Before Christ, God commanded of the Isrealites that they do everything in their power to follow Gods commandments. Failing that there would have to be sacrifice. As is so common with humans, we took that and turned it into religion! (The Pharisees!) Jesus comes, rebukes the Pharisees, tells them that they have peverted God’s message and made it into religion. He preaches Love, not Law, and that if we desire to please God, religion is not the answer.
2000 years later, everyone (including me) is upset with religion for all the bad things in the world. Crusades, wars, etc. Yet somehow, we place the blame for all of this on GOD!
Why is it that God hates religion? The same reason that I and most of you (gross assumption) hate religion.
Nothing good has ever come from religion.
Please note that I don’t wish this to be a debate on the existence of God or Jesus or the Historical relevance/accuracy of the Bible. There are plenty of other posts on that.
I would however like to dispell the notion that all the problems associated with religion are somehow Gods fault, and therefore reason to choose a life opposed to him.
1, he didn’t “found” a new religion, people founded one in his name! 2 he wasn’t a devout follower of a religion, he was a follower of God. There IS a difference!
So when he submitted to circumcision, made a journey to Jerusalem, read from the Torah on the Sabbath, and ate the Passover meal, (among other acts), he was not following the religion which included those specific practices?
Well, those medeval cathedrals are pretty nice, and so are those Greek religious statues. In fact, a lot of religious art is pretty nice. Then there’s the music. Some of that isn’t bad. And, well, the established moral and legal codes can come in handy for a society. And, I guess religion can set up communities that transcend national or tribal boundries, which can be handy. Religion can also inspire people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, and while that can be bad, like when they blow up buildings, it can also be good, like when they set up hospitals or religious orders to help the poor.
But, except for that, and the other good things I haven’t thought of yet, you’re right, nothing good has ever come from religion.
If you follow God, you are, by definition, a member of a religion.
Religion. n. 1 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe… 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
If the omnipotent creator of the universe hadn’t wanted Christianity to become a religion, it wouldn’t have. Of course, to not be a religion, you would have to strip everything about God out of the belief system, so that’s a self-defeating proposition.
Cyrin, I can understand your frustration and I often share your concerns. But can you give me a working definition of “religion”? It is hard for me to understand what you are saying without it.
Much good has come when religious devotion is the inspiration. How about Mother Teresa? How about the placebo efect that prayer can have on the human body? How about a good SD thread?
Hmmm, perhaps my statement was too general, but I would contend that the apparent good, is far outweighed by the bad.
When Christ did all of those things, in keeping with God’s law, he was doing just that, keeping God’s law.
Religion begins when MAN takes God’s message and adds to it to suit his own selfishness. The Pope comes to mind…
The pharisees did this, the catholics have done this (on an impressivly large scale I might add!) and they all stood to gain from these perversions of God’s message!
I find your post to be filled with so much specious reasoning I don’t know where to begin…
You gave us man’s definition of religion, great! How does that now become God’s definition of religion.
If the omnipotent creater of the universe gave us the free will to live life as we choose than yes, religion can and has happened. True Christ followers still exist, such that I would contend my existence is proof that Christianity has not completly fallen into religion and that there are those who seek to follow Christs teaching and example as opposed to the example of others claiming to be Christ followers.
Were I an Atheist, I would be very careful when speaking on self defeating principals…
Not even close. Religion has given us more philosophers, scientists, healers and leaders than one could count. Religion kept the spark of knowledge alive during the darkest eras of European history. Religion, while it can bring out the worst in people (especially those in a fundamentalist cult), also brings out the best in people, and people’s best is better than their worst is bad, on balance.
Which denotes that Jesus had a specific set of beliefs about God, which is the defition of a religion. Believing in God and doing certain things or believing certain things because you believe in God IS WHAT RELIGION IS.
Ah yes, the patented FundieMan non-definition of the word “religion.” I knew virulent anti-Catholicism was going to slime its way into his posts sooner or later. I suppose this is “sooner.” Always does with these “Christianity isn’t a religion” (yes it is! by any real definition of the term, it has to be!) types.
You want a perversion of God’s message, look to the fools who try to say that Christianity is a “relationship, not a religion” or other such new age hokum. The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and (to a different degree) Anglican Churches have done a remarkable job of maintaing the truth of historical Christianity throughout the centuries in the face of endless people spouting self-centered hoo ha like “Christianity ain’t a religion!”
Pray tell, show me the dictionary that gives God’s English. Hint: the Bible is not a dictionary. Words mean what they mean. There is only one set of meaning for the word “religion,” and by all of them Christianity applies.
And he is very please by it, because he is on record starting at LEAST two of them.
Yes. The vast majority of them are called Catholics.
I am in no way an atheist, so this is just a meaningless non-sequitor.
I would suppose that I am one of those fools then. Also In reading the Bible, I have found that Christ too was one of those fools.
Btw, I still fail to see how a human definition can be assumed as God’s definition of something.
