Not quite religion, but then what?

[Galatea]

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?



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.

What is the definition of religion?

If I engage in no rituals, is that considered religion still? I have not been baptized, nor have I taken communion in years. I have nothing against these rituals. As a matter of fact, I wish I were close enough to God to feel like I could take communion worthily. The thing is, I don't have to perform any rituals. I have faith, and it is enough. Actually, I can go a step further and say I have no faith, but am trusting in Christ's faith. If that makes sense. I actually bring nothing, not even faith.

By your definition, is anything that can not be demonstrated in the physical world and yet believed in, a religion? For example- would a belief in extra terrestrial life be a religion? It can not be physically demonstrated to be true.

 

[Galatea]

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

But, is a quid pro quo really a relationship- or an attempt to placate a higher power or what is it really? A transaction, I suppose. What if I said I bring nothing to the equation, not even belief and am trusting in His faith? Is quid pro quo a friendship, though?

I think the relationship between a believer and God is more than friendship- it transcends any kind of Earthly relationship. It is something more.

And with these posts, I will most likely be branded a heretic and me be asked to leave.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, is a quid pro quo really a relationship

Yes.

or an attempt to placate a higher power

Yes, it can be that.

A transaction, I suppose.

That is a relationship of a certain sort.

What if I said I bring nothing to the equation, not even belief and am trusting in His faith? Is quid pro quo a friendship, though?

That depends on just what the deity demands.

I think the relationship between a believer and God is more than friendship- it transcends any kind of Earthly relationship. It is something more.

You may certainly think that. However, that does not exhaust what relationships are possible.

And with these posts, I will most likely be branded a heretic and me be asked to leave.

I personally would not push for that. Maybe your Christians friends will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jack of Spades]

What is the definition of religion?

I don't think there is an absolute, universally agreed definition for a religion, but if we talk about a definition that most academics would agree with, I would offer something along the lines of following:

A system of practices and belief that is built around the following things:

1) Dogmatic constructions about supernatural, based on a tradition
2) Moral code, or a behavioral code
3) Rituals, traditions, established forms of worship etc. practice
4) Mysticism, religious experience

Now of course, there is a lot of variety in emphasis of importance. Christianity is very heavily focused on 1, the dogma. On the other hand, some more modern religions like Neopaganism would be more focused on 3 and 4, rituals and experience.

If I engage in no rituals, is that considered religion still? I have not been baptized, nor have I taken communion in years. I have nothing against these rituals. As a matter of fact, I wish I were close enough to God to feel like I could take communion worthily. The thing is, I don't have to perform any rituals. I have faith, and it is enough.

You might not have to, but those things are still part of Christianity. As far as I know, Hindus don't absolutely have to wash themselves in Ganges either, but they still do.

By your definition, is anything that can not be demonstrated in the physical world and yet believed in, a religion? For example- would a belief in extra terrestrial life be a religion? It can not be physically demonstrated to be true.

That's a good point, I would say that mere belief doesn't yet equal dogma, as belief might change in light of new evidence or new theories. A dogma on the other hand, is very much set in stone. Dogma is something that is confessed to be true, it's not a guess or a theory. There are non-religious quasi-dogmas too, in any ideology.

This was btw the exact reason why I made this thread, to ask where goes the line when *something undefined* becomes a religion. I think some UFO cults would get pretty close to being religions, but it's a bit vague.

 

[Jack of Spades]

And with these posts, I will most likely be branded a heretic and me be asked to leave.

Oh'cmon, this is the internet, do you have any idea what kind of fringe theories there are out there I have ended up reading... Your beliefs are very much mainstream Christianity compared to the actual extremes.

 

[Galatea]

I don't think there is an absolute, universally agreed definition for a religion, but if we talk about a definition that most academics would agree with, I would offer something along the lines of following:

A system of practices and belief that is built around the following things:

1) Dogmatic constructions about supernatural, based on a tradition
2) Moral code, or a behavioral code
3) Rituals, traditions, established forms of worship etc. practice
4) Mysticism, religious experience

Now of course, there is a lot of variety in emphasis of importance. Christianity is very heavily focused on 1, the dogma. On the other hand, some more modern religions like Neopaganism would be more focused on 3 and 4, rituals and experience.



