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

[m_huber]

Someone recently told me that being Christian isn't about religion, but about relationship with Jesus. I happened to have heard the Atheist Experience episode a few days ago where they mention this, but when I went back to check their argument, it basically said, "no other relationship depends on belief in existence," which doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument. I remember using this same argument when I was a Christian, so I'm interested in seeing other's thoughts on this line.

[Fnord]

[opinion]

Christianity defines the believer's relationship with God. It has nothing to do with religion, but with personal faith in an immaterial and improvable being.

Religion is a form of politics that re-directs that relationship into glorifying man's attempts to know and understand God. Religion is also a means to project and expand personal and political authority, as well as exploit the masses, under the guise of "Holiness."

When religion dictates belief, all Hell breaks loose.

This may or may not be how anyone else sees it, but it is what works for me.

[/opinion]

Your results may vary.

[Bikewer]

It's interesting how this notion changed from a very temporal idea (The "Son Of Man" would come down from Heaven to set things right and re-establish the Jewish kingdom, with JC as King.. ) to this spiritual relationship that came about when JC failed to show up again....

[HansMustermann]

It seems to me like it still requires you to just believe the same amount of stuff, still makes demands on what to do, what to think, etc.

So basically the whole argument strikes me as: it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but it's fish so you need to educate your taste buds

At any rate, "no other relationship depends on belief in existence," seems to me like actually the right answer. That relationship depends on... religion. It's begging the same questions as before.

For the relationship with Jesus to work like that (or indeed at all), you have to first believe:

1. that he existed (a relationship with a non-existent entity isn't a real relationship)

2. that he did resurrect and ascend to heaven (a relationship with somebody who died, stayed dead and _is_ dead, well, again isn't much of a relationship)

3. that at least most of the accounts of what he said, did, etc, and the interpretations thereof are factually correct (otherwise you're probably not really doing what he wants in that relationship)

4. that being in that relationship actually does anything other than being a waste of your time and neurons. I.e., pretty much that yes he is the Son Of God, or at least otherwise special to God, you're going to get this or that privilege for being in that relationship, or this or that punishment after death for refusing it, etc. (This isn't technically needed for _a_ relationship to exist, but I've yet to see any theists who don't expect this part to be a part of their "relationship with Jesus". Nobody does it just so Jesus doesn't feel lonely)

Etc.

To have that kind of "relationship", it's a pre-requisite to swallow the rest of the religion first.

To illustrate the point briefer: If you don't believe in the Christian religion, there is no Jesus to have a relationship with. It's as simple as that.

It's like saying "it's not about a car, it's about _driving_". Well, yes, but as long as the car is still an implied part there, wth difference does it make? Just shifting the focus a bit doesn't make that requirement disappear.

Or even shorter: the whole "it's about the relationship" thing is a piss-poor word game. Nothing more.

[Axiom_Blade]

I'd always viewed this as word-play, in order to set Christianity apart from other religions.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. are "merely" religions, while Christianity is a "relationship with Jesus". (Some Muslims will tell you, in all earnestness, that Islam isn't a religion, either...)

This is useful, because the term "religion" has negative connotations for some people. If you have a bad reaction to religions, maybe if they sell you Christianity as something different, you'll give it a second look. I find this profoundly insulting. This is like Microsoft calling Bing a "decision engine", when it's clearly a friggin' search engine! They're just trying to use a different term to set themselves apart from the competition.

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Someone recently told me that being Christian isn't about religion, but about relationship with Jesus. I happened to have heard the Atheist Experience episode a few days ago where they mention this, but when I went back to check their argument, it basically said, "no other relationship depends on belief in existence," which doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument. I remember using this same argument when I was a Christian, so I'm interested in seeing other's thoughts on this line.

I don't know what definition of religion the guy who told you that uses. For all I know, "being in relationship with a god" is called a religion...

Do Hindus that just "have relationship with a god" not engage in religious activity? Crap.

Besides, being in relationship with something implies beleiving that this something _exists_. This is faith, ergo this is religion.

[Soapy Sam]

Imaginary friends are pretty common.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've never really understood the "relationship" BS. How does one for a relationship with something that you can't interact with? It just seems odd.

