Is Christianity something other than a religion?

My former pastor (and please do not read anything into this; we are just attending a much closer church now) once said that he does not believe in any religion.

By this, I assume that he means that he does not consider Christianity to be a religion, but an objective truth.

On this, I am with him.

(My favorite apostle has always been Thomas--"Doubting" Thomas--as I will simply not take anything on blind faith. No exceptions.)

Comments?

 

Being untrue is not a necessary condition of a religion. Christianity is a religion regardless of whether it is true. Why would Christianity being an "objective truth" mean it isn't a religion?

Now, religions have got a bad rep recently, and certainly most religions are not true (although which ones is debated). However, dodging that bullet by distancing oneself from the word "religion" will amount to nothing.

The criticisms against Christianity are clear. Wiggling out of the formal definition of a religion will not change that.

 

I think it is. It's a power structure, just as governments and corporations are, benefitting the elites at the expense of the sheeple. Self-perpetuating, undemocratic, opaque and unaccountable, religions benefit the priest class and allow the kind of corruption we've seen, especially in the RCC, where large-scale child abuse has been covered up.

 

For current and former religious professionals without supernatural beliefs.

http://clergyproject.org/

 

Yeah, I saw that link on another forum, very interesting.

 

How can Christianity be an objective truth when it consists of so many conflicting sects with mutually-exclusive beliefs and practices?

Also, I find it a little odd that's you'd hear your pastor make such a potentially significant ideological statement but then just go away and assume what he meant . Conveniently, what you'd like him to mean, which you could even attribute to a little "blind faith".

 

By every applicable definition of the word "religion", Christianity is a religion. Period.

 

Do any religions believe that they aren't the truth? Any of them? That's kind of the point of believing in the first place. And Thomas was chastised for his skepticism. The Bible uses the story as an opportunity to give greater praise to people who believe without seeing proof.

 

Now I don't have to say anything because you just said it all. /thread

 

I do not see much objectivity in religion as religion is a matter of belief and faith, both of which have emotional ties which clouds objectivity in the field of theology. It is because of my objectivity that I am not a member of religion, because once removed from positive or negative feelings and upon a cold dispassionate analysis of miraculous claims, I do not find enough empirical evidence to back factual claims of fantastical events.

In a general sense I am neither an opponent nor proponent of religion. I think religion spurs some to be better versions of themselves while in others it brings out the worst in them.

 

I would consider a religion (in the true sense of the word) to be grounded in hocus-pocus, rather than objective reality; and judged by a different set o standards than other things are (which is extremely condescending, I believe).

 

You take Christian claims on blind faith. Sorry to break it to you.

 

Flat-Earthers (what few are left) surely believe that they possess the truth, just as the rest of us do.

That is exactly why there must be verification.

And I am aware of only two forms of this: the rational and the empirical.

Absent at least one of these, Christianity--which I do not regard as a mere religion--would surely fall, for lack of any support.

 

The second paragraph is unquestionably true.

As to the first paragraph, I do believe in "faith"--a.k.a. "belief"--but only if it is grounded in reality.

For instance, I have faith that my car will start tomorrow morning--it always has; and it is giving me no indication that it may soon stop doing so--but that is based upon reality.

Absent that, there would really be no serious reason to embrace any belief system.

 

To the contrary.

I regard no claims to be true if they are unverifiable.

No exceptions, please.

 

If the scripture can be believed, Thomas had proof of the Resurrection. Where's yours?

 

There is nothing verifiable about biblical claims. Are you saying, then, that you reject them?

 

Personally, I think the bible is all about having faith without evidence. A common idea is that human's are limited in understanding and can't rely on their own reason.

 

Why? That doesn't strike me at all as what a religion is. Words are used for communication with others, so it is important that everyone uses the words to mean the same things. It seems like you're using some other meaning.

The "true" sense of a word is one where people saying the word and hearing the word agree on what it means. People using the same language will have standardised meanings, definitions, and the definition of religion is not the one you gave (given the amount of people who would consider Christianity a religion).

 

Yeshua got ticked off and condemned whole towns to hell because the people wouldn't believe his magic tricks. He probably would have vaporized Thomas if Thomas had continued being a skeptic.

 

In which case where is the verification that Christianity is an "objective truth"?

What meaning are you applying to the terms in that allegation?

Are you using the term objective as an adjective meaning factual outside of any personal bias because if so then it fails verification.

Are you using the term truth in the binary sense meaning true or false in which case it fails because there is no verification that it is true.

Please clarify this apparent contradiction between what you stated above and what you posted in the OP.

TYIA

 

One thing that convinces me that Jesus was God, as well as man (and, I would think, would convince anyone else who seriously considers it), is this: How else was the stone removed from Jesus' tomb? (The only alternative to supernatural strength, that I can think of, would be multiple people removing it, together. This would require a conspiracy. And I am just not into conspiracy theories.)

 

Oh, I believe that scriptural claims are, indeed, verifiable.

Otherwise, I would reject them out of hand. (I lean very, very heavily toward the purely rational.)

 

I guess that depends upon whether one is a descriptionist (as you appear to be) or a prescriptionist.

For instance, a descriptionist will assert that "unique" may just mean very unusual, as that is the way that many people use it nowadays.

On the other hand, a prescriptionist will say that it means one of a kind--and nothing else (regardless of how many people use it in another sense).

Well, I would think that many people believe that Christianity (which you classify as a "religion") is subject to an entirely different set of standards than the proof required of other things. And that is highly patronizing, in my view. (I would simply not want my belief to based upon nothing more than blind faith--as regarding anything.)

 

Yes.

Precisely.