Christianity without religion-the new religion

[refamat]

I was listening to the radio on my drive to work and a "preacher" had made a commercial and it was being played on air and went something like , listen in Sunday mornings to find out how to be christian without religion. I had a great laff and realized that yet again, here was another way christians were getting rich off of christians and not paying corporate taxes. I am sure someone has filed a form for non-profit tax exempt status for this "show" which implies a religious organization, and of course, the radio station is getting it's "time" in for community service and tax sheltering.
But how could one be christian and not have religion? rotflmao What christians will believe and what they won't is worth a whole series of books in itself. :jaw-dropp

[bluskool]

But how could one be christian and not have religion? rotflmao What christians will believe and what they won't is worth a whole series of books in itself. :jaw-dropp

This is something that, in my experience, Christians say a lot. I think it's a way for them to feel superior to other religions. They'll say that a religion is a set of rituals like praying to Mecca for Muslims or meditating for Buddhists, but Christianity is different because it's about having a relationship with God and not about ritual (even though it is and they just don't realize it). Come to think of it, it may actually be more of a protestant thing.

[refamat]

yep, very much protestant, when viewed from one point of view..not the same basis though...

[Mister Agenda]

'It's not a religion, it's a relationship'. :rolleyes:

[kedo1981]

alrighty, then throw away your bible, never set foot in church again, and go pray the woods. See how that works out for you

[refamat]

'It's not a religion, it's a relationship'. :rolleyes:

explain what the difference truly is then. even when goats and fruit were offered up in a ritualistic ceremony but a group of nomadic herders, there was a perceived relationship between them and their god(s). to take away the title doesn't change the animal

[GrandMasterFox]

Actually former-religion no longer a religion is not a new concept.

There are many jews who claim to that being a jew is their culture but not their religion.

Meaning they don't believe in god or the bible, they don't pray or any of that stuff, but they do claim to their cultural background - architecture, clothing, music, etc.

[Denver]

I think the phrase is often used as a shortcut to saying 'no organized religion', rather than as meaning 'no religious beliefs'.

[I Ratant]

alrighty, then throw away your bible, never set foot in church again, and go pray the woods. See how that works out for you
.
Other than increasing one's financial assets towards useful purchases.. condoms, booze, fast cars and faster women, there's no down side.

[refamat]

.
Other than increasing one's financial assets towards useful purchases.. condoms, booze, fast cars and faster women, there's no down side.

I don't feel like it, loosen my tongue, tickets, paternity

[Bikewer]

I've known a number of people who professed to be Christian and yet were not members of any church and felt that such membership was not a good idea.
They would cite things like biblical injunctions to pray in private....

I don't see any real conflict here; one can proclaim that one admires and practices the essential principals of Christianity without adhering to the more specific tenets of a particular sect.

[I Ratant]

The "essential principles of Christianity" transcend the religion, or any religion.
It's just common sense to treat others as you would like to treated. No need to bend one's knee to anything/anyone other than common decency.

[hgc]

alrighty, then throw away your bible, never set foot in church again, and go pray the woods. See how that works out for you


As far as prayer goes, it works out just the same. As far as a feeling of connectedness to a community of belief -- probably not as satisfying.

[refamat]

I've known a number of people who professed to be Christian and yet were not members of any church and felt that such membership was not a good idea.
They would cite things like biblical injunctions to pray in private....

I don't see any real conflict here; one can proclaim that one admires and practices the essential principals of Christianity without adhering to the more specific tenets of a particular sect.

the problem with this tact is that the belief is the religion, the practice of that religion is a subset.

[hgc]

the problem with this tact is that the belief is the religion, the practice of that religion is a subset.


Belief and practice are intersecting sets, but practice is not totally subsumed in the belief set. Many practitioners have no belief at all.