[m_huber]

Quote:

It's like saying "it's not about a car, it's about _driving_". Well, yes, but as long as the car is still an implied part there, wth difference does it make? Just shifting the focus a bit doesn't make that requirement disappear.

This is a great analogy. I think I'm going to use this next time the question comes up.

Fnord, I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. It looks like the argument is that "religion" is a top-down declaration of what God wants, whereas "relationship" is a bottom-up declaration of what God wants. In that sense, it would seem that protestantism is essentially a democratic version of Catholicism (which does explain why evangelicals/protestants have a problem with Catholics).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evangelical marketing. They frame their beliefs to draw in people looking for belonging.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Fnord, I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. It looks like the argument is that "religion" is a top-down declaration of what God wants, whereas "relationship" is a bottom-up declaration of what God wants. In that sense, it would seem that protestantism is essentially a democratic version of Catholicism (which does explain why evangelicals/protestants have a problem with Catholics).

No, I mean really like in that car-vs-driving analogy. Instead of just saying "ok, it's about belief in Jesus", they frame it as something which _needs_ that belief as a pre-requisite. They don't ask you to get in a car, they only ask you to drive, basically.

It's not a question of one being top down and the other bottom up, it's about wrapping a bible in a pretty gift paper so it looks better. They're not giving you religion, they're giving you a relationship and that already looks much better. But there's no way to accept that wrapping without the book in it, pretty much.

And, as was already mentioned by Axiom_Blade, it's not like protestants have a monopoly on that kind of fancy wrapping it in pretty words. I bet that if you went waay back to the beginning of time, you'd find a shaman selling the idea of "why you should let me tell you what to do", as some kind of relationship with the great nature spirits.

As for Catholics vs Protestants, well, way I see it it's the same as Sunni vs Shia, or earlier Catholics vs Arians, or waay back in Jesus's times the Israelites vs the Samaritans. See, the Samaritans were actually just another major sect of the same religion, and made (and had) a pretty good claim of being the true one. So they both rather cooperated with the pagan Romans in trying to sabotage and undermine each other, rather than just cooperating with each other.

It's just that sects of the same exclusivist religion tend to really not like each other. It's not about top-down vs bottom-up, it's just that the other is actually telling you that your interpretation of your own religion is wrong and his is right. Without that claim you wouldn't have a sect to start with.

Basically people seem to be less offended by "I don't believe in your God" than by, basically, "OMGWTFBBQ, you're doing it all wrong! You're going against the precepts of your own God and he'll smite your for it!!"

[linusrichard]

This thread is pointless until we can agree on a definition of "religion" for the purposes of this discussion. If Fnord says Christianity has nothing to do with "religion," and I say Christianity is a "religion," we might both be right, if we're working from different definitions of "religion." Only after we can stipulate to a definition of the word can we know if we're actually talking about the same thing, and then proceed to actually debate and discuss what that thing is.

[quarky]

having a living relationship with a god, or even a self-generated and maintained delusion, is not at all like what is being described.

The power of such a mental device/creator of all has enabled people to sit still while being burned to death. Its big ****.

Its as big, or bigger, than deciding to become the King of Pop, or the oldest person on Earth.

Its some big ****.

Utterly irrelevant if it makes a lick of sense or not.

[wuschel]

Originally Posted by m_huber

I went back to check their argument, it basically said, "no other relationship depends on belief in existence," which doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument.

Not very powerful, in as far as someone claiming to have a personal relationship with the Easter Bunny can also be conceived. Don't tell PETA, though!

[Bri]

I'm not sure I understand what "no other relationship depends on belief in existence" means. I've never heard of a relationship in which one party didn't believe in the existence of the other party. I would certainly say that belief in existence, among other things, is necessary for a relationship (can you really have a relationship with someone or something that you don't believe exists?).

-Bri

[Common_Name]

It doesn't compel me at all, really.
Wow, I can be in a "relationship" with a big beardy dude who watches me 24/7, or his dead/un-dead/whatever son, how could I say no!

Pretty much, I think the aim is to make Christianity seem more personal, which makes it more appealing, I suppose.

