How can you say Christianity is not a religion?

[OnceConvinced]

I hear it so many times, but only from Christians, that Christianity is not a religion. When I was a Christian, even, I used to say “Christianity is a relationship with God� even though there is no bible backing for this claim. In fact James says:

Jam 1:26 & 27 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

This is pretty much the what Jesus promoted and practiced, ie, looking after those in need and also keeping oneself free from sin and the influences of the world. James makes it quite clear that it’s religion.

Also many of these Christians who claim they are not religious practice religious activities on a regular basis and even insist that many of them are necessities, eg, baptism, communion, prayer, quiet times.

Here is a list that most Christians conduct, some of them on a regular basis. RELIGIOUS activities:

Saying grace before meals,
Attending church every Sunday morning
Baptism
Communion
Prayer meetings
Raising you hands to god in worship
Closing your eyes when praying
Standing together in a congregation and singing
Holding hands during worship or prayer
Altar calls
The laying on of hands
Annointing with oil
Chanting the lord's prayer
Quiet times
Speaking in tongues
Holy laughter
Being slain in the spirit
Spiritual warfare
PRAYER!

All one has to do is step into a church to see the religious activities that go on. I wrote an observation of a typical church service here:

How religious is church?

If you care to read it, it out lines the many religious rituals that make up a church service, from the greeting at the door to the closing prayer. Even just going to church every week is a religious ritual in itself.

Even if you don’t go to church you conduct religious rituals like prayer and bible readings. Even repentance and the sinner’s prayer is a religious act.

So based on the above facts,

How can anyone claim that Christianity is not religion? (and how do you get around the verses in James)

Where in the bible does it say that Christianity is not a religion or simply just a relationship with God?

Does anyone here who is not a Christian agree that Christianity is not a religion? Or is this simply just a Christian fantasy to try to make their religion something special?

[bluethread]

Please take it up with Merriam Webster, I'm just using it as my source to show that I am not making things up out of thin air.

I am referring to Merriam Webster. That was directly from you link. You just chose to limit the definition to suit your argument.

I use to claim I wasn't religious, I now admit that I was and use this definition to further evidence my claim. It's not like Merriam Webster is my only source of evidence. There is also the rituals and dogmas and such that have been mentioned.

Yes, rituals and dogmas are religion, because they are actions.

What I see happening is some religious people that try to make themselves appear to not be religious. In your post I seem to witness a religious person trying to make the word 'religious' irrelevant on a topic about whether or not Christianity is a religion. I wonder if not wanting to be religious is what drives both of these approaches?

No, understanding religion is vital to determining if Christianity is a religion. I would say that one is not really a Christian, if one does not follow the practices that follow from that philosophy, ie. the religion. I would also say that one is not a physicist, if one does not follow the guidelines of physics. An atheist can discuss Christianity without engaging in the practices that follow, just as one can discuss physics without engaging in the disciplines of physics, but that does not make that atheist a Christian any more than it makes that one a physicist. The religion of Christianity is it's practice, as the discipline of physics is it's practice. However, Christianity is a branch of theistic philosophy, just as physics is a branch of the philosophy of mathematics. In short, Christianity is neither a religion or a relationship. It is a philosophy. Any practice that follows from that philosophy, including any given relationship, is religion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

The relationship thing is a modern evangelical take. I do not make that argument. That said, Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.

You must be using the terms differently than most people. Can you give us your definition for what is a philosophy and what is a religion in general?

One who defends a philosophy without engaging in any of the things that follow from that philosophy is not religious.

I don't know of anyone who calls himself a Christian who does not engage in at least SOME of the things on that list.

The practices that follow from a philosophy are religion.

I can't agree with your definitions for philosophy and religion because they confuse and conflate both terms in a way that makes no sense to me.

If someone just defends Christianity, you say, they are only doing the philosophy of Christianity, not the religion. However, if they should do the PRACTICES that follow from the philosophy, THAT'S a religion. But you said that Christianity is NOT a religion, even though many people DO the practices that follow from the philosophy.

I can't make heads or tails from what you said.