Aslo, to note, I am not against Catholics, I am against Catholicism, and ANY other system whereby your actions determine your fate. Christ said that if our heart was in the right place, if we acted out of love. Then our actions would reflect that. He did not say “You had better do the following, or your heart is not in the right place, and you will be condemned!”
Do me a favour? I have considered many things I have read on these boards, concerning many things which I had no way of knowing. ie. Stuff about menstural cups and the like… perhaps in that case I didn’t even WANT to know, but having never been a woman, I am not able to offer my opinion on the subject.
If we could get this out of the way… if your not a Christ follower, that is an ir-religios Christian, or if you are not a religious Christian, I would suspect your views on this debate will be somewhat ignorant, and most likely not by any fault of your own. While I still welcome these opinions, if you have never experienced what you are speaking on, how then can you render on opinion on it. I have never been a woman, therefore I felt I had no ability to render an opinion on the menstural cup issue…
In reading the Bible, I’ve found Jesus to be a devoutly religious Jew who founded the Catholic Church. Clearly you’re reading it wrong.
Then show me the Divine Bible of All Wordliness that gives us the Official Definition of God of the word “religion.” And your personal suppositions from the Bible DO NOT COUNT.
Catholicism is not a works-salvation system, if that is what you are attempting to imply.
He also said on many occasions what sort of actions he wanted his followers to do. Baptism. Communion. Prayer. He carefully laid out all the necessary components for the religion he was founding.
Jesus said “Do This…” many, many times. At the Last Supper he said it repeatedly, issued commands for actions that his followers were to do. He also said that if you did not believe in him (and making a conscious choice to believe IS an active function, not passive), you would be condemned. He told his followers to give up all they had if they wanted to follow him. He told Peter to walk on water, to feed his sheep, to put away his sword. The religion Jesus preached was VERY ACTIVE – Not the patented Baptist Easy-Jesus ™, where all you have to do is believe.
And then there’s James, who spent an entire apostolic letter making sure that people understood that to be Christian was more than just to believe, it was to DO.
Very interesting. But a non-sequitor. I am imminently qualifed to discuss the topic of the Christian religion, especially this old anti-Catholic canard of “Christianity isn’t a religion… (followed soon after by swipes at the Pope and the Church).”
My current relationship with my Church is immaterial to this discussion. And I am anything but ignorant about this topic. Just on the subject of Catholicism, arguably the oldest and most complete form of the Christian religion/faith, I’ve forgotten more than you will ever know.
You continue to malign my character by implying that I’m somehow unworthy to discuss this topic. Why?
Whoopee. I’ve been a Christian for all my life, and a Catholic since I was able to convert.
Yes, Word. Logos, in the Greek, a term which cannot mean a written word, but instead was a Greek philosophical term for the true substance of a living entity, what we would today call a “person.” Person is actually a Christian theological construct forged to understand John 1:1 amonst other passages in the Bible.
The Pharisees were unloving and uncharitable. Jesus instructed his followers to obey them, but not to fail in their obligation to be loving, as the Pharisees had.
I have yet to see you provide a specific definition. And again, suppositions drawn from scattered Biblical verses do not a definition make.
First of all, you can’t separate “Catholics” and “christians.” Catholics are Christians. Muslims have nothing to do with this conversation, they are a totally different movement.
If you want to restore what the Christian religion was like immediately after the death of Jesus, join an Eastern Orthodox Church. Or the Catholic or Anglican Churches, which are the same, only with further refinements. The early Church was ecclesial in structure, had organized sacraments, including penance, baptism and communion, and was already well into the process of developing what we would today in the West call a thoroughly Catholic theological outlook.
MEBuckner the bible wasn’t written in english… what your quoting from is a translation and therefore a intrepretation.
Kirk I am not trying to mailgn YOUR character, but to perhaps avoid ignorant comments from those who are not in the “know” on the subject. However, in this case I may disagree with the merit of what you “know” I still respect your opnion. As such, I feel that my opinion of Christs teaching deserves equal respect while questioning it’s merit. This post was not aimed at catholics… however, Catholics are an example of a group of people whom I would consider religious. Therefore, held up to the issue I presented in the OP, part of a system not intended by God when he sent his son. Please feel free to take a contrary position.
Well, he hardly had a choice about the circumcision he was only a week old.
You’re right about the rest of it, but let me point out that Jesus also did and advocated several things which were in strict violation of Jewish law, especially as it pertained to ritual purity codes. It was against Jewish law, for instance, to have physical contact with lepers. It was also not kosher (so to speak) for Jesus to hang out eating and drinking with prostitutes, drunkards and tax collectors. (I love how the gospels lump tax collectors in with the scum of society). Many of Jesus’ healings were not in accord with the law, and don’t forget this passage from Mark 2:26,27:
And of course, there was the totally scandalous attack on the temple itself.
Jesus did not condemn religion as an institution, but whenever the rules of his religion conflicted with compassion, he always chose compassion. In fact, he held up compassion as the only truly meaningful aspect of religion.
