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?

[Elijah John]

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?

I agree with your points in this post, but would add that Jesus set about to reform (small "r") Judaism, not to start "Christianity" per se.

The religion OF Jesus is an improved and apocalyptic Judaism. The religion ABOUT Jesus is Christianity.

I would say that Christianity is a hybrid, based on Jesus teachings about God, mixed with Paul's teachings about Jesus.

But as envisioned by Jesus or as envisioned by Paul, both of them, the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus are just that, religions.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]
The vast majority define religion in terms of beliefs and does not restrict it to practices only, as you seem to do. Part of the "vast majority" includes every dictionary I have ever come across. That being said, while I normally would lump these arguments into "appeal to popularity" and "appeal to authority", considering the nature of language as a social construct, I believe these appeals would not be fallacious. In short, since language is determined by society, and since society defines religion as a belief in a god or gods, and since every english dictionary makes this definition official, your disagreement really does not matter. Christianity is a religion by definition

[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 to 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 arguing that Christianity is not a philosophy simply 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. They retained a theology after rejecting ritual, In fact, some latter existentialist do just the opposite. Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential ethics is just an attempt to retain French religious traditions, particularly Catholicism, without a deity.

That said, I am not saying that all philosophies must have religions associated with them, though a case can be made for that. All I am saying here is that theology and religion are not the same thing, though their close connection in Judeo-Christian societies leads many to conflate the two.

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.

If existentialism can exist without those things, why can't theism also exist without them. I think you are listing them only because they are like some of the rituals of religions derived from the Christian philosophy.

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?

The fact that Existentialism eschews ritual would make any religion related to it hard to define. However, that does not mean that philosophies that can be used to promote particular behaviors are religions. Potential is not religion. It is not religion for a millionaire to state that a deity wishes him to give to the poor. Him giving to the poor for that reason is religion. That is what Yocav is saying when he says, (Jms. 1:22a & 28) "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only" ,because "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

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.

No, that is rationalist philosophy. Faith is a philosophical tenet, as is reason. Christianity is not devoid of reason. Christian rationalists apply reason to the tenets of Christian philosophy, as rational humanists apply reason to the tenets of humanist philosophy. I make the comparison to rational humanism,because I do not think that pure rationalism actually exists. After all even Descartes began with the principle, "I think, therefore I am". This is a statement of faith, because it presumes that doubt and rational examination impart value. These are human traits and therefore humanist tenets.

[bluethread]

[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.

I do not think you meant to say that Christianity is not a religion, but that Christianity is not a philosophy. If I am correct,let's set aside the conflation of theory and practice when talking about theism in Judeo-Christian cultures and focus on that assertion. What is it that make Christianity not a philosophy?

[bluethread]

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.

Yes, and when in-groups are able to expand their jargon to the general public, as in the concept that belief and action are the same thing in Judeo-Christian philosophy, then the dictionaries change to reflect that. Why in other areas such as science and secular law are belief and action not conflated as they are with the term religion? I propose that it is because such conflation is Judeo-Christian jargon that speaks to Judeo-Christian philosophy, which dominated western culture prior to the modern secular scientific era. When comparing Judeo-Christian philosophy to other philosophies, that do not conflate belief and action, using that jargon is not really appropriate. Therefore, it is not word play as a debate tactic, but an attempt to seek comparative words for apples to apples comparison.

In short, within Judeo-Christian philosophy belief and action are religion. However, outside of Judeo-Christian philosophy there is no term for both belief and action. Since this thread is about comparing Judeo-Christian philosophy to other philosophies, it is the insistence on the use of the jargon for one case and not the other that is the word play.

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that the most obvious reason that many people try to make a religion out of Jesus as the "Christ" whilst renouncing the religion this character comes from is to avoid any need to have to defend or associate with the Old Testament and it's portrait of God.

But it seems to me that there are extreme problems with this. For one thing the New Testament claims that it's very important to establish a genealogy of Jesus back to the King David of the Old Testament. This making Jesus inseparable from the previous religion.

There also seems to be a problem with the fact that it was supposedly the original God of the Old Testament who got the virgin Mary pregnant with the baby Jesus.

And then there's the problem of the New Testament having Jesus proclaiming that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law. The only jots and tittles he could have possibly be referring to in that context would have been the jots and tittles of the Old Testament, or at least the Jewish Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament at least. And it's those first five books and their laws that people would like to divorce from Jesus.

Then there's also the fall from grace of Adam and Eve which is required to even try to make sense of the crucifixion of Jesus supposedly paying for the sins of mankind, etc.