From what you said, I can get that Christianity is NOT a religion, and IS a religion at the same time. This is nonsensical to me because it leads to a contradiction. It's got to be one or the other. Perhaps you mean that Christianity is both a philosophy AND a religion, but right now, you leave me quite baffled.

Could you explain?

The activities listed above are the religion of some Christians, most notably the RCC and denominations related to it.

Well, the RCC and others are Christians, too. I must be missing your point. Maybe you mean that you don't practice your Christianity the way that other Christians do? You might have another kind of a list of practices, instead?

Could you clarify what it is you mean?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

No, understanding religion is vital to determining if Christianity is a religion. I would say that one is not really a Christian, if one does not follow the practices that follow from that philosophy, ie. the religion. I would also say that one is not a physicist, if one does not follow the guidelines of physics. An atheist can discuss Christianity without engaging in the practices that follow, just as one can discuss physics without engaging in the disciplines of physics, but that does not make that atheist a Christian any more than it makes that one a physicist.

If someone self-identifies as a Christian, that about does it for me.

He is a Christian, there are thousands of kinds of Christian denominations and thousands of personal variations within these, all adhering to certain practices more or less than any other person. It's not as if we can check somehow to see who is MORE OR LESS Christian, since there IS no objective criteria for religions.

What is a TRUE Christian? ... we all know that joke. Anyone who doesn't fit in with a very narrow and particular view of Christianity is not a TRUE Christian. No siree.

If someone self-identifies as a physicist, there are objective criteria for that. We can tell who is a pseudo-physicist, and who is a real one. We just have to ask our proposed physicist for a list of his published scientific papers. Not so with any Christians, because when it comes to religions, it's all subjective.

Someone might write a ton of papers on Christianity without actually being one. And then again, they might be. How can we tell? ... They might be "practicing" and yet not believing. They might believe yet not practice. Which one of these is a true Christian? ... this is a matter of opinion only.

The religion of Christianity is it's practice, as the discipline of physics is it's practice.

Religions have beliefs, dogmas, canon. Your criteria for what constitutes a religion is too narrow to be useful, and who says what is the correct kind of practice or not?

However, Christianity is a branch of theistic philosophy, just as physics is a branch of the philosophy of mathematics.

I've never met a Christian who self-identified as someone who followed a philosophy, but I've hear from countless who say they adhere to a faith. We have the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of this, and the philosophy of that. However, you aren't talking about the PHILOSOPHERS of religion, but of people who call themselves Christians.

And we know that many Christians hold to the belief that they must defend their beliefs by way of philosophy. So, to them, talking about their religion to others is practicing the religion, is part of the religion and of the dogma.

In short, Christianity is neither a religion or a relationship. It is a philosophy.

I dont see the purpose you may have to call Christianity a philosophy, when the rest of the world calls it a religion. So, for the sake of the argument.. let's say I call Christianity a philosophy and NOT a religion. What's going to happen?

1) It might make you happy that I adopt your peculiar definition, but I have to tell you that I won't be using your definition with anyone else, because I find it quite useless and confusing.
2) You get me to use the term that you prefer for classifying a kind of Christian who doesn't do any religious practices. I usually use the term "non-practicing" for that.
3) You get to confuse the term religion and philosophy so that they blend together. Unfortunately, I won't be following you there. I like the fact that the two terms represent very different activities.

Any practice that follows from that philosophy, including any given relationship, is religion.

So, it seems that Christianity can be a philosophy AND a religion. But most people would simply say that Christianity is a religion and have done with it. It's not as if philosophies have gods as their final explanation, or believe in miracles, or in any sacred scripture, or divine revelation, or use faith as epistemology.

If someone would make a religion out of Existentialism, for example, they might have to say that Nietzsche was divinely inspired by the god of existentialism, that .JP. Sarte was born of a virgin with a lot of angst, and that Søren Kierkegaard could heal the sick with just a bit of ironic despair.


We would have holy existential days where we would all of us pray to ourselves, we would revere the hand written notes of all of the sad men who are the existentialists, and we would have big iconic building where people would congregate but not interact with anyone.