[refamat]

Belief and practice are intersecting sets, but practice is not totally subsumed in the belief set. Many practitioners have no belief at all.

how do you know that? If I had no belief in something, I sure wouldn't put money into it.
Maybe what you are trying to say is that you believe there are those who have no defined belief, but practice to be part of the crowd, or like myself, to get laid.

[Mark6]

There are many jews who claim to that being a jew is their culture but not their religion.

Meaning they don't believe in god or the bible, they don't pray or any of that stuff, but they do claim to their cultural background - architecture, clothing, music, etc.
Sometimes they have no choice in the matter. In Russia Jews are considered an ethnic minority rather than a religion. A Jew in Russia can be an atheist, can convert to Christianity or Buddhism, but he cannot stop being a Jew any more than a Turkmen can stop being a Turkmen -- in Russia or anywhere else.

[hgc]

how do you know that? If I had no belief in something, I sure wouldn't put money into it.
Maybe what you are trying to say is that you believe there are those who have no defined belief, but practice to be part of the crowd, or like myself, to get laid.


Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Go get 'em, Tiger.

[kerikiwi]

The "essential principles of Christianity" transcend the religion, or any religion.
It's just common sense to treat others as you would like to treated. No need to bend one's knee to anything/anyone other than common decency.

What are the essential principles? jesus as god? Ascending to heaven? Rising and raising from the dead? Father son and holy ghost? Obeying rules laid down by a deity?
All that stuff is religion.

[I Ratant]

What are the essential principles? jesus as god? Ascending to heaven? Rising and raising from the dead? Father son and holy ghost? Obeying rules laid down by a deity?
All that stuff is religion.
.
"What you do to these, the least of my brethren, you do to Me".

[kedo1981]

This is just a another way for Protestants to imply Catholics ain't christian

[Bikewer]

"I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior". Seems to do it for many Protestant-leaning types.
No messy baptisms, no annoying little tortillas to eat....

[kerikiwi]

.
"What you do to these, the least of my brethren, you do to Me".

So, no god stuff then? No prayers? No raising/rising from the dead? No living in heaven? No living forever? No sacrifice to god?
Most people who consider themselves christian would disagree.

[I Ratant]

You asked for the core of christianity.
It's the same Golden Rule that all other societies tend to base their behaviors on.
The added glitter and glitz of the religion masks the core.

[kerikiwi]

You asked for the core of christianity.
It's the same Golden Rule that all other societies tend to base their behaviors on.
The added glitter and glitz of the religion masks the core.
So, the glitter and glitz is not part of the religion?
Well, who'da thunk it: I am a christian! There is no god and jesus wasn't in any way related to said non-existent-god, and he didn't get sacrificed to said non-existent-god,and he didn't save us from anything and he didn't rise again and there is no heaven? All atheists who think the golden rule might not be such a bad idea are really christians? How am I doing?

[I Ratant]

Poorly.
All religions scab onto the Golden Rule, which is the first law of culture.
One can claim to be of any faith and imagine the Golden Rule comes from that faith (and most religions do that very thing), but... civilization grew up before the god-shouters began their scamming, and "do unto others" is the base rock for all cultures.

[kerikiwi]

Poorly.
All religions scab onto the Golden Rule, which is the first law of culture.
One can claim to be of any faith and imagine the Golden Rule comes from that faith (and most religions do that very thing), but... civilization grew up before the god-shouters began their scamming, and "do unto others" is the base rock for all cultures.

None of which shows that christianity is the golden rule and only the golden rule: it is not. It is all the god stuff too.
So, I think I was doing just fine. :)

[quixotecoyote]

None of which shows that christianity is the golden rule and only the golden rule: it is not. It is all the god stuff too.
So, I think I was doing just fine. :)

I believe the point of dispute was the word "core" and so I Ratant is arguing the core of all religions is the same non-religious principle.

[kerikiwi]

I believe the point of dispute was the word "core" and so I Ratant is arguing the core of all religions is the same non-religious principle.

Perhaps so,but there's a bloody big apple surrounding that core.

