Why is Christianity even labelled as a religion?

[Gell]

Religion is something man-made.

This is one of the most overlooked issue in my opinion. Being coined 'religious' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of the pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites, blind people who lead other blind people into darkness.

 

[RDKirk]

This is one of the most overlooked issue in my opinion. Being coined 'religious' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of the pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites, blind people who lead other blind people into darkness.

Well, by New Testament standards, "religious" means you look after the welfare of widows and fatherless children:

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. -- James 1

What's wrong with that?

 

[HypnoToad]

This is one of the most overlooked issue in my opinion. Being coined 'religious' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of the pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites, blind people who lead other blind people into darkness.

But is that actually reasonable?

Religion simply means "beliefs about God". Your issue is with one specific way some people practice religion, not with "religion" itself.

Basically, it's no different than saying, "'medicine' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of how Dr. Josef Mengele abused people."

Being disgusted by Dr. Mengele doesn't make it reasonable to say medicine itself is bad. Being disgusted by the Pharisees doesn't make it reasonable to say religion itself bad.

While a lot of religions are man-made, Christianity is not. Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church," Matthew 16:18. Jesus founded Christianity, not man.

 

[frater_domus]

I guess now we are coming back to the debate of a few pages ago, namely the difference between the biblical definition of religion and the one in the modern dictionary. If the statement is viewed from the standpoint of the biblical definition, then yes, it is wrong. However, my guess is that it is viewed from the point of view of the secular definition, in which case I am inclined to agree.

However, we had that discussion a few pages ago. Please, do not bring it back

 

[Gell]

Well, by New Testament standards, "religious" means you look after the welfare of widows and fatherless children:

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. -- James 1

What's wrong with that?

Well, I stand corrected. I only shared what I felt and thought about the word, not knowing about my ignorance of the whole concept.

 

[Gell]

I guess now we are coming back to the debate of a few pages ago, namely the difference between the biblical definition of religion and the one in the modern dictionary. If the statement is viewed from the standpoint of the biblical definition, then yes, it is wrong. However, my guess is that it is viewed from the point of view of the secular definition, in which case I am inclined to agree.

However, we had that discussion a few pages ago. Please, do not bring it back

Lesson learned reading through the whole thread is a must these days. Sorry, newbie forum member here.

 

[Anguspure]

This is one of the most overlooked issue in my opinion. Being coined 'religious' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of the pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites, blind people who lead other blind people into darkness.

Christianity is labelled a religion because as a movement it exhibits all of the trappings of religion and the vast majority of adherants are practicing religious and love religion, a whiole lot more than they Love God for the most part.

I agree that religion is disgusting and it also hurts me to be labelled in this way, but as one man said to me "it takes only one goat...."

Furthermore it occurs to me that I am far beyond reproach on this one myelf. In many ways that may not at first appear to be "religious" I have also misrepresented the Lord to others in my life.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Albion]

Christianity is a religion. However, people who insist that it is not a religion are saying IMO that what is typical of religious organizations falls short of, or is contrary to, what Christ taught.

It probably would be better if they just said it that way instead of arguing that the Christian religion is something other than a religion.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Christianity is not only a religion. It is the most true, most complete, most God-pleasing religion there is, instituted by our Lord himself. All other religions pale in comparison.

 

[Anguspure]

Christianity is not only a religion. It is the most true, most complete, most God-pleasing religion there is, instituted by our Lord himself. All other religions pale in comparison.

Christianity may well be a religion but a relationship with our Creator through His Son and by His Spirit is not even in the same category as religion.
One can be in close Loving relationship with the Creator and have no part with the religion.
Whereas a person who is fully religious (in the best"Christian" sense of the word) might never have accepted Him as his Saviour.

 

[Albion]

Christianity may well be a religion but a relationship with our Creator through His Son and by His Spirit is not even in the same category as religion.

Sure it is. What you describe would be a religion just as surely as one that required a lot of ceremony and service, etc. What you say may not adequately describe the Christian religion--that would be a topic for another discussion. However, the format you describe would constitute a religion. There are religions that are completely a matter of personal agreement with some concept and there are no formal institutions at all; or else there are some, but most adherents are not affiliated with them.

