*superfluous

which branch of Christianity do you indicate? for surely, the pastor's role will definitely be selective towards their audience. They choose a particular audience, they have particular teachings — they are a particular group.

I think possibly, the stereotypical religion is reflected by their believed distinction. The one that creates wars and disagreement, but hey, that's all religions right? I mean ironically, their self distinction conveys bigotry and superficial elitism, they are disagreeing with what people think; they are inadvertently showing they are a religion.

In my opinion, Christianity is a group of religions. To call Christianity a single religion is to assume that everyone who calls themselves a Christian follows the same doctrine, rituals and traditions, but this is not the case.

I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) - and yet I associate myself with no particular religion in membership, practice or belief system. Most Christians would disagree that I follow Christianity at all, and would reject most of what I currently believe about God, Jesus, heaven or the bible - I also fully expect these beliefs to continue to change and evolve throughout my life experiences and learning.

I am aware that some Christian pastors would prefer to distance themselves from the range of religious doctrines and traditions that claim the banner of Christianity, in order to promote a more personal, genuine or progressive interaction with the teachings and examples of Jesus.

It's like claiming that no one is a hipster, no one is an SJW, etc.

It seems to me that a religion is a very archaic belief in an outmoded view of the universe, centring on a Fifth-Century tyrant in the sky who is so utterly non-ok that He requires constant praise to build Him up, whereas what Jesus seems to be talking about is an early version of socialism, with a much more mature emotional back-up than is usual. Fair play, Jesus came from a society with a very powerful religious bias, so he talks in those terms, but, basically, I'd argue that we don't feel the need to get worked up about Socrates's daemon but do need to 'translate' what Jesus says into current terms.

I do not know what these pastors have in mind, but it might be something along the lines that a religion is a set of beliefs and practices. Christianity is not a set of beliefs and practices but an earth changing, soul changing event. Beliefs and practices are of human origin, the coming of the Messiah is of divine origin.

Why do christian pastors feel the need to say christianity is not a religion? — James Statter

There is no accounting for what some people will say, and it's a waste of time trying. Is there anything more to this other than 'some people say'?

i guess this a question directed at Christians. If you've heard alot of sermons you might know what i'm talking about. I believe religion is another word for a system of theological beliefs.

I've never heard a pastor say such a thing. Can you provide more context for this?

Christianity is a religion. Has "religion" become such a bad term that some pastors don't like it? Weird. What do they think they are doing?

Actually thats pretty much how i feel about it. I think many christian pastors in america and possibly elsewhere are so lazy to put actual relevant content in their message that they just call everything they don't like the term religion. i dont think it would hurt the christian church if more pastors got a second job. That may be unbibilical but i believe we live in desparate times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Actually thats pretty much how i feel about it. I think many christian pastors in america and possibly elsewhere are so lazy to put actual relevant content in their message that they just call everything they don't like the term religion. i dont think it would hurt the christian church if more pastors got a second job. That may be unbibilical but i believe we live in desparate times. — James Statter

If it is a totalizing way of living that is supposed to come from a deity or "His" representatives, then it is a religion. This particular religion mainly stems from the rhetorical gyrations of 1st century (snake oil) salesman named Paul, schooled in Greek rhetoric and somehow convincing to some Greco-Roman communities based around the Mediterranean. You talk to Jesus' brother James, you would simply get a sub-sect of messianic, Second Temple Judaism. Much different than the Pauline variety.

In order for you to prove that or for me to prove that i think you are wrong we would both have to read many books and do several years of study. In my opinion the writings of Paul very finely compliment what Jesus wrote. I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said.

I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said. — James Statter

Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law.

"Yeah, I was just trying to say a quick statement. But, I think it is pretty clear from reading Acts, Galatians, and noting what the Ebionites said of Paul to put him in a certain light that was sort of hidden or reworked to make him seem like part of the original "gang". James didn't seem to trust him and James was universally considered the head of the group based in Jerusalem. The Ebionites or "Jewish Christians" were said to have a tradition where Paul was considered a liar and subversive to original "Way". Acts seems to indicate that the Jamesian group didn't defend the Hellenizer faction too much, and certainly seemed to not respect Paul, making him perform a nazarite ritual to prove loyalty to the Law. "

This would be hard to prove on a forum like this. This is the job for a historian and i don't have the type of schedule to become an historian. Ofcourse following the logic i just said some one would have to ask why i'm a christian. When Paul says grace is by faith by argument is if you got saved today and Jesus thought you might lose your salvation in 10 years i believe Jesus would kill me, you or whoever today. I do not believe the book of James nor Paul's letters contradict each other.

That's ok, I don't necessarily want to delve into this, but I have read a lot on this subject and understand the major historiographies of this subject. Much of Biblical/New Testament and Jewish/Christian historical scholarship focuses very much on the influence of Paul and the original nature of the Jesus Movement versus what it evolved into over time.