[jimtron]

I think "religion" has a negative connotation to a lot of people, not just non-believers. But saying you're Christian but not religious sounds like BS to me, like you're trying to have it both ways. It reminds me of Anne Rice saying she "quits Christanity" but still follows Jesus, or whatever it was. It's also reminiscent of the many people who say that they're "not religious, but they are spiritual," whatever that means (actually I said that to someone years ago, before I got brainwashed into the skeptic cult, and I remember him asking what I meant by that...I didn't have an answer.)

[I Ratant]

Rice's declaration makes no sense at all.
What with all the various flavors of Jesus there are, how to find -the one true Jesus-?
Is there a Square One Jesus that Christianity works with, adding bells and whistles as needed?
(I kinda think there is, as mentioned above. :) )

[refamat]

What are the essential principles? jesus as god? Ascending to heaven? Rising and raising from the dead? Father son and holy ghost? Obeying rules laid down by a deity?
All that stuff is religion.

misquoting is also part of religion..the prestige as it were, ascending into heaven...Kashmir was always called heaven on earth, and is generally at a higher altitude than most of the middle east, so a trek there by foot, would be "ascending into heaven", just not by the glorified manner.

Hindu legend and recent memory recounts how yeshua preached his form of religion in Kashmir, died, and was buried there.

but this is a digression. the comment I made is no more or less someone feeling they know god and yeshua better than anyone else, that they have a personal relationship and commune with the deity on a regular basis and get rewarded regularly for doing so, thus, their child getting a passing grade is a blessing (even tho if they had taken an active part in the child's education, they could have insured a passing grade instead of praying to some strangely perceived god), or not getting a ticket for speeding in the school zone because they "witnessed the cop" was god's will (not the will of the cop to get away as fast as possible). it goes on and on..these people are so desperate for salvation and somewhere to go after death, they fabricate and read so much into the lines of the bible that it has become larger than the library of congress with all the texts that have been written on what this or that passage means. And, because some answers set better than the traditional line in a church setting, people fall away from their churches and become spiritualists or whatever. There's no critical thinking here, it's still following some leader.

[Darth Rotor]

Christianity without religion-the new religion

I am hoping Maia will post, she has some very interesting ideas along these lines.

[Fnord]

But how could one be christian and not have religion?
Easy.

Live by the teachings of Jesus without all the crap that church leaders try to pass off as 'official' doctrine. It helps to remember that Faith and Religion are not the same thing -- the former is the belief in things that can not be proven, while the latter is the socio-political expression of that belief through indoctrination of the ignorant.

(Compare these definitions to those of Science and Education, and you'll see an analogy -- a dark one, but an analogy nonetheless.)

Unfortunately, Religion has come to include a dumpload of bushlit designed to enrich the lives (and pockets) of religious leaders at the expense of their followers, as well as to provide justification for involvement (e.g., influence) in secular politics.

Ban religion, and you'll still have the faithful.

[quixotecoyote]

Easy.
It helps to remember that Faith and Religion are not the same thing -- the former is the belief in things that can not be proven, while the latter is the socio-political expression of that belief through indoctrination of the ignorant.


For a personal and completely idiosyncratic definition of religion, of course.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

[refamat]

Sometimes they have no choice in the matter. In Russia Jews are considered an ethnic minority rather than a religion. A Jew in Russia can be an atheist, can convert to Christianity or Buddhism, but he cannot stop being a Jew any more than a Turkmen can stop being a Turkmen -- in Russia or anywhere else.

this line of thinking is way off base in regards to the topic though. granted, in many places a jew is a nationality (race if you must), but understand, when you open that line of thinking you will have to define the genes that make up the different tribes of the bible because they are being used today to define who is and who isn't a levite.

but, I still say the belief is the religion...the belief is what defines it. the practice is an outward expression only. and it, the practice, can be mimicked in order to be part of the crowd. so, the practice is a subset of the belief that can be a set on it's own, but it will always refer to the belief. and because the practice can take many forms, (see how many baptist churches there are in that national convention) it is hard to say that belief and practice are the same category of set. one has to be a subset of the other.