So I don't see where it makes any sense to try to hold Jesus up as a "Stand Alone" God. He really has no feet of his own to stand on. If he's not sitting on the shoulders of Yahweh he has no authority. Jesus' very authority supposedly stems from the idea that he is the demigod Son of Yahweh born through the virgin Mary.

So I don't see where a "Stand Alone" Jesus would do much actually. Jesus makes no sense standing alone.

But then again, he doesn't make any sense sitting on the shoulders of Yahweh either. So I'm of the position that there is nothing that can be done to salvage Jesus or this religion.

And I also question very much why anyone would even want to salvage it. The whole story, with or without Yahweh and the Old Testament seems to be demanding that humans are all guilty of sin and in dire need of salvation that only Jesus can offer.

I don't see what's so attractive about that picture in any case.

It would certainly be a very dismal situation to be in as a human to be sure. And that would hold true even for humans who are supposedly being "saved". They would still be sinners who are unworthy of God and only being "saved" through grace.

How is that an attractive picture?

Even if we go to heaven we can only get there through undeserved grace?

Seems like a pretty dismal picture even in the case of the best possible outcome.

I don't see the attraction to this religion. I can only understand why people would believe in it if they thought they had no other choice. But I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would choose to place their faith in this religion if they thought they really had a choice?

[Justin108]

[Replying to bluethread]

The problem with calling Christianity a philosophy is the fact that, unlike other philosophies, Christianity makes factual claims about the outside world. This is foreign to philosophies in general. Philosophies are about ideas rather than factual claims. A stoic believes in the idea of "let it be". Nihilists believe in the idea of "life pretty much sucks". Neither of these, however, make factual claims about life.
Contrast it with Christianity that bases their beliefs on the claim that a God exists, came to earth as Jesus, got killed, came back from the dead... These aren't ideas. These aren't philosophies. These are unsupported beliefs about supposedlyy factual events. Christianity may have an accompanying philosophy ("love thy neighbor" and all that) but it cannot be defined as a philosophy in its entirety

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 23 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".

Is that how you define a religion? Using that definition, the NFL is a religion, and so is stamp collecting.

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.

I think I get your point. Philosophy is about thought, you say. I can agree with that. However, if religion is only about activity, then football is a religion. Your definition of religion is a little... shall we say... a bit too broad to be useful. And since religion deals with beliefs, which are kinds of thoughts, we could say that both religion and philosophy deal with thoughts.

But maybe you mean that in religions, we have rituals and in philosophy we dont. While I would agree with you, I don't see WHY this distinction is so important to you. IN any case, not many people would agree that Christianity is just a philosophy.

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.

So, Christians practice Christianity!

This is not in question. Of course, Christians vary in how much and what kinds of practices they call "Christian". Christians also have what can be called "Christian beliefs", oddly enough.

Most people that I know got to Christianity by way of religion, and only some of them bother with the philosophical aspects later in life, and mostly to do apologetics, but you have the cart before the horse. Most people don't come to religion by way of a philosophy. It's the other way around for most of the world.

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.

No, the practices do not make the philosophy a religion, the practices are the religion.

I don't know why you exclude beliefs, dogma, authoritative structure, and canon from 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.

I agree. Most people who are Christians do not bother with the philosophy of religion, or theology much. Many don't even bother with reading the Bible. Most Christians that I know and have known never once read the Bible. They went to church once a week, and that was that. If, however, anyone asked them.. they would proudly say that they were DEEPLY religious. I have never heard them say that they were deeply philosophical.

Most people are NOT philosophical, by the way, most people are religious, instead. Like most of the Christians that I have ever talked to, and that would include those in some form of religious authority, from different kinds of religions, not just Christians.

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.

I am not sure what you mean by the philosophy of Christianity, then. If RCC theology doesn't count for Christian philosophy, I don't know what you mean by the term.

Just what do you MEAN by "Christian Philosophy"?

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 think you have theology mixed up with philosophy. It's as if you won't accept RCC theology, but some other kind of theology that you prefer. Can you tell us what theology you do prefer, why it's the true Christian philosophy, and why you reject one authoritative version over another?

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.

Well, you're going to have a hard time getting people to agree with you on that. I think that 99.999% of English speaking people would simply say that Christianity is a religion. And I fit into that rather large majority. I don't accept your strange definition of Christianity.

If you would like to make a case as to why I should abandon my common way of speaking, I will pay attention. Right now, it just seems to me that you have a particular way of thinking, and you expressed it. You don't think that Christianity is a religion but a philosophy.

Most people would disagree with you.

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.

I think you mean "beliefs" instead of philosophy. In any case, you have not proved your point. Use the word philosophy all you want, but don't be surprised if not many people agree with you. I wont try to convince you that most people use the word "religion" in association with Christianity and would be as confused as I am by your insistence that it's not a religion, but a "philosophy".

