"Christianity is not a religion"

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
The poster who bandies the "Christianity is not a religion" catchphrase about the most here - Grampy Bobby - is evidently refusing to embark on a discussion on how the word might or might not have taken on a legitimate new connotation, and I presume that this is because his distortion of the vocabulary is most certainly being attempted for partisan re ...[text shortened]... word "religion" being available as a tool for Christians engaged in holier-than-thou bickering.

Wow. Who would ever dare to argue with someone who uses a phrase like "holier-than-thou-bickering" ?

That's pretty good Nick. I just feel like a novice under such teaching as this.

Originally posted by sonship
Wow. Who would ever dare to argue with someone who uses a phrase like "holier-than-thou-bickering" ?

That's pretty good Nick. I just feel like a novice under such teaching as this.

Here would be an example of "holier-than-thou" bickering:

"My belief in Christ and personal relationship with God the Father have never been based on "sincere" emotions or mystical activities or feeling good from doing good deeds or the approbation of a pat on the back from some pastor whose sermons are devoid of doctrinal content. This notion of Christianity is divorced from the truth." It was written by a Christian on the "Relationship with God" thread.

I'd describe it as a bit of beat-your-hairy-holy-chest bickering too. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
Wow. Who would ever dare to argue with someone who uses a phrase like "holier-than-thou-bickering" ?

Besides atheists and theists twerking each other, 80% of what goes on in this forum appears to be internecine Christian bickering of the essentially holier-than-thou kind. On this thread you have made me realize more clearly that efforts to commandeer the word "religion" play a part in this.

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki

Christianity advocates a belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny.

Christianity has members by virtue of their common subscription to a historical narrative with various human figures and episodes in it.

Christianity has specific beliefs and doctrines that are proclaimed as real and true without the necessity of proof that would satisfy non-members.

Christianity has its own, exclusive, designated 'holy' literature along with ceremonies and incantations etc., and the theology offers something in return for adherence.

Christianity is an organized and well documented effort on the part of groups of humans, and their constituent individuals, to try to gain the approbation of some perceived divine authority.

Christianity is most certainly a religion.

Nick that's a nicely thought out and organized doctrinal statement there.
You might think of organizing it in a Question and Answer style like the Westminister Catechism:

The format calls upon two parties to participate, a master and a student (traditionally termed a "scholar" ), or a parent and a child. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) is an example:

Q. What is the chief end of man?

A. To glorify God and enjoy Him forever!

Q. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?
A. The word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him [7]

We'll be looking to see what success you have in proselytizing some initiates into your system.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Christianity advocates a belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny.

Christianity has members by virtue of their common subscription to a historical narrative with various human figures and episodes in it.

Christianity has specific beliefs and doctrines that are proclaimed as real and true without the necessity of proof that wo ...[text shortened]... We'll be looking to see what success you have in proselytizing some initiates into your system.

I am not proselytizing.

Offering a definition of something and then asking posters to comment on it is not proselytizing.

What do you make of the definition of religion implicitly/explicitly laid out in the OP?

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Here would be an example of "holier-than-thou" bickering:

"My belief in Christ and personal relationship with God the Father have never been based on "sincere" emotions or mystical activities or feeling good from doing good deeds or the approbation of a pat on the back from some pastor whose sermons are devoid of doctrinal content. This notion of Ch ...[text shortened]... ip with God" thread.

I'd describe it as a bit of beat-your-hairy-holy-chest bickering too. 🙂

Ah yes. And we saw your "More-Rational-Then-Thou" response.

Originally posted by sonship
Ah yes. And we saw your "More-Rational-Then-Thou" response.

I don't object to being 'accused' of being rational. 😀

Originally posted by sonship
Nick that's a nicely thought out and organized doctrinal statement there.

I think you are distorting the meaning of "doctrinal".

These four things are an attempt to define "religion" and to be reasonably objective about it.

1. it advocates a belief in a supernatural and divine authority
2. it has a membership defined by a common narrative and efforts
3. it has specific beliefs and doctrines not accepted by non-members.
4. it has designated literature and a theology creating a moral code

Do you disagree with them?