You might not have to, but those things are still part of Christianity. As far as I know, Hindus don't absolutely have to wash themselves in Ganges either, but they still do.



That's a good point, I would say that mere belief doesn't yet equal dogma, as belief might change in light of new evidence or new theories. A dogma on the other hand, is very much set in stone. Dogma is something that is confessed to be true, it's not a guess or a theory. There are non-religious quasi-dogmas too, in any ideology.

This was btw the exact reason why I made this thread, to ask where goes the line when *something undefined* becomes a religion. I think some UFO cults would get pretty close to being religions, but it's a bit vague.

Would you say then, that religion could be dogma only without 2 or 3? If I ascribe to 1 and 4 only- would that be religion? Although I would replace the word religious with the word spiritual- a spiritual experience.

 

[Galatea]

Yes.



Yes, it can be that.



That is a relationship of a certain sort.



That depends on just what the deity demands.



You may certainly think that. However, that does not exhaust what relationships are possible.



I personally would not push for that. Maybe your Christians friends will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I will concede that a quid pro quo can be a business relationship, or the placating of some higher power. A relationship based on one person doing something for another.

It is not an unconditional love relationship.

I should say then, that Christianity, to me, is a relationship unlike any other. A relationship wherein I bring nothing or do nothing and yet He is still faithful. The relationship is not dependent upon me at all. This is what I mean.
Totally 100% unconditional love. I could go kill some one today and still be loved and still be saved. He won't love me one jot less and I will be just as much saved as I ever was.

So, this is the relationship I mean. It is transcendent.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How is faith only still a religion?

Because "religion" is defined as follows:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Would you say then, that religion could be dogma only without 2 or 3? If I ascribe to 1 and 4 only- would that be religion? Although I would replace the word religious with the word spiritual- a spiritual experience.

Number one specifically mentions dogma, tradition, etc.

 

[Galatea]

Number one specifically mentions dogma, tradition, etc.

I would say then, that the type of Christianity I am talking about can only be called a religion ONLY if by going by definition number one and ONLY if the moral code, traditions, and rites are unnecessary.

I do not want to use the word religion when I describe my belief, because I want to divorce it from the idea of works being necessary.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Would you say then, that religion could be dogma only without 2 or 3? If I ascribe to 1 and 4 only- would that be religion?

I would most likely call it a religion or at least a belief system, but that's just my opinion. It would depend a lot on how complete and detailed the belief system is.

I don't know of a version of Christianity that wouldn't include 2 and 3 too, though. Usually sexual morals are a big deal for Christians. If something is believed to be God's will to do, or not to do, that qualifies as a 2 in my books, regardless of is it necessary for salvation or not.

Or for 3, I believe majority of Christians celebrate Christmas, making it a Christian tradition, but I have not yet heard of a Christian who would claim that this is necessary for salvation. Baptism seems to be the only ritual that could be given such importance.

I would say that my 'own religion' is currently based mostly on experience, and the least on rituals. So, if I had to give my religion a rating of importance, it would be 4,2,1,3. I am ready to alter my beliefs based on my experiences, so I guess that is what separates me from a dogmatist who would say that dogma should define what experiences are okay, and not the other way around.

Although I would replace the word religious with the word spiritual- a spiritual experience.

Fair enough, I would actually prefer that word myself. But the word 'spiritual' is sometimes used outside of religious context too, so 'religious experience' is more specific.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I should say then, that Christianity, to me, is a relationship unlike any other. A relationship wherein I bring nothing or do nothing and yet He is still faithful. The relationship is not dependent upon me at all. This is what I mean.

Okay, but to me that is not a relationship at all. That is mere peaceful co-existence. A relationship is a two-way street.

In any relationship, both partners contribute something to the relationship, even if there are genuine feelings of love or friendship for the sake of the other.

