Not quite religion, but then what?

[Jane_the_Bane]

To me, the term "religion" implies some form of organization; with holidays, rituals, canonical texts, an established set of beliefs you must adhere to in order to be considered a member, a sprawling eschatology explaining reality on its terms, etc.

Lacking these, a world view may be spiritual in nature, but not religious as such.

Also, I'd say that some secular world views are sufficiently "religious" to merit that designation, in spite of lacking belief in the supernatural. Some versions of communism were/are clearly quasi-religious, just like Ayn Rand's "Objectivism".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't know. I don't think there are generalities to make for men or women. I think women can tend to be more religious, but I don't think that is necessarily a sign of being closer to God. But, there is something about becoming a mother that causes women to want to make sure their children are brought up in church.

Gender seems to be a factor, especially as far as socialization is concerned. Boys are more frequently encouraged to be daring, to take risks, to think outside the box, while girls are often being taught to be gentle, compliant, and to stick to the rules. A couple of decades of equal rights have contributed to *some* changes in this regard, but it's still there - *especially* in religious circles, which tend to take a considerably more conservative stance when it comes to gender roles.

With this in mind, it should not come as a surprise that women are more likely to stick to these organized world views - even in cases where they are clearly established as second-class citizens.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

My reason for not being religious is quite simple:

I do not believe the religions I am familiar with accurately describe reality. Apart from whether I like them or not, they simply do not strike me as convincing models explaining the universe or mankind.

I'm more comfortable with having open questions than with clinging to "answers" that are clearly inaccurate.

Also, the post-structuralist in me is highly skeptical of grand narratives, i.e. all-encompassing world views based on the assumption that they've got the Whole Truth, like no other. More often than not, these are the ideologies you ought to run away from, fast.

 

[Uber Genius]

I end up meeting nowadays more and more people who practice something and believe in something, which is difficult to define. Might be a bit like a religion, but isn't quite.

Would for example, people who believe in spirit guides be religious in your books? Or when someone believes they are spiritually one with the nature? When someone is just spiritual but not religious? What is it called when someone has a mix of life philosophy and spiritual practices, but doesn't really follow any particular religion.

What's in your opinion, a fundamental difference between things like life philosophy, value system, religion, spiritual practice etc.?

I don't really have any point to make here, just asking for random thoughts on the topic, for thought food. As nowadays traditional religions are losing ground, but people still practice all sorts of elements of religions, it's getting a bit blurry.

Where are we are going when we die, how do we get meaning in life, how do we live a moral life if there are such things, how do we engage God is he/she/they are personal? These questions and our various answers could be defined generally as "religious worldview."

Inside each worldview there will be those who can give some justification for why they believe the things they do and a greater number who can't, easily anyways articulate how those beliefs were formed or why they might be true and other competing beliefs be false.

The oscillation we see in each society may have to do with a host of factors, least of which is level of warrant for any particular view, and mostly due to the feeling of where one is qua Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maximum self-actualization > less religion unless there is a direct correlation between the two and a clear causal link.

Put us in a WWIII scenario with ...Mexico (because they refuse to pay for a wall), China, because they refuse to "Get," the North Koreans, well then we should see a whole new flock of converts to various religions. Of coarse one doesn't want to argue against religious belief in this way as it is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy (and there is your comment on philosophy).

 

[RDKirk]

What I was referring to, was that there is a culture of 'double talk' in Christianity, when Christians want to convert you, it's all easy and free, just about accepting Jesus and no demands or works ever. .

What they meant was that no preparatory work was required before being accepted by Christ. If anyone ever told you "no demands ever" after acceptance by Christ, they were simply lying.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.

 

[Uber Genius]

Boys are more frequently encouraged to be daring, to take risks, to think outside the box,

This sounds right.

Men in most churches I've attended are women trapped in men's bodies. Paters (sorry my auto-correct intuitive changes "pastors" to the latin for fathers due to the paternalistic nature of most pastors in the evangelical church), lead this group by far.

I lead a group of a dozen men, none of whom would darken the door of a church except perhaps at their own funeral, and some would even object then.

Group-think and conformity are high in these places. That said, colleges are filled with similar conformity, and professors likewise. Facebook is a place where propel polish their conformity skills. Add let's not forget the paternalistic conformity producers of the secular world, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, ABC, And CBS.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't disagree- people who are saved want to work, but there are people who do not work, or people who work for the wrong reasons.