Do you think that Existentialism, if practiced ( whatever that might mean ) is a religion? Where is the god, where are the miracles, where is the faith, where is the dogma, where is the canon?

Why do you need to call what everyone else calls a religion a philosophy? What is the point of your argument?

Christianity isn't based on reason, but on faith. A philosophy does not work by way of faith. When faith in a god is front and center, you got yourself a religion. When ideas are front and center, that's philosophy.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

The relationship thing is a modern evangelical take. I do not make that argument. That said, Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.

You must be using the terms differently than most people. Can you give us your definition for what is a philosophy and what is a religion in general?

I did better than that. I pointed out the appropriate definition from the link provided by Clownboat; "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". Wikipedia defines philosophy as "the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language". I would say a philosophy is a system that one employs in doing that. One focuses on activity and the other on thought.

One who defends a philosophy without engaging in any of the things that follow from that philosophy is not religious.

I don't know of anyone who calls himself a Christian who does not engage in at least SOME of the things on that list.

Yes, that is their religion. Christianity is the philosophy from which they derive that list of religious practices.

The practices that follow from a philosophy are religion.

I can't agree with your definitions for philosophy and religion because they confuse and conflate both terms in a way that makes no sense to me.

If someone just defends Christianity, you say, they are only doing the philosophy of Christianity, not the religion. However, if they should do the PRACTICES that follow from the philosophy, THAT'S a religion. But you said that Christianity is NOT a religion, even though many people DO the practices that follow from the philosophy.

No, the practices do not make the philosophy a religion, the practices are the religion. Just as one can discuss a philosophy without engaging in religion, one can also engage in religion without even being aware of the underlying philosophy. The latter is quite common. I understand the confusion. That is not due to me conflating the terms. It is due to a society that has been predominately conflated the philosophy of Christianity and the religion of the RCC. They are not the same. The RCC is an authoritarian organization that derives its practices(religion) from the philosophy of Christianity, as do many other denominations.

I can't make heads or tails from what you said.

From what you said, I can get that Christianity is NOT a religion, and IS a religion at the same time. This is nonsensical to me because it leads to a contradiction. It's got to be one or the other. Perhaps you mean that Christianity is both a philosophy AND a religion, but right now, you leave me quite baffled.

Could you explain?

That is because you think I said that Christianity is and is not a religion. That is not what I said. I said, Christianity is NOT a religion. That list of activities is a religion. One could say that loving one's neighbor is a religion, but that is not Christianity. That is a summary of the practices in the Scriptures. Christianity is the philosophy one applies to that list.

The activities listed above are the religion of some Christians, most notably the RCC and denominations related to it.

Well, the RCC and others are Christians, too. I must be missing your point. Maybe you mean that you don't practice your Christianity the way that other Christians do? You might have another kind of a list of practices, instead?

Could you clarify what it is you mean?

Christianity is not a list of practices. The RCC and other denominations use the philosophy of Christianity to derive their various lists of practices(religions). The philosophy of the RCC is authoritarian Christianity, it's religion is the rituals and practices that it requires. My philosophy is Prima Scriptura according to the Shul of Yeshua, my religion is Torah submission. In Judaism it is the difference between Torah and Halakha. Torah is the basis of Jewish philosophy and Halakha is the religious practices. In short, Torah is the philosophy and Torah submission is the religion.

In common language, as with Christianity, many see Jewish philosophy and practice as one and the same. However, when one is speaking generally, that does not take into account cultures that separate philosophy and practice. Therefore, it is important to take into account that the two, though linked in Judeo-Christian tradition, are not the same.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

I would omit

"Speaking in tongues
Holy laughter
Being slain in the spirit"

As being practiced by "most Christians". These things are foreign to the largest Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism.

Agreed. I should have been more careful not to use the word "most".

Never even heard of "Holy Laughter" I'll have to ask one of my Evangelical cousins about that one!

Definitely a Pentecostal thing and it may have been a 90s fad. I have never seen it except on a news item back in the 90s. I also heard a lot about it through Christian friends.