Totally 100% unconditional love. I could go kill some one today and still be loved and still be saved. He won't love me one jot less and I will be just as much saved as I ever was.

Wow. God has very low standards.

Imagine a wife staying with her husband after having discovered that he had been acting as a serial rapist. What would that say about her self-esteem?

So, this is the relationship I mean. It is transcendent.

It seems like a religious pitch designed to appeal to people on the basis of not needing to expend any effort. It's no wonder that it arose during the 60s.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I would say then, that the type of Christianity I am talking about can only be called a religion ONLY if by going by definition number one and ONLY if the moral code, traditions, and rites are unnecessary.

I do not want to use the word religion when I describe my belief, because I want to divorce it from the idea of works being necessary.

Without tradition, you would not have biblical scriptures (often based on oral traditions preceding cofidication), a biblical canon (the results of centuries of inter-factional conflicts), a concept of hell and fallen angels (absent in Judaism, but present in proto-Judaic sects that were influenced by Zoroastrian dualism), the idea that the messiah is God Incarnate and not just a perfectly mortal "Anointed One" like King David, the concept of the trinity (HUGE conflicts within Christianity, right down to genocidal acts), or - to come to the most vital point within your theology - the idea of faith vs works, and the specific focus on faith alone (which you owe to the Protestant tradition and a bunch of reformers who lived in the early 1500s).

And that's just mentioning a few highlights.

Without tradition, your world view would not be able to exist in the form that you embrace, because it relies utterly on the Bible and varous extraneous beliefs and interpretations that accumulated over the last two millennia.

(This observation may have contributed to my own deconversion, by the way. I do not believe that divinity could be so limited, so walled in by doctrine, dogma, and theological constructs. The closer I look at Christianity, the more it presents itself as a rickety scaffold created by generations of bickering old men arguing that what they want to be true ought to be true.)

 

[Jack of Spades]

(This observation may have contributed to my own deconversion, by the way. I do not believe that divinity could be so limited, so walled in by doctrine, dogma, and theological constructs. The closer I look at Christianity, the more it presents itself as a rickety scaffold created by generations of bickering old men arguing that what they want to be true ought to be true.)

The more I learn about the process and the church history, the more it looks to me like any dirty power struggle does. Everyone uses as low methods as possible, including lies, propaganda, violence and oppression, and in the end, the winners of that dirty game get to write the orthodox doctrine and then we have the future generations assume that it was written by saintly virtuous men devoted for the faith, praying in monasteries.

If Christianity had a chance to develop peacefully on it's own, without the Roman authorities putting their fingers in it and forcing everyone to confess a similar, standardized package of the faith that was approved by the state, it would have probably became at least three different religions somewhere around 300-500 AD, the Catholic church - version, the Judaism-version and the Gnostics etc. mystics.

If I recall right, Gnosticism was at some time in early centuries about as popular as the version of Christianity that was later on shoved down everyones throats as the orthodox version. It's difficult to imagine today half of Christians being Gnostics but that would be a realistic scenario historically, if Gnosticism hadn't been intentionally destroyed by the guys who won the early century power struggles and decided to get rid of the opposition.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Also, don't forget how the early Christian movement seems to have operated in egalitarian communes, shunning wealth, status and politics and treating men and women as equals. How little of that was left after a couple of centuries, and not just because the Roman government figured out how to turn Christianity into a useful socio-political tool!
Since equality of men and women was so closely associated with Gnosticism, it was antagonized by the progenitors of today's Christianity quite early: just look at how the pseudepigraphical pastoral epistles treat the subject matter.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Also, don't forget how the early Christian movement seems to have operated in egalitarian communes, shunning wealth, status and politics and treating men and women as equals. How little of that was left after a couple of centuries, and not just because the Roman government figured out how to turn Christianity into a useful socio-political tool!
Since equality of men and women was so closely associated with Gnosticism, it was antagonized by the progenitors of today's Christianity quite early: just look at how the pseudepigraphical pastoral epistles treat the subject matter.