One can be in close Loving relationship with the Creator and have no part with the religion.

Certainly. But such people are still counted as Christians if they describe themselves as you have here

Whereas a person who is fully religious (in the best"Christian" sense of the word) might never have accepted Him as his Saviour.

What you are describing there is the difference between a good and a bad example of an adherent...or between a nominal Christian and a devout one, etc​

 

[Anguspure]

Sure it is. What you describe would be a religion just as surely as one that required a lot of ceremony and service, etc. What you say may not adequately describe the Christian religion--that would be a topic for another discussion. However, the format you describe would constitute a religion. There are religions that are completely a matter of personal agreement with some concept and there are no formal institutions at all; or else there are some, but most adherents are not affiliated with them.


Certainly. But such people are still counted as Christians if they describe themselves as you have here

Is my relationship with my Mother, my Daughter or my Wife or any other person a religion? No it is not. So then why must my relationship with my Father labelled as such?

Although I think I understand where this goes. In my society "Religion" is a euphamism for "God", and most specifically the God of the Bible. So anybody who concerns themselves with the things of God in any sense (and this goes as far as merely asking the question) is labelled as "Religious" in a negative context. Whereas people who engage in the practice of other religions exclusive of the God of Abraham and Jesus are not regarded as "Religious" in this way but merely "Spiritual".

What you are describing there is the difference between a good and a bad example of an adherent...or between a nominal Christian and a devout one, etc

​

Not at all. A person may be as devout as the most religious of the Biblical figures like the Pharisee, morally upright and having followed all of the commands since birth but still not know our Dad.

 

[Open Heart]

This is one of the most overlooked issue in my opinion. Being coined 'religious' disgusts me because whenever I think of it, I think of the pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites, blind people who lead other blind people into darkness.

Why? There's good religion and bad religion. Just because the Pharisees that Jesus berated were screwed up did it poorly doesn't mean God wants you to throw the baby out with the bath water. Remember that God designed the religion for the Israelites. This is the religion that David followed, a man after God's own heart. It's the religion that Daniel followed, and all the prophets. Israel had its good kings and bad kings, times when it followed its religion and times when it didn't and angered God. Don't blame the religion, blame those who didn't follow it.

 

[Open Heart]

Religion is something man-made.

Whoever told you that did you a disservice. The religion of the Israelites was of course given to them by God through Moses. Christianity is given to us by God through the Apostles.

 

[Albion]

Is my relationship with my Mother, my Daughter or my Wife or any other person a religion? No it is not. So then why must my relationship with my Father labelled as such?

Because that is the nature of religion--mans relationship with a supreme being and the things which relate to such being or beings, or his beliefs concerning such.

Although I think I understand where this goes. In my society "Religion" is a euphamism for "God", and most specifically the God of the Bible.

Well, it certainly does not have to be with the God of the Bible.

anybody who concerns themselves with the things of God in any sense (and this goes as far as merely asking the question) is labelled as "Religious" in a negative context.

Why in a negative sense? Most people think it is admirable to be religious or to have some religious belief.

Whereas people who engage in the practice of other religions exclusive of the God of Abraham and Jesus are not regarded as "Religious" in this way but merely "Spiritualth".

I don;t know why you would say that. It is widely accepted that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. are religions, even if they are not the ones that most of our neighbors belong to.

 

[Open Heart]

Is my relationship with my Mother, my Daughter or my Wife or any other person a religion? No it is not. So then why must my relationship with my Father labelled as such?

Christianity is MORE than just a relationship with Christ and the Father. It is being a part of the Church and participation in its life. It is profession of the gospel. It is loving God and our neighbor as ourself. It includes prayers, morals, sacred scriptures, and a worldview that God is in control and intervenes in history (and that's just to begin with). All these things are the things of religion. Your mother hasn't written a sacred book. You don't worship her. You don't engage in religious rituals in her name such as baptism or communion. Tell me you see the difference.