[JoeyDonuts]

Collective, institutionalized delusion reinforced by rituals and "good feelings."

The lyrics in a lot of Christian hymns refer to a relationship with the 'Heavenly Father' as a very intimate and physical one. They sing things like 'He walks with me, he talks with me' as if he were some Obi-Wan force ghost accompanying the believer to the store to divinely inspire the grocery selections. "What's that Lord? Y'say the rutabagas look good? Praaaaaise Jay-sus!"

At any rate, every Christian I've ever known takes the 'still small voice' that all of us experience from time to time and attributes it to the intervention of the Trinitarian 'Holy Spirit.' Of course this varies depending on the finer points of dogma with the particular denomination that the pracitioner is a part of - some of them don't believe in the Trinity for example - but the net effect is still there.

Continuous affirmation of the desired conclusion, warm genuine earnest feelings for one another, and constant reinforcement through Biblical study - a process that in my opinion yields no more relevant guidance on daily decisions than a horoscope - and all the while the concept that God is in this very room with you, guiding your steps, watching your thoughts, whispering quiet words of encouragement.

I won't even touch the subject of prayer other than to say God must have had his Earth passport confiscated after the end of Biblical times - seeing as how he had no problem appearing in all kinds of flashy '80s arena-rock pyrotechnics back in the day but now can't be bothered to pop in for tea now and again.

If an adult exhibited this sort of behavior with anything other than a deity (a relationship with the ghost of Jerry Garcia for example) - making life decisions as a result of its influence, being happy to the point of tears at just having this wonderful presence accompanying you everywhere - you'd have a good chance at getting chucked right into the loony bin.

When you say it's the Holy Spirit, though, everything's gravy and how dare you criticize.

Oh, and judging by some of the instances I've witnessed of the Holy Spirit 'communicating' through the people it's possessed - that **************** needs to learn English in a bad way.

Glossolalia isn't gonna win you any fans outside of the Appalachians, J.C.

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Someone recently told me that being Christian isn't about religion, but about relationship with Jesus. I happened to have heard the Atheist Experience episode a few days ago where they mention this, but when I went back to check their argument, it basically said, "no other relationship depends on belief in existence," which doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument. I remember using this same argument when I was a Christian, so I'm interested in seeing other's thoughts on this line.

Having a relationship with god is not a religion? Why?

Perhaps it is not even an argument. Perhaps it is just something they say so they are not criticized, so they sound more cozy and fluffy... "It is all about having a relationship with a dear friend Jesus... ".

[Patsy]

I suggest then, that the tax exempt status and other exemptions and benefits of being a religion be removed.

[Third Eye Open]

I suppose you could have a relationship with Jesus in the same way an obsessed fan has a 'relationship' with a celebrity. You know, think about them all the time, imagine that you are hanging out with them, have pretend conversations with them, have pictures of them all over your house, know every detail about their life, everything they have ever done or said, you like all the things they like, do all the things they do... If it's THAT kind of relationship, then I guess that means there are thousands of lonely teenage girls in a 'relationship' with Nick Jonas.

[Monster Machine]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's not a question of one being top down and the other bottom up, it's about wrapping a bible in a pretty gift paper so it looks better. They're not giving you religion, they're giving you a relationship and that already looks much better. But there's no way to accept that wrapping without the book in it, pretty much.

I have always found the term relationship to be a very New Age-y sort of approach to getting people into christianity. Hans, you hit the nail on the head here, in that using the term relationship is merely window dressing.

I recall watching Survivor - China, and one of the castaways insisted she wasn't religious at all, that it was a "relationship" she had with Jesus. And yet, she offended the monks at a temple in the first episode because during a ceremony by the monks, she ran out of the temple crying because it "felt like church" to another god.

To me, she believed she was "breaking the rules" while at the same point claiming she wasn't religious. Odd that a relationship with a feel good god would cause this much grief.

IMO, the relationship aspect is Phase 1 when you first try it out. Religion is Phase 2. Again, this is only my opinion, but people who say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" are on the bottom rung of their journey through their religion. If they still claim relationship status after a number of years, they are either using the relationship aspect for indoctrination, or they are just content to remain in the good feeling phase of christianity and are shunning the reality of what they're involved in.