The gist of it is that you have to understand the Gospels in context of Second Temple Judaism (Dead Sea Scroll sect, Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, definitions of messiah, Enochic Judaism, the Maccabean revolt/Hasmonean dynasty, Herod/Herod's sons, Roman indirect and direct rule, Zealots/Sicarii, the Temple and its importance, the politics of Rome in Judea, the Mediterranean world in general, etc. etc. To take the writings only at face value is to do bad history, but makes for good religion.

Almost nobody is saying that, especially pastors (tax purposes).

Why would anyone say it? Because they wan't to frame it as factual truth probably. It's a reactionary position brought on by science-envy.

Headline: Christianity Declared 'Not A Religion'; Thousands of Preachers Suddenly Open Churches In Panama!

they just call everything they don't like the term religion — James Statter

Why don't they just call it paganism, heathenism, satanism, or whatever the fuck they dislike?

I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going.

"religion" in its most elevated meaning includes pretty much everything the church does, EXCEPT building management, secular concert sponsorship, and the like. In my opinion a lot of churches come closer to being real estate operations than religions, because they are stuck with these old big bldgs. that take so much maintenance. I mean, on whom could we unload some of these barns?

I am a Lutheran church member by convenience and preference (this one is close and does nice liturgy), even though I have descended (or ascended, depending on how you look at it) to disbelief in the creedal aspects of the church. Virgin birth? Come now. Really!

The church does well when its members feed the hungry, care for the sick, bind up the wounds of the beaten, give water to the thirsty, and house the homeless, etc. But most churches are pretty unenthusiastic about that part. A local disreputable church sent visitors to the sex offender facility in outstate. That is the sort of thing reputable churches should notice and follow suite.

The church I attend thinks it is performing heroically by preparing a meal for a homeless shelter 6 times a year, but they'd be horrified if a bunch of these homeless riff raff showed up in church on Sunday! l'horreur! l'horreur!

"I still don't get what your thread is about. I like threads about religion, but I can't make out where this one is supposed to be going."

i don't know why its such a mystery so i'll put it more plainly and maybe you'll understand this time.
I dont like some churches.

"Why would anyone say it? Because they wan't to frame it as factual truth probably. It's a reactionary position brought on by science-envy. "

Without pulling up 100s of sermons there is no way for me to prove that. You are correct.

It is because the majority of religions is based on a list of rules.
In the wesleyan version of christianity. It is focused on a relationship with God. We realize it is technically a religion but they say it not one to get past the stereotype that comes with it.

Context always matters.

In order for you to prove that or for me to prove that i think you are wrong we would both have to read many books and do several years of study. In my opinion the writings of Paul very finely compliment what Jesus wrote. I believe Jesus came across as rational and i also believe Paul came across as rational. The old testament has things to say also that would both agree with what was said about Jesus in the new testament and as well what Paul said. — James Statter

Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.

We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.

One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon.

Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.

We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.

One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon. — Fooloso4

Okay...in the other thread I was not able to understand what you were saying or why you were saying it.

Here, I not only understand...I agree totally and emphatically.

I've done several papers on both Acts and Galatians that support your position here.

I dont like some churches. — James Statter

Well on that we can agree, as long as we don't have to agree on the list of unlikable churches. I never met a church that had nothing unlikeable about it.

Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon. — Fooloso4

The early church had a lot to do with creating its official canon. The official canon didn't exist first, followed by the church. The very earliest 'Christian' churches were involved in producing the texts that we fret over. Some of them were later ruled heretical, other canonical.

There is The Gap we have to mind: Jesus didn't have secretaries writing down what he said, or cameramen recording what he did. He appeared on the scene, was active for a few years; he accumulated some followers, and then he died. He appeared in a dynamic matrix of Jewish / Roman culture. The literate Paul came along and picked up the loose pieces and ran with it. Then he died. Then the generation that might have heard Jesus died. And the next generation too, and so on. Various people in various places formed an early religious practice that over the years developed into what we call The Church.

But there are critical gaps between Jesus, the twelve, Paul, and The Church which we can't track closely. We can only track it some. But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions.

So, we are always speculating. What we have is the religion that was created AFTER Jesus, the twelve, their friends, Paul, and so forth. And the church creating process continued on for a long time.

That was well said. I really wish i had a good argument against that.

Who is saying it is not a religion?
I don't get it.

I hear it on alot of sermons whether they are here in the area i live (Maryland) or online on youtube. Maybe i'm deluded. I guess you could google it if you are interested.

This is TOTALLY beside the point, but I just finished a pretty good book about the history of Baltimore: Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City by Antero Pietila.

It's one of several that I've been reading about Chicago, Detroit, the role of the FHA in segregation, and so on. Nothing unusual about Baltimore in race relations -- it's pretty much doing what most other American cities have done. I found it interesting partly because I knew nothing about its history.

Then of course there is H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore and John Waters, the scourge of Baltimore.

My next pay check i'll look it up on amazon