It comes down to the definition of religion (which, perhaps, the Christian in question was using incorrectly) – try substituting “church” in the place of religion (which, I’ve tried to argue is a reasonable definition, and probably similar to the one used by the “irreligious Christian”), and I think you’ll see it’s possible to talk about Christianity outside of the church’s influences. And yes, I think this is much closer to “spirituality” than “religion” – and that’s exactly why I feel that (according to the definitions above) an “irreligious” Christian” is better than a “religious” one.

A metaphor that might help – “if basketball is the sport played by the NBA, how meaningful is it to talk about non-NBA basketball?”. Using the definition above, religious is “an institution to express belief in a divine power” – you can certainly express belief in this power without the institution! You might dislike the policies of the NBA (whatever they might be), but this doesn’t mean you can’t love/play/etc. basketball.

As for religious beliefs being harmful, they certainly can be. I know Dawkins (and others – perhaps yourself) suggest that religious beliefs are bad in ANY circumstances, because they can lead to violence, hatred, etc. I, however, believe that such beliefs (however deluded) can be benign (or close to it). In these cases, I don’t think a radical opposition to these views is necessary (and, in fact, might be harmful to “our cause”). I’m actually thinking about writing a post on this in the next couple of weeks, because I think this is one area in which a lot of Atheists disagree strongly. I’ll try and let you know when the post is up, but otherwise, keep an eye out for it.

If Christianity is a religion, how is it meaningful to talk about a non-religious Christian? If Christianity is not a religion, then what exactly is it?

I question your stance that religious beliefs are not harmful. Besides being false, they are a powerful motivational factor, driving all sorts of terrible behaviors. I suppose we could try to draw a clear line between belief and behavior, but I’m not sure this is justified when we know that the beliefs motivate certain behaviors.

I wonder if the construct of spirituality might be useful here. Spirituality is clearly not the same thing as religion, and it seems to describe what you are talking about when you describe your first step in moving away from religion.

And yes, I agree that the WordNet definition is not perfect either. I suppose my point was more that, while the commenter may not have been using the word “religion” in a technically correct sense, it’s possible for a commonly understood definition (i.e. the WordNet one) to be used which would allow the title “irreligious Christian” to make sense.

Oh, and – I hadn’t quite thought about the alternative meaning of institution. Either way, could it be possible that this Christian was also distancing themselves from the “established practices and traditions” of Christianity, while still “having a relationship with Jesus” (whatever that means)? Just a thought…

I think the majority of the issue is that people aren’t really as obsessed with semantics and linguistics in general as I am. When someone says “religion” or “religious” I think 1) Christianity and 2) 6 credits worth of courses that dealt solely with the definition of religion. I am in the camp of the “family model” of religious definition (i.e. there is no real definition of religion, but we use it as a classifier in which we drop “religions” into). You can probably see my problem then when a Christian says they are irreligious. Its like the term “religion” is a filing cabinet. Religions are the folders. Some religions may have nothing to do with each other, but they get placed into the cabinet because they share some crucial characteristics. After studying many religions you quickly realize that there are very very few of these shared characteristics.

You pointed out religion as an “