[OnceConvinced]

Let me sum that up in case the point was lost:

The argument is not about Christianity being a religion. Christianity is a religion.

The argument is whether or not religion comes from Christ.
It does not. I know this from what my Lord has taught me, from the bad fruit of that religion, the false teachings, the divisions, the 'getting into bed with kings of the earth', the hypocrisy, the harm, the rules and rituals of men, the conflicts with Christ and His teachings, etc, etc.

I can’t see how you can say it doesn’t come from Christ. Christ was the one who instigated the religious ritual of communion. He also endorsed baptism. He also set the example of going away to private places and praying (a religious ritual). He also came up with the Lord’s prayer, another religious ritual. He also set another religious ritual that of standing up in front of a crowd and preaching.

Not only that, but Jesus set the standard for what James says is true religion, ie: helping those in need and being free from the sins of the world.

So how can you then claim that this religion does not come from Jesus?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

No, understanding religion is vital to determining if Christianity is a religion. I would say that one is not really a Christian, if one does not follow the practices that follow from that philosophy, ie. the religion. I would also say that one is not a physicist, if one does not follow the guidelines of physics. An atheist can discuss Christianity without engaging in the practices that follow, just as one can discuss physics without engaging in the disciplines of physics, but that does not make that atheist a Christian any more than it makes that one a physicist.

If someone self-identifies as a Christian, that about does it for me.

He is a Christian, there are thousands of kinds of Christian denominations and thousands of personal variations within these, all adhering to certain practices more or less than any other person. It's not as if we can check somehow to see who is MORE OR LESS Christian, since there IS no objective criteria for religions.

What is a TRUE Christian? ... we all know that joke. Anyone who doesn't fit in with a very narrow and particular view of Christianity is not a TRUE Christian. No siree.

If someone self-identifies as a physicist, there are objective criteria for that. We can tell who is a pseudo-physicist, and who is a real one. We just have to ask our proposed physicist for a list of his published scientific papers. Not so with any Christians, because when it comes to religions, it's all subjective.

Someone might write a ton of papers on Christianity without actually being one. And then again, they might be. How can we tell? ... They might be "practicing" and yet not believing. They might believe yet not practice. Which one of these is a true Christian? ... this is a matter of opinion only.

I am not arguing for orthodoxy. Pick a Christian, any Christian. No pick a person any person. What they profess is their philosophy, what they do is their religion. Call it anything you want. It is interesting how non-theists complain about theists bending over backwards to avoid recognizing something, while many refuse to separate the ideas of a theist from their actions. They have no problem separating theoretical math from applied math, or theoretical science from applied science. But if one talks about theology(theory) and religion(application) they have to be the exact same thing.

The religion of Christianity is it's practice, as the discipline of physics is it's practice.

Religions have beliefs, dogmas, canon. Your criteria for what constitutes a religion is too narrow to be useful, and who says what is the correct kind of practice or not?

THE RELIGION! Theology is the theory and religion is the application. Physics also has it's standards. I can discuss those standards until the cows come home, but that does not make me a physicist. I actually have to put that into practice. who says what is the correct kind of practice or not. It depends on the kind of physics one is doing. Theoretical physics philosophizes and applied physics puts it into practice, based on the rules of the type of applied physics one is investigating.

However, Christianity is a branch of theistic philosophy, just as physics is a branch of the philosophy of mathematics.

I've never met a Christian who self-identified as someone who followed a philosophy, but I've hear from countless who say they adhere to a faith. We have the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of this, and the philosophy of that. However, you aren't talking about the PHILOSOPHERS of religion, but of people who call themselves Christians.

And we know that many Christians hold to the belief that they must defend their beliefs by way of philosophy. So, to them, talking about their religion to others is practicing the religion, is part of the religion and of the dogma.

No, I don't give a rip about what "people" choose to call themselves. Please, look at your own words. Talking to people is religion. It is doing something. What is being talked about is not religion, unless it is something that is actually done. For example, "In the beginning Adonai created the heavens and the earth." is not religion. It is a philosophical statement. It just sits their on the page. Or wafts into the air if I say it. We can even argue back and forth about whether or not it is true. However, until I act on it, it is just a theory. Keeping the Sabbath in commemoration of that statement, that is religion. The latter is an action. The former is not.