Monster

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by m_huber

Fnord, I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. It looks like the argument is that "religion" is a top-down declaration of what God wants, whereas "relationship" is a bottom-up declaration of what God wants. In that sense, it would seem that protestantism is essentially a democratic version of Catholicism (which does explain why evangelicals/protestants have a problem with Catholics).

.
[opinion=subjective]

The "Relationship" aspect is how believers see their connection to God. It is emo-based and purely subjective and experiential. Think of it as the way a fan feels towards and about their favorite entertanment icon.

"Religion" is how believers mandate and dictate how that connectedness shall be expressed. Think of it as a bunch of hard-core fans setting up an "official" fan club, complete with regular meetings, news and gossip about their idol, singing songs about their idol, and collecting dues from the members.

Think of how Michael Jackson's fans describe him, how his music made them feel, discussion of the various myths versus "Canonical" biography, and how much a part of their lives he has become - that is the relationship aspect.

Now think of how you might exploit all that adulation and energy into an organization that would be profitable to you - that is the religion aspect.

[/opinion]

Keep in mind that the foregoing is only how I see it, and how it is not necessarily the most valid opinion going around.

I know, "Big cop-out Fnord" - but when you're dealing with faith-based beliefs and the religions surrounding them, you're dealing in the realm of conjecture or guesswork.

[maddog]

I used to have a relationship with Jesus, but he cheated on me. Had a relationship going with 14000 Baptists on the side, and acted all "but you knew it was an OPEN relationship". I was like, "sure, you can appear on somebody's toast or an underpass or something, but friggin' Baptists? It's not that kind of open relationship, bub. Hit the bricks!"

[Leftus]

It's an abusive relationship to be certain. This Jesus fellow dictates how you should live, who you should relate with (differently yoked) and will punish you in unimaginable ways should you stray.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It's an abusive relationship to be certain. This Jesus fellow dictates how you should live, who you should relate with (differently yoked) and will punish you in unimaginable ways should you stray.

.
That's religion for you! Restrictions everywhere you turn. Sorta like being married...

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It's an abusive relationship to be certain. This Jesus fellow dictates how you should live, who you should relate with (differently yoked) and will punish you in unimaginable ways should you stray.

Sounds nice.


"I am not religious. I am having an abusive relationship with Jesus".

[EventHorizon]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It's an abusive relationship to be certain. This Jesus fellow dictates how you should live, who you should relate with (differently yoked) and will punish you in unimaginable ways should you stray.

For people to put up with that crap it must mean that Jesus is great between the sheets.

[HansMustermann]

That or battered wife syndrome.

This is what happened in Europe when the Black Death outbreaks hit. It's not just the extreme lethality of it that made it scary as heck. (Some cities lost up to 80% of their population in one outbreak.) It was also a horribly painful way to die and it took a long time of that pain before you'd actually die.

So pretty much Europe faced the question: if God loves us, and we're his faithful people, why's he doing something that cruel to us? (Remember, these were the times before microbiology and microscopes.)

So in battered wife fashion huge chunks of Europe went, basically, "He only hits me because he loves me, and it's my fault for..."

1. "... not being devoted enough." => fanatical "acts of faith", including buring everyone alive who might have angered the Lord by being another religion, or an old single woman, or a cat lover, or whatever else the Lord supposedly hated.

2. "... not doing it right." => the hussites, protestantism, and all the other sects.

How good he was between sheets didn't even start to enter the equation there.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It's an abusive relationship to be certain. This Jesus fellow dictates how you should live, who you should relate with (differently yoked) and will punish you in unimaginable ways should you stray.

It's not even an "abusive" relationship! It's imaginery?

It's completely one-sided. We do all the work. What does Jesus put into it? Nothing. He never calls, visits, and even his supposed communication with you is second or third hand from 2000 years ago.

It's a dependency, not a relationship.

I think most of us have been through this, with friends who we always have to call and never call us. We go out of our way to visit them, but they never can find their way to visit us, etc. How long does this have to go on before you decide you just aren't worth the effort?

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It's not even an "abusive" relationship! It's imaginery?

