p>
<p>In England, what you refer to as chips, I refer to as fries. So in order to relate to you, I would have to use words in such a way that you&#8217;d understand what I mean&#8230;.;) Hope this clears.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.imrah.org/2007/07/religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5353</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ns1.digital-ministry.com/~imrah/2007/07/31/religion/#comment-5353</guid>
		<description>I am wondering about James 1:27. Is the translation &#039;religion&#039; incorrect? It does imply that there is a religion that is acceptable to God. Hypocritical and unloving religion is of course to be avoided.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am wondering about <a href="http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&amp;q=James+1%3A27" class="bibleref" title="ESV James 1:27" target="_new">James 1:27</a>. Is the translation &#8216;religion&#8217; incorrect? It does imply that there is a religion that is acceptable to God. Hypocritical and unloving religion is of course to be avoided.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