Have you kept all the things James has written? It's a long list. I have not.

James was written to the twelve tribes, not the Gentile believers- just as Leviticus and Deuteronomy was written to the Jewish nation.

For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. -- Ephesians 2.

For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. -- Romans 12

Nothing anywhere in the NT suggests a Christian has nothing Christ expects of him after becoming a member of the Body of Christ.

I Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Let's put that back into its context:

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it.

But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This has nothing to do with the good works one does as a functional member of the Body of Christ, but on those who are working on foundations other than Christ.

 

[Jack of Spades]

What they meant was that no preparatory work was required before being accepted by Christ. If anyone ever told you "no demands ever" after acceptance by Christ, they were simply lying.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.

The commands of following make a lot more sense in the Gospels when Jesus was a physical person, but, according to the Bible, nowadays Jesus resides within Christians. I think the command/call of following becomes a lot more wierd in that context. How to follow something that is in you?

Also, if you were to find the closest replacement for the word "faith" in the Bible, what word would you use?

 

[RDKirk]

The commands of following make a lot more sense in the Gospels when Jesus was a physical person, but, according to the Bible, nowadays Jesus resides within Christians. I think the command/call of following becomes a lot more wierd in that context. How to follow something that is in you?

Also, if you were to find the closest replacement for the word "faith" in the Bible, what word would you use?

"Compulsion to emulate Jesus."

 

[Arthra]

Interesting discussion... I think spirituality and less formal religion is becoming more common these days and that's not a bad thing. It means to me more people are sincerely seeking meaning in their lives and not just accepting a format of a theology because of authority alone.

 

[Cearbhall]

Your gods are whatever dictates your choices. Your gods are whatever you obey.

If that's not Christ for any given choice, then that is an anti-Christ.

Sure, in the context of your religion. But that's irrelevant for someone whose framework does not include Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

Sure, in the context of your religion. But that's irrelevant for someone whose framework does not include Christ.

I think it's universally true that whatever dictates your choices, particularly your directly moral choices, is your "god" in the most meaningful sense that word can have.

 

[Galatea]

Gender seems to be a factor, especially as far as socialization is concerned. Boys are more frequently encouraged to be daring, to take risks, to think outside the box, while girls are often being taught to be gentle, compliant, and to stick to the rules. A couple of decades of equal rights have contributed to *some* changes in this regard, but it's still there - *especially* in religious circles, which tend to take a considerably more conservative stance when it comes to gender roles.

With this in mind, it should not come as a surprise that women are more likely to stick to these organized world views - even in cases where they are clearly established as second-class citizens.

The distinction I was trying to make was this: I don't think that women are closer to God (ie spiritual) but they may be more religious (ie conforming to religious rules). I actually think you and I may be saying the same thing.

For the record, I HATE religion and think it drives people away from God. I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, but a relationship with Christ. It is why I do not identify with any sect.

 

[Galatea]

For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. -- Ephesians 2.

For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. -- Romans 12

Nothing anywhere in the NT suggests a Christian has nothing Christ expects of him after becoming a member of the Body of Christ.



Let's put that back into its context:

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it.

But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.

If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This has nothing to do with the good works one does as a functional member of the Body of Christ, but on those who are working on foundations other than Christ.

I disagree with your interpretation. The foundation is clearly Christ and Paul is clearly talking to believers. He talks about the works being on this foundation which is Christ.

Some of us are building with gold, silver, and precious gems. Some of us are building with wood, hay, and stubble. There are some of us whose work is going to be burned, but we shall be saved.

Who is saved as by fire if it is not Christians? I think the context is clear that Paul is talking about Christians whose work does not endure.

If anyone builds on THIS foundation, which foundation, Paul? The one he laid which is Christ Jesus. He doesn't say people who are building on other foundations.

People building on other foundations won't be saved- unless you are suggesting a righteous Muslim will be saved as by fire. The foundation HAS to be Christ in order to be saved in the first place.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

For the record, I HATE religion and think it drives people away from God. I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, but a relationship with Christ. It is why I do not identify with any sect.

This slogan has been in circulation since the 1960s, when evangelical Christianity tried to re-brand itself as something other than religion (because a younger generation became skeptical of organized world views).

But the fact is: the meaning of the word "religion" in the English language is pretty much *defined* by Christianity. You'll have trouble fitting many an Asian religion into the definition you find in English dictionaries, because those are so clearly modeled on this particular brand of Abrahamic monotheism.