 

[Anguspure]

Because that is the nature of religion--mans relationship with a supreme being and the things which relate to such being or beings, or his beliefs concerning such.

I would argue that 99.9% of all religion has nothing to do with mans relationship with the Creator, certainly it all fails miserably in achieving such and end. It is only the very narrow gate through which we may experience this sort of relationship and He does not require anything commonly recognised as religion, rather He asks us to Love the Father and Love our neighbor.

Why in a negative sense? Most people think it is admirable to be religious or to have some religious belief.

You must live in a very religious part of the world. I have seen this sort of response from people who live in the Bible belt of the States before and I think they are very fortunate as Christians to live in such a world.
In my society, which largely consists of New Zealanders, British and Seafarers, there is nothing admirable about being religious, and religious belief is the distasteful affectation of the deluded.
For the people in my world religion is the greatest twisted controlling hypocritical and dangerous piece of mumbo jumbo ever perpetuated upon mankind.
People such as myself are benignly tolerated for the time being in the name of keeping the peace and as long as we remain nice, but really, it would be preferrable if we took all that we stand for and just dissappeared.

I don;t know why you would say that. It is widely accepted that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. are religions, even if they are not the ones that most of our neighbors belong to.

I say it because that is my experience. If I am asked whether I am religious: "You're not religious are you?", the question is aimed squarely at the Judeo Christian, God of Abraham and more particularly Jesus end of the spectrum. If I came back, as many do, with some wise response from another religion then I would be let off the hook as merely "spiritual" or "mystical" or perhaps "philosophical".

 

[Episaw]

Fair enough. I suppose the word religion has been defiled by the world and thus most of us associate it with something man-made. It may be more prudent to call Christianity the sole God-made religion and the rest being man-made?
Still, it feels a bit dirty to call something this personal instiutionalized. Even the actions describing pure and undefiled religion are actions of the heart, not routine visits to a church.
So maybe it would be better to criticise the institutional aspect of it we have today?

This verse needs more explanation. When it talks about pure religion in the Greek it does suggest ceremony but one has to ask what was the real meaning because how do you conduct a ceremony visiting widows and orphans in their affliction.

To visit does not mean come to my church on Sunday at 10 am. It means to go to their house and do what you can to help them. No ceremony there. Just good old fashion love and care.

I would suggest that we need to look beyond the word religion in terms of how we know it and try and capture the true meaning of real religion.

 

[Anguspure]

Christianity is MORE than just a relationship with Christ and the Father. It is being a part of the Church and participation in its life.

While I agree in principle; it is clear that the religious Church desires no such thing. I have tried for many years to be part of the body of the Church in day to day life and have tried to bring the Church into mine. But because of my work regime and how that affects the rest of my life, I fail to meet the narrow religious weekend and evening demands and so am largely ostracized from the Body.
While the Church is my family, and I hold it to this in the name of Christ Jesus, it clearly has no life beyond it's religious services as is evidenced by it's complete absence (in the places I live) in the day to day world beyond organised religious meetings and the like.
In my experience the family of the Church is the very most difficult and distant part of my life and I have all but given up trying to get involved because clearly they are not my friends.
A proverb that was given to me the other day sums it up:
When disaster strikes, you don't ask your brother for assistance. It's better to go to a neighbor than to a brother who lives far away.

It is profession of the gospel.

Profession of the truth is not a religious practice, rather anybody who has heard good news tells the people around them that good news, and if the news that concerns something good that is gained for free (whether that is how to gain great riches, how to get big muscles, or how to gain good relationship with God and Man) then the evidence will be apparant by observing the life of the one who claims to have gained. This is not a teligious practice.

It is loving God and our neighbor as ourself.

The secular people around me are better at this than us Christians and are not religious, and do not see Loving thier neighbor as a religious practice, rather it is just what we do.

It includes prayers, morals, sacred scriptures, and a worldview that God is in control and intervenes in history (and that's just to begin with). All these things are the things of religion.