I am under the impression that Gnostics were not that far off from modern Evangelicals or Charismatic Christians in their understanding of how Christian experience is supposed to function as a personal experiential spirituality as opposed to performing rituals and confessing doctrines etc. dictated by the church authority. Gnostics versus proto-orthodox hot issue was apparently more or less equivalent for the "Religion vs relationship" - today.

When it comes to Christian history of gender roles I find Cathars to be an interesting case. By Medieval Christian standards, they were very egalitarian. Maybe part of their appeal is that their movement 'died young' and thus remains somewhat legendary.

 

[Galatea]

Without tradition, you would not have biblical scriptures (often based on oral traditions preceding cofidication), a biblical canon (the results of centuries of inter-factional conflicts), a concept of hell and fallen angels (absent in Judaism, but present in proto-Judaic sects that were influenced by Zoroastrian dualism), the idea that the messiah is God Incarnate and not just a perfectly mortal "Anointed One" like King David, the concept of the trinity (HUGE conflicts within Christianity, right down to genocidal acts), or - to come to the most vital point within your theology - the idea of faith vs works, and the specific focus on faith alone (which you owe to the Protestant tradition and a bunch of reformers who lived in the early 1500s).

And that's just mentioning a few highlights.

Without tradition, your world view would not be able to exist in the form that you embrace, because it relies utterly on the Bible and varous extraneous beliefs and interpretations that accumulated over the last two millennia.

(This observation may have contributed to my own deconversion, by the way. I do not believe that divinity could be so limited, so walled in by doctrine, dogma, and theological constructs. The closer I look at Christianity, the more it presents itself as a rickety scaffold created by generations of bickering old men arguing that what they want to be true ought to be true.)

I am not nearly as educated as you are. So, much of what you are saying are concepts I am not familiar with at all. Such as the Zoroastrian influence upon Judaism.

I can only say that I believe the Bible is revealed truth and not tradition. While you believe it to be written by men, I believe it was written by God through men.

 

[Galatea]

Okay, but to me that is not a relationship at all. That is mere peaceful co-existence. A relationship is a two-way street.

In any relationship, both partners contribute something to the relationship, even if there are genuine feelings of love or friendship for the sake of the other.



Wow. God has very low standards.

Imagine a wife staying with her husband after having discovered that he had been acting as a serial rapist. What would that say about her self-esteem?



It seems like a religious pitch designed to appeal to people on the basis of not needing to expend any effort. It's no wonder that it arose during the 60s.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I did not know you were an atheist until today, I was using my phone to reply to messages, and the profile information does not show up on my phone. I hope my posts are not coming across as too rude and pushy. I know that Christians can come across as both.

I will try to explain what I mean by a relationship with God. You are right about relationships among humans- there is give and take. But with God, He loved me way before I ever loved Him. I can't bring anything to Him, not even my paltry faith or work or even my love. I come to Him completely empty. There is nothing I can offer. It is like the story C.S. Lewis wrote about being "sixpence none the richer". If a grandfather gives a grandson sixpence so the grandson can buy his grandfather a present, the grandfather is "sixpence none the richer". The present that the grandson bought was with the grandfather's money. This is how it is with God. So even the love we have for Him has to come from Him.

You are correct, between humans, in the highest relationships, the only things exchanged are genuine feelings of love and friendship. But, even the love I have for God has to be given to me by Him. I heard not too long ago this quote "I repent of my repentance". That resonated with me- there is nothing we offer, it's all tainted. That would be okay if we were talking about two imperfect humans loving each other imperfectly- but God loves perfectly, I can't take His perfect love and offer Him something tainted by me. That would be like taking a diamond and offering a rhinestone in return- this is no equable relationship.

Actually, God has VERY HIGH standards. His standard is perfection. I can't attain it. I'm unable. This is why I accepted Christ as my Savior, I realized that I was a sinner and could not help myself. I needed someone perfect to give me access to God. I am in Him, now. God loves me just as much as He loves Christ. I can't do anything to lose His love. It is 100% unconditional and 100% unchanging.