But you are free to use words any way you like.

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.

I am not aware that anyone says that that's all Christianity is, except for yourself right now.

It's also a list of beliefs, dogma and canon. It's also the thousands upon thousands of variations on all of these. There is a bewildering variety of factors that people include into what they call "Christianity" , that I am quite sure that you can't accept. That's fine.

They might not accept yours, either. Christianity and other religions have HUGE variety.

The RCC and other denominations use the philosophy of Christianity to derive their various lists of practices(religions).

I think the word you are looking for is "theology".

The philosophy of the RCC is authoritarian Christianity, it's religion is the rituals and practices that it requires.

And so what? Does it mean that the RCC is wrong in it's particular structure?

My philosophy is Prima Scriptura according to the Shul of Yeshua, my religion is Torah submission.

Good for you, but frankly, so what?

Does it mean that there is only one possible way to structure a religion?

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.

Well, now you finally explain. It makes sense now, thank you.

You have a religion in which there is a philosophy and a practice, and you make that distinction in YOUR religion. Don't make the mistake of looking at other religions through your religious framework. That's a huge mistake. We will never be able to understand others if we don't at least TRY to understand their position.

You don't have to give up your own religion in order to appreciate and understand others. Remember, that they probably think that YOU are wrong, too. And they might completely misunderstand your religion because they are looking at it from THEIR theological filters.

If we truly want to understand others, it's important to remove as many biases as possible.

Does it follow that other religions have to follow your particular religious structure? Of course not. People don't all think the same way.

In common language, as with Christianity, many see Jewish philosophy and practice as one and the same.

But we are not discussing Judaism, but Christianity. You said that Christianity is not a religion. I don't agree.

What would you say that I thought that Judaism is a sport, and NOT a religion? Who cares what I think, right?

However, when one is speaking generally, that does not take into account cultures that separate philosophy and practice.

There are cultures that separate philosophy and practice. Good for them.

You might want to force your kind of thinking onto others, but that can only fail. They see the world the way that they see it, and not the way that you do.

I am not a Christian nor a Jew. So, I don't really care which kind of theology is superior to any other. You prefer your own brand of theology, and you call that philosophy.

I think when you use the word "philosophy" you probably mean "theology", but that's a quibble. My point is that if you try that "Christianity is not a religion, but a philosophy", on most people, they will ... likely not agree. At least not the Christians that I know.

I don't know why you insist on your form of labeling when it's not about you. Label yourself any way that you chose. I wont argue with that. You say you have a philosophy and a religious practice... and that's fine with everyone.

But it's not fine to insist that everyone should follow your particular categories. And that is only because you cause CONFUSION. People wont understand what you mean. And I also think that the point you try to make is very trivial. I don't think that many people will care. I know I don't.

You can call Christianity what you like. I wont stop you, that's for sure.

Therefore, it is important to take into account that the two, though linked in Judeo-Christian tradition, are not the same.

Who said that Christianity and Judaism is the same?

I grant you that they are NOT the same. I think that most people on the planet would agree, that they are not the same.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

The problem with calling Christianity a philosophy is the fact that, unlike other philosophies, Christianity makes factual claims about the outside world. This is foreign to philosophies in general. Philosophies are about ideas rather than factual claims. A stoic believes in the idea of "let it be". Nihilists believe in the idea of "life pretty much sucks". Neither of these, however, make factual claims about life.
Contrast it with Christianity that bases their beliefs on the claim that a God exists, came to earth as Jesus, got killed, came back from the dead... These aren't ideas. These aren't philosophies. These are unsupported beliefs about supposedly factual events. Christianity may have an accompanying philosophy ("love thy neighbor" and all that) but it cannot be defined as a philosophy in its entirety

You are comparing the base viewpoints of stoicism and nihilism to tenets of Christianity. That is not comparing apples to apples. The base viewpoint of Christianity is theism. Is the interpretation of historical events from a stoic or nihilist viewpoint not philosophy? Is the reverence for the Stoic sages not philosophy? Is stoic empiricism not a philosophy because it holds that what is verifiable by the five senses is reality, that Aristotle existed and that now that he is physically dead he does not exist? If that is the case, what is stoic empiricism?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

Yes that was a typo. What makes Christianity not a philosophy is that it proclaims truth rather than investigates truth.

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun
1.
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.
any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.
a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation:
the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them:
the philosophy of science.
5.
a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6.
an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.


Theology for example can be considered a philosophical approach to Christianity. There can also be Christian philosophy as a system of principles. Christianity itself though is a religion .

All this nonsense about it not being a religion is wordplay.