[refamat]

Easy.

Live by the teachings of Jesus without all the crap that church leaders try to pass off as 'official' doctrine. It helps to remember that Faith and Religion are not the same thing -- the former is the belief in things that can not be proven, while the latter is the socio-political expression of that belief through indoctrination of the ignorant.

(Compare these definitions to those of Science and Education, and you'll see an analogy -- a dark one, but an analogy nonetheless.)

Unfortunately, Religion has come to include a dumpload of bushlit designed to enrich the lives (and pockets) of religious leaders at the expense of their followers, as well as to provide justification for involvement (e.g., influence) in secular politics.

Ban religion, and you'll still have the faithful.

you assume too much about the definition of religion. when communists banned "religion", they wanted to abolish the belief. churches and temples were the least of the problem. they knew, that as long as a belief system existed, they were 2nd best. the belief is the religion, the practice of that religion is just and outward,visible expression.

[Marduk]

But how could one be christian and not have religion?

Easy
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/
:D

[Mister Agenda]

explain what the difference truly is then. even when goats and fruit were offered up in a ritualistic ceremony but a group of nomadic herders, there was a perceived relationship between them and their god(s). to take away the title doesn't change the animal

You're not supposed to ask that sort of question, it undermines the sounding-cleverness of the claim.

[Fnord]

you assume too much about the definition of religion. when communists banned "religion", they wanted to abolish the belief. churches and temples were the least of the problem. they knew, that as long as a belief system existed, they were 2nd best. the belief is the religion, the practice of that religion is just and outward,visible expression.
Authoritarian regimes seem to re-define the meanings of words to suit their agendae. My definition (and it is one that I came up with on my own) helps me to put this whole faith-religion-politics issue in perspective for me. I'm sorry that you don't agree with me, but I have to smirk a bit when someone points at a Bible, a church or a cross and says, "That's religion" (no, they are objects ... mere inanimate things that have subjective meaning to some people).

A person's faith is dead unless it motivates that person to action, and then that action become an expression of that faith. A religious act is synonymous with an expression of faith. This makes sense to me. It's one of the few things about faith and religion that makes any sense to me at all. Ultimately, it is this subjective definition that has put me off religion, and what prompted me to resign from a position of leadership in a mainstream Christian church. "Religion is the socio-political expression of faith" fits just about every power play made by every control freak in every church I've ever been involved in -- religion is all about politics: who can rise to a position of authority over others, how to motivate 'Them' into giving 'Us' their money, how to divide 'Them' from 'Us' and then how to keep 'Them' from finding out what's really going on during those closed-door meetings.

Christianity was supposed to be a unifying belief system, yet I have witnessed it as having become one of the most divisive and manipulative political systems ever developed. It ranks right up there with authoritarian governments that rely on its citizens denouncing their family members to gain social and political status, and with any government that allows those in authority to commit immoral acts with impunity.

It's not so much the belief that's at fault; it's what people allow that belief to motivate them into doing that screws everything up.

[DC]

WXKT8IPdvzA

[Maia]

(pops in head)

Just three words.

John Shelby Spong.

(oh, you knew it was coming)

I must go to bed now. :) I've been on the Oregon Trail. for days and days and days and finally got to the end.. it might have been easier in a covered wagon... more of my stuff would've fit into it, for sure...

[Gandalfs Beard]

The "essential principles of Christianity" transcend the religion, or any religion.
It's just common sense to treat others as you would like to treated. No need to bend one's knee to anything/anyone other than common decency.

Seeing as Dymanic quoted this particular post on the "Why do people insist AA is not religious," thread, I thought it deserved a response here on this thread. I wasn't certain as to the context of the quote, but having read I Ratant's other posts here, I would say that Dymanic was putting the correct spin on the post's context.