It's funny you should talk about God's love for us, no matter what, as an analogy for a woman staying with her rapist husband. There is actually a whole book in the Bible similar to this. It is Hosea, who marries a prostitute. She kept leaving him and God kept telling Hosea to go back and get her. Poor Hosea did not even know if two of her children were his. The reason why God told Hosea to keep going back to his wife was because it was a picture of God's relationship with Israel, Israel at the time kept prostituting itself with other gods- but they were still God's people. No matter what.

I don't think God has self-esteem issues. He doesn't keep us because He can't get more people. Sure He can, He keeps us because He loves us and we are identified with Christ.

My brand of Christianity has been around a lot longer than the 1960s. Martin Luther was pretty big on faith alone, and the Protestant reformers. I think it is scary to some people to hear that they can do nothing to help themselves. It means you have to give up control. It's a total abandonment of trying to "do" anything.

It would be disingenuous to pretend I am not trying to persuade you- of course I am. But it is not a pitch. It is what I believe.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

A religion MUST have a doctrine, and SHOULD have some scriptures. Otherwise, the belief or faith will drift through time.

A faith system for just one person is not a religion.

 

[Robban]

I did not know you were an atheist until today, I was using my phone to reply to messages, and the profile information does not show up on my phone. I hope my posts are not coming across as too rude and pushy. I know that Christians can come across as both.

I will try to explain what I mean by a relationship with God. You are right about relationships among humans- there is give and take. But with God, He loved me way before I ever loved Him. I can't bring anything to Him, not even my paltry faith or work or even my love. I come to Him completely empty. There is nothing I can offer. It is like the story C.S. Lewis wrote about being "sixpence none the richer". If a grandfather gives a grandson sixpence so the grandson can buy his grandfather a present, the grandfather is "sixpence none the richer". The present that the grandson bought was with the grandfather's money. This is how it is with God. So even the love we have for Him has to come from Him.

You are correct, between humans, in the highest relationships, the only things exchanged are genuine feelings of love and friendship. But, even the love I have for God has to be given to me by Him. I heard not too long ago this quote "I repent of my repentance". That resonated with me- there is nothing we offer, it's all tainted. That would be okay if we were talking about two imperfect humans loving each other imperfectly- but God loves perfectly, I can't take His perfect love and offer Him something tainted by me. That would be like taking a diamond and offering a rhinestone in return- this is no equable relationship.

Actually, God has VERY HIGH standards. His standard is perfection. I can't attain it. I'm unable. This is why I accepted Christ as my Savior, I realized that I was a sinner and could not help myself. I needed someone perfect to give me access to God. I am in Him, now. God loves me just as much as He loves Christ. I can't do anything to lose His love. It is 100% unconditional and 100% unchanging.

It's funny you should talk about God's love for us, no matter what, as an analogy for a woman staying with her rapist husband. There is actually a whole book in the Bible similar to this. It is Hosea, who marries a prostitute. She kept leaving him and God kept telling Hosea to go back and get her. Poor Hosea did not even know if two of her children were his. The reason why God told Hosea to keep going back to his wife was because it was a picture of God's relationship with Israel, Israel at the time kept prostituting itself with other gods- but they were still God's people. No matter what.

I don't think God has self-esteem issues. He doesn't keep us because He can't get more people. Sure He can, He keeps us because He loves us and we are identified with Christ.

My brand of Christianity has been around a lot longer than the 1960s. Martin Luther was pretty big on faith alone, and the Protestant reformers. I think it is scary to some people to hear that they can do nothing to help themselves. It means you have to give up control. It's a total abandonment of trying to "do" anything.

It would be disingenuous to pretend I am not trying to persuade you- of course I am. But it is not a pitch. It is what I believe.

If you had a family, husband, children
and a group of invaders came to where you lived and they broke your door down,
they set light to your children and shot your husband,
Would you be able to forgive them?
Even if one of them had been injured, was dying and asked for forgiveness.