In short, Christianity is neither a religion or a relationship. It is a philosophy.

I dont see the purpose you may have to call Christianity a philosophy, when the rest of the world calls it a religion. So, for the sake of the argument.. let's say I call Christianity a philosophy and NOT a religion. What's going to happen?

1) It might make you happy that I adopt your peculiar definition, but I have to tell you that I won't be using your definition with anyone else, because I find it quite useless and confusing.
2) You get me to use the term that you prefer for classifying a kind of Christian who doesn't do any religious practices. I usually use the term "non-practicing" for that.
3) You get to confuse the term religion and philosophy so that they blend together. Unfortunately, I won't be following you there. I like the fact that the two terms represent very different activities.

1. The reason it is useless and confusing is because you and many other people prefer to isolate theology from other forms of philosophy, by conflating thought and action in a way that is not done in other disciplines.

2. It does nothing regarding classifying people. It keeps people from treating theology different than they do every other form of philosophy.

3. You do not get avoid recognizing that theology is philosophy, or is an inherently lesser philosophy by calling it religion.

Any practice that follows from that philosophy, including any given relationship, is religion.

So, it seems that Christianity can be a philosophy AND a religion. But most people would simply say that Christianity is a religion and have done with it. It's not as if philosophies have gods as their final explanation, or believe in miracles, or in any sacred scripture, or divine revelation, or use faith as epistemology.

NO, NO, NO and NO. Christianity is NOT a religion. It is ONLY a philosophy. You are clearly making my point here. You are agueing that iChristianity is not a philosophy simple because it is theistic. If that is the case Socrates was not a philosopher, because much of his arguments were about theology, ie. the Euthyphro dilemma.

If someone would make a religion out of Existentialism, for example, they might have to say that Nietzsche was divinely inspired by the god of existentialism, that .JP. Sarte was born of a virgin with a lot of angst, and that Søren Kierkegaard could heal the sick with just a bit of ironic despair.

No, that is not necessary. In fact, for "Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, the place of mankind and the place of the individual with respect to God underpinned all musings."
— Existentialism: A Guide for the Perplexed; Steven Earnshaw, p. 5existentialist
They were caught in the vise of conflating Theology with religion. Thus, though they retained a theology after rejecting ritual, later existentialists later adopted a view that there can be no deity without ritual.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

We would have holy existential days where we would all of us pray to ourselves, we would revere the hand written notes of all of the sad men who are the existentialists, and we would have big iconic building where people would congregate but not interact with anyone.

Do you think that Existentialism, if practiced ( whatever that might mean ) is a religion? Where is the god, where are the miracles, where is the faith, where is the dogma, where is the canon?

Why do you need to call what everyone else calls a religion a philosophy? What is the point of your argument?

Christianity isn't based on reason, but on faith. A philosophy does not work by way of faith. When faith in a god is front and center, you got yourself a religion. When ideas are front and center, that's philosophy.

[tam]

Do you want to respond to the post that wasn't a summary? Because you will find I wrote some reasons in that post.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

Religion

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Christianity is a religion. It may contain philosophies and have some elements of philosophy but Christianity itself is not a religion. If you want to disregard language and make up your own definitions fine but I and others can't work with that when it comes to debate.

[Zzyzx]

.
Changing definitions (a form of word play) is a debate technique often used when attempting to defend something that doesn't make any sense -- re-define words to obscure and obfuscate. Change the meaning to whatever the defender wants to believe. "A day can be 1000 years" and "this generation" can be 100 or 1000 generations from now, worldwide can mean local, etc.

Perhaps some in-groups within religions develop their own jargon, much like happens in many occupations or special interest groups, giving special (esoteric) meanings to common words or inventing new words. That may allow communication within the group but limits (effective) communication with "outsiders."

There seems to be an inverse relationship between strength of debate position and word play. A strong argument does not require pretend words – but can use words as defined in standard use dictionaries of the English language.