First, some of the definitions of religion are unduly broad for the purposes of this thread, or discussions of what essentially constitutes Religion.

In a Nutshell, Religion is the Belief in, and Worship of, a Deity or Deities. Everything else that generally goes with religion are simply trappings, not Religion itself.

This is how I responded to the above post on the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6238733#post6238733):

The quote is problematic. First it presumes that morality is the "essential principle of Christianity." The essential principle of Christianity is not Morality, but the Divinity of Jesus. Hence Christianity is a Religion in the most basic definition of the word.

However, I do agree that some of the Moral tenets mentioned by Christ are Universal; and that those tenets which are Universal do not require a Deity, but can be reached through Reason.

But another problem with the quote, is that some of the alleged Morals espoused by Jesus are NOT Universal, and Moral contradictions abound throughout the Christian Bible.


As to the OP of this thread, "Christianity without religion" is ostensibly an Oxymoron as long as one continues to believe in God. Though I concede that it is indeed possible that an Agnostic or Atheist could adopt some of the Moral and Ethical values of Christianity without adopting the belief in God.

Quite a number of people, including myself (and Thomas Jefferson), find any number of laudable sayings allegedly attributed to Jesus, though there are also many sayings that are NOT admirable.

In the end, the only major "Religion" I've come across that could truly be called a "Religion of no religion," is Buddhism. Despite the fact that many people practice Buddhism as if it were a Religion, and it has most of the trappings of Religion (Monks, Monasteries, Vestments, Rituals etc), belief and worship of a Deity or Deities is not required. Even the Dalai Lama is on record as stating that Buddhism is a "Godless" Religion.

GB

[GrandMasterFox]

Sometimes they have no choice in the matter. In Russia Jews are considered an ethnic minority rather than a religion. A Jew in Russia can be an atheist, can convert to Christianity or Buddhism, but he cannot stop being a Jew any more than a Turkmen can stop being a Turkmen -- in Russia or anywhere else.
Dude... I wasn't talking about Russia. I'm from Israel.
Trust me, there's plenty of choice to be religious here if we wanted to.

The majority of the population isn't religious, but maintains a cultural background to its ancestors. This is mostly due to the holocaust. People lost their faith but want to keep a connection to those they have lost in their family.

In other words, we consider the bible to the same value that the brits treat shakespear.

but, I still say the belief is the religion...the belief is what defines it. the practice is an outward expression only.

After countless threads debating the issue of what exactly is a religion, it's time to accept that everyone have their own definition.

Even if you accept this notion of what a religion is, does that mean that christianity is a religion by those definition? How can you tell if a person is christian? Does he really have faith? You cannot know except by asking him.
Heck, even then you can't know cause he could lie.

But if you ask if the pope is a christian most people would say "yes".
Therefore, your definition is quite worthless.
Religion is the practice and not the faith.
That is the whole point of Pascal's wager, you can do the practice to cover yourself without having faith.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Dude... I wasn't talking about Russia. I'm from Israel.
Trust me, there's plenty of choice to be religious here if we wanted to.

The majority of the population isn't religious, but maintains a cultural background to its ancestors. This is mostly due to the holocaust. People lost their faith but want to keep a connection to those they have lost in their family.

In other words, we consider the bible to the same value that the brits treat shakespear.


After countless threads debating the issue of what exactly is a religion, it's time to accept that everyone have their own definition.

Even if you accept this notion of what a religion is, does that mean that christianity is a religion by those definition? How can you tell if a person is christian? Does he really have faith? You cannot know except by asking him.
Heck, even then you can't know cause he could lie.

But if you ask if the pope is a christian most people would say "yes".
Therefore, your definition is quite worthless.
Religion is the practice and not the faith.
That is the whole point of Pascal's wager, you can do the practice to cover yourself without having faith.

There really is a basic requirement for the most basic definition of Religion: belief in a Deity or Deities, and the worship thereof. Without Belief or Faith in a Deity, Practice is merely a "trapping" of Religion, not Religion itself.