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
I am not proselytizing.

Offering a definition of something and then asking posters to comment on it is not proselytizing.

What do you make of the definition of religion implicitly/explicitly laid out in the OP?

I am not proselytizing.

Offering a definition of something and then asking posters to comment on it is not proselytizing.

Oh no, no.
That's what they all say.

What do you make of the definition of religion implicitly/explicitly laid out in the OP?

I don't know. I am not sure with reference to "supernatural" it would cover the religion practiced by Briton's First Atheist Church

Britain's first atheist church held its inaugural meeting on Sunday, gathering at a former church in North London to sing songs and celebrate life - just with no mention of the man upstairs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/the-sunday-assembly_n_2423590.html

Originally posted by sonship

I am not proselytizing.

Offering a definition of something and then asking posters to comment on it is not proselytizing.

Oh no, no.
That's what they all say.

What do you make of the definition of religion implicitly/explicitly laid out in the OP?

I don't know. I am not sure with reference to "supernatur ...[text shortened]... . [/quote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/the-sunday-assembly_n_2423590.html[/b]

There doesn't seem to be anything serious for me to respond to in this post although it was addressed to me.

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki

I don't object to being 'accused' of being rational. 😀

Nor do you object to displaying a same kind of hubris and arrogance as best religious recruitors.

Originally posted by sonship
[ Nor do you object to displaying a same kind of hubris and arrogance as best religious recruitors.

I'm not sure what your point is with this kind of post.

What about the four things in my attempt to define "religion" [whilst trying to be reasonably objective about it]? Do you have any specific disagreements with any of them?

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
These four things are an attempt to define "religion" and to be reasonably objective about it.

1. it advocates a belief in a supernatural and divine authority
2. it has a membership defined by a common narrative and efforts
3. it has specific beliefs and doctrines not accepted by non-members.
4. it has designated literature and a theology creating a moral code

Do you disagree with them?

Interesting definition.

My definition is only your #1, but with a slight change:
(def) Religion is when you believe in supernatural phenomena. (No more is needed.

Authority is not necessary
You don't have to have a common narrative, because a religion can be very small, perhaps only one person.
You don't have to be a member, and therefore it doesn't have to be not-accepted by non-members.
It doesn't have to have a designated literature if the religion is small enough.
remember that every religion is started by only one 'member'.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Interesting definition.

My definition is only your #1, but with a slight change:
(def) Religion is when you believe in supernatural phenomena. (No more is needed.

Authority is not necessary
You don't have to have a common narrative, because a religion can be very small, perhaps only one person.
You don't have to be a member, and therefore it does ...[text shortened]... if the religion is small enough.
remember that every religion is started by only one 'member'.

That's an interestingly 'loose' and catch all definition! Not sure I really agree but I certainly understand your line of thinking.

Wouldn't "when you believe in supernatural phenomena" be a definition of "superstitious", though, rather than "religion"?

If my mum believes in ghosts, is that an example of "religion"?

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
That's an interestingly 'loose' and catch all definition! Not sure I really agree but I certainly understand your line of thinking.

Wouldn't "when you believe in supernatural phenomena" be a definition of "superstitious", though, rather than "religion"?

If my mum believes in ghosts, is that an example of "religion"?

In my definition, there are beliefs that falls outside the common one. Lucky numbers is one. Becuase if you really believe that you will win on lottery if you chose a number with a lot of seven in it, then you believe in supernatural things.

In my definition, there are also things that isn't supernatural, and yet one think it is supernatural. The Turin shroud has nothing to do with supernatural things. It's just a face on a linen. Even if it is the face of Jesus himself it is nothing supernatural about it.

And, yes, to be superstitious is to be religious. Believing in ghosts is to be religious. According to my definition.

Astrology is another one religion. Has nothing to do with science, even if you can apply scientific methods to describe astrology. but the very essence is religion.

Science deals with natural phenomena, not supernatural. Religion doesn't deal with scientific matters, only supernatural ones. This means that there is a barrier between religion and science. And you can never mix them.