I see what you're saying, and I don't think you're the kind of "insurance saleswoman" who just tries to sell the same product under a different name: you dislike legalism, and think spirituality ought to be something more immediate, personal, and perhaps even individual. In that, I agree with you - I just don't think your particular world view could ever fit that description, because it relies too strongly on scripture, tradition, and dogma.

 

[Galatea]

This slogan has been in circulation since the 1960s, when evangelical Christianity tried to re-brand itself as something other than religion (because a younger generation became skeptical of organized world views).

But the fact is: the meaning of the word "religion" in the English language is pretty much *defined* by Christianity. You'll have trouble fitting many an Asian religion into the definition you find in English dictionaries, because those are so clearly modeled on this particular brand of Abrahamic monotheism.

I see what you're saying, and I don't think you're the kind of "insurance saleswoman" who just tries to sell the same product under a different name: you dislike legalism, and think spirituality ought to be something more immediate, personal, and perhaps even individual. In that, I agree with you - I just don't think your particular world view could ever fit that description, because it relies too strongly on scripture, tradition, and dogma.

I appreciate the fact that you don't believe I am selling something, because I am not. It is very simple. I believe religion says "you HAVE to do something". Some people think they have to do something to be saved, some people think they have to do something after you are saved, otherwise you are not a Christian (if you are not doing).

Thanks for understanding what I mean by faith- personal and individual. I probably will get some flak, but my interpretation of Christianity is that someone can be saved and NEVER do a thing for the glory of God. Someone might say, "Well then, how do you know who is Christian and who is not?" We DON'T, not for sure. If someone says they are saved and does not manifest the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self control, goodness, faithfulness) we could say "that person is probably not a Christian" but we don't KNOW for sure. They may be saved.

I think there are going to be a lot of people in Heaven who will surprise us. For example, I DON'T like Jim Baker, he fleeced a lot of well meaning people. Really a horrible thing, in my opinion. I don't KNOW he is not saved, though. He may be.

Faith is a relationship between man and God- it is individual and no one CAN know on this side of eternity, whether or not a person is really saved. We can guess by their works or lack thereof, but not know for sure.

I'm not going by a dictionary definition, I am going by my definition. Religion says "do" faith says "believe". In this case, Asian religions are very much a religion and not a faith as certain rituals are necessary.

This is going to sound radical, I'll probably get some flak- but I know without a shadow of a doubt, if I went out today and started committing all kinds of heinous sins- robbing, murdering, taking drugs, etc. I will still be saved and still go to Heaven. This is faith. I KNOW whom I have believed and am PERSUADED He is able to keep me, no matter what.

This is Christianity, to me.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In short, you are a protestant. What you've just described here is pretty much at the heart of that particular branch of Christianity: "sola fide" - only faith (saves).

And yes, still a religion.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm not going by a dictionary definition, I am going by my definition.

That's cool, if you accept the fact that it automatically leads to endless semantic arguments if you insist on using some other words, than the ones which already have well-established meanings.

For comparison, if I refused to call other humans 'humans' and instead used the word "bird" for a human, do you agree that it's pretty understandable that this would cause a lot of fuss?

Religion says "do" faith says "believe". In this case, Asian religions are very much a religion and not a faith as certain rituals are necessary.

Believing in dogmas is very much a religious thing, and important part for what defines what is a religion. For example, the concept of being saved is based on dogmas, first the dogma that there is something to be saved from, hell, and then the dogma that there is some process for being saved from it, choosing Jesus.

Not all beliefs are dogmatic, for comparison, the concept of being saved from water would not be based on dogmas, as I can demonstrate it in the physical reality how to get in water and how to save someone from there. That is a concept which needs no dogmatic beliefs, and therefore it's not religious in nature.

Also, Christianity has it's own set of religious rituals, most notably the baptism and the eucharist. It is true that the exact meaning of these rituals varies among Christian churches, but because of the meaningfulness of these rituals is based on certain religious dogmas, those are very much textbook religious rituals.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, but a relationship with Christ.

As far as I can tell, any religion involves forming a relationship with a deity or a group of deities. Even if the relationship is ritualistic -- and even if it is quid pro quo -- it's still an attempt at forming a relationship. It is an attempt to "be friends" with some divine power or powers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Galatea]

In short, you are a protestant. What you've just described here is pretty much at the heart of that particular branch of Christianity: "sola fide" - only faith (saves).

And yes, still a religion.

How is faith only still a religion?