No problem here. An abusive relationship with an imaginary friend.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

If it's THAT kind of relationship, then I guess that means there are thousands of lonely teenage girls in a 'relationship' with Nick Jonas.

Even so, I would wager that all of those lonely teenage girls believe that Nick Jonas exists.

-Bri

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Bri

Even so, I would wager that all of those lonely teenage girls believe that Nick Jonas exists.

-Bri

Yeah, but all those "relationship" Christians believe that Jesus is alive now, too. Personally, I doubt that Nick Jonas exists -- he's really just the reincarnation of Andy Gibb, isn't he?

[Bri]

I was referring to the statement in the OP "no other relationship depends on belief in existence". It certainly seems to me that all relationships--including those with Jesus, God, and Nick Jonas--depend on belief in existence.

-Bri

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Fnord

[opinion]

Christianity defines the believer's relationship with God. It has nothing to do with religion, but with personal faith in an immaterial and improvable being.

Religion is a form of politics that re-directs that relationship into glorifying man's attempts to know and understand God. Religion is also a means to project and expand personal and political authority, as well as exploit the masses, under the guise of "Holiness."

When religion dictates belief, all Hell breaks loose.

This may or may not be how anyone else sees it, but it is what works for me.

[/opinion]

Your results may vary.

You seem to be using religion to mean "organized religion". A "personal faith in an immaterial and improvable being" is a religious belief.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Bri

I was referring to the statement in the OP "no other relationship depends on belief in existence". It certainly seems to me that all relationships--including those with Jesus, God, and Nick Jonas--depend on belief in existence.

I think the unspoken (but obvious) implication was 'without a scrap of evidence' - as in:

"no other relationship depends on belief in existence without a scrap of evidence".

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It's not even an "abusive" relationship! It's imaginery?

It's completely one-sided. We do all the work. What does Jesus put into it? Nothing. He never calls, visits, and even his supposed communication with you is second or third hand from 2000 years ago.

It's a dependency, not a relationship.

The abuse is as imaginary, and thus just as real, as the relationship. Claim one, claim the other.

[m_huber]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Look at ~6:12 to see the discussion on this question.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by godless dave

You seem to be using religion to mean "organized religion". A "personal faith in an immaterial and improvable being" is a religious belief.

[opinion=whatever]

I agree with the first part, but the second ... faith is static. Alone, it does very little. Expressing that faith through action, worship, or proselytizing is religion, and can accomplish a lot.

It's the difference between believing that one specific girl is the right one for you to marry (faith), and actually going out to praise her, give her offerings, sing to her, and petition her to grant your wishes (religion).

Even then, a person can practice religion without having faith in anything. They can also have faith without ever acting on it.

Or, more simply, religion is the politics of faith. One may be derived from the other, but they are not the same thing.

[/opinion]

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Fnord

[opinion=whatever]

I agree with the first part, but the second ... faith is static. Alone, it does very little. Expressing that faith through action, worship, or proselytizing is religion, and can accomplish a lot.

It's the difference between believing that one specific girl is the right one for you to marry (faith), and actually going out to praise her, give her offerings, sing to her, and petition her to grant your wishes (religion).

Even then, a person can practice religion without having faith in anything. They can also have faith without ever acting on it.

Or, more simply, religion is the politics of faith. One may be derived from the other, but they are not the same thing.

[/opinion]

We're all entitled to our opinion, but we're not entitled to define our own words. Religion includes belief. It's not just the practices.

If you're pointing out that the people using the phrase "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion" understand the word "religion" differently than I do, then I get your point. I already knew that, and that's why I find the practice interesting. It suggests either a society that deliberately sets itself apart from the mainstream, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate people by manipulating language, or both.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by godless dave

If you're pointing out that the people using the phrase "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion" understand the word "religion" differently than I do, then I get your point. I already knew that, and that's why I find the practice interesting. It suggests either a society that deliberately sets itself apart from the mainstream, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate people by manipulating language, or both.

(... Eff One Eleven to High Poobah ... live one ... he knows about Operation Snowjob ... name of "Godless Dave" ... mostly harmless ... will continue to monitor situation ... out.)

Golly gee, I wonder where you got that idea?