Communicating with, pleasing, considering what they have to say, recognising the influence of our Loved ones is not exclusively religious and is something we do for everybody around us.

Your mother hasn't written a sacred book.

My Mother has written me emails that contain some good advice that I consider and allow to influence my choices towards good relationship with God, with her and with others. Again for our Loving Father to authorise writings in His name to communicate with us is not a religious practice.

You don't worship her.

I honour her as befits who she is as my Mother. I seek to honour my Father as befits His status as my Loving Creator. It is only the level of honour due that differs, not the religion.

You don't engage in religious rituals in her name such as baptism or communion. Tell me you see the difference.

Baptism is about the closest I wish to get in recognition and fulfillment of my need for some sort of "religious ritual need" in mankind.
On the other hand, do we call the signing of adoption papers a religious ritual? A similar transaction is taking place at Baptism, and a Wedding for that matter and that transaction is not religious in nature rather it is real and relational.
The practice of Communion in the religious Church is usually a travesty of what Christ Jesus initiated at Passover, and what the early Church participated in. Rather than being a Love feast the bonds the Church in community, is an alienating private experience in a crowded room.

So as far as my relationship with God and adopted Father, the only difference I see occurs because of who He is and how He is forced to communicate with me because of who I am in this sinful world.
Not because His Love for us suddenly becomes lowered to the equivalent to all of the spiritual religous mumbo jumbo of the world because He also happens to be the Almighty.

 

[Episaw]

While I agree in principle; it is clear that the religious Church desires no such thing. I have tried for many years to be part of the body of the Church in day to day life and have tried to bring the Church into mine. But because of my work regime and how that affects the rest of my life, I fail to meet the narrow religious weekend and evening demands and so am largely ostracized from the Body.
While the Church is my family, and I hold it to this in the name of Christ Jesus, it clearly has no life beyond it's religious services as is evidenced by it's complete absence (in the places I live) in the day to day world beyond organised religious meetings and the like.
In my experience the family of the Church is the very most difficult and distant part of my life and I have all but given up trying to get involved because clearly they are not my friends.
A proverb that was given to me the other day sums it up:
When disaster strikes, you don't ask your brother for assistance. It's better to go to a neighbor than to a brother who lives far away.

Profession of the truth is not a religious practice, rather anybody who has heard good news tells the people around them that good news, and if the news that concerns something good that is gained for free (whether that is how to gain great riches, how to get big muscles, or how to gain good relationship with God and Man) then the evidence will be apparant by observing the life of the one who claims to have gained. This is not a teligious practice.


The secular people around me are better at this than us Christians and are not religious, and do not see Loving thier neighbor as a religious practice, rather it is just what we do.


Communicating with, pleasing, considering what they have to say, recognising the influence of our Loved ones is not exclusively religious and is something we do for everybody around us.

My Mother has written me emails that contain some good advice that I consider and allow to influence my choices towards good relationship with God, with her and with others. Again for our Loving Father to authorise writings in His name to communicate with us is not a religious practice.

I honour her as befits who she is as my Mother. I seek to honour my Father as befits His status as my Loving Creator. It is only the level of honour due that differs, not the religion.

Baptism is about the closest I wish to get in recognition and fulfillment of my need for some sort of "religious ritual need" in mankind.
On the other hand, do we call the signing of adoption papers a religious ritual? A similar transaction is taking place at Baptism, and a Wedding for that matter and that transaction is not religious in nature rather it is real and relational.
The practice of Communion in the religious Church is usually a travesty of what Christ Jesus initiated at Passover, and what the early Church participated in. Rather than being a Love feast the bonds the Church in community, is an alienating private experience in a crowded room.

So as far as my relationship with God and adopted Father, the only difference I see occurs because of who He is and how He is forced to communicate with me because of who I am in this sinful world.
Not because His Love for us suddenly becomes lowered to the equivalent to all of the spiritual religous mumbo jumbo of the world because He also happens to be the Almighty.

Yes, the communion/Eucharist/Lord's table is one of the biggest travesties ever visited on the church.