Sure, an Atheist or Agnostic can still go to Synagogue, Mosque, Temple, or Church, and participate in the Rituals of his or her culture's primary Religion (i.e. "Practice"), but without Belief the Practice is simply an exercise in sentimental attachment to one's cultural heritage (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Fundamentalists and Believers know the difference (though Fundies pretend not to sometimes in order to paint Atheism and Scientific Materialism as "religion"); it's only those with a vestigial attachment to something they no longer really believe in that have a problem defining Religion.

GB

[blobru]

(pops in head)

Just three words.

John Shelby Spong. ...


Who? :confused:

:train

[kerikiwi]

Religion is the practice and not the faith.
That is the whole point of Pascal's wager, you can do the practice to cover yourself without having faith.

If I pretend this morning to be Jewish,and do the rituals, is my religion then Judaism?
And if at midday I do the rituals of Islam, and I then a Muslim?
And when I mumble prayers this evening to Jehovah in the name of Jesus, without actually believing either exists, am I transformed into a Christian?

That's not being religious, that's acting.
But you are almost right about Pascal's wager. Other than as a slightly interesting thought experiment, it is worthless since it is not possible to believe something only because one will be rewarded if one does, or punished if one doesn't.

[refamat]

Dude... I wasn't talking about Russia. I'm from Israel.
Trust me, there's plenty of choice to be religious here if we wanted to.

The majority of the population isn't religious, but maintains a cultural background to its ancestors. This is mostly due to the holocaust. People lost their faith but want to keep a connection to those they have lost in their family.

In other words, we consider the bible to the same value that the brits treat shakespear.


After countless threads debating the issue of what exactly is a religion, it's time to accept that everyone have their own definition.

Even if you accept this notion of what a religion is, does that mean that christianity is a religion by those definition? How can you tell if a person is christian? Does he really have faith? You cannot know except by asking him.
Heck, even then you can't know cause he could lie.

But if you ask if the pope is a christian most people would say "yes".
Therefore, your definition is quite worthless.
Religion is the practice and not the faith.
That is the whole point of Pascal's wager, you can do the practice to cover yourself without having faith.


Most baptists would say the pope isn't christian these days and pascal's wager only fools the masses,and those persons who practice only and believe that by practicing they cover the bases, but! if there was a deity, the deity would not be fooled and so pascal's wager is, in the end worthless in either situation, god or no god. Unless! you have ulterior motives!

[Cainkane1]

There used to be a philosophy called "Christian atheism" The idea was to follow the teachings of Jesus without expecting anything to happn after death. I haven't heard of this movement lately.

[Cainkane1]

Christianity with no religion? Try Christian athesim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[Gandalfs Beard]

Christianity with no religion? Try Christian athesim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

I love Wikipedia. The moderators stay on top of things and clearly label any potential problems with the information being presented. This alone, actually makes them a more reliable encyclopedia than many printed ones.

You'll note their admonitions at the beginning of the above linked to article:
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (November 2009)

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (August 2009)

But just based on the unreliable information presented in the article, I would suggest that "Christian" Atheists are just like the "Jewish" Atheists that GM Fox was referring to.

Christian in name only, they have a sentimental attachment to the religion they grew up with. They may participate in all the trappings of religion, but without the necessary component of Belief.

Though because of their attachment, the Christian Atheist begs the question of how "Christian" or "Atheist" they are really. Maybe they are really Atheist in name only, the Christian Model of reality still firmly embedded in their subconscious.

I do know a few Atheists who regularly attend Church, and send their kids to Private Christian Schools, because they still believe that the religion they grew up with holds some value.

In the end, how a person intellectually and emotionally navigates through their cultural baggage is up to them. There is certainly nothing wrong with trying to reconcile apparently mutually exclusive conceptual models. But one cannot really call practice without belief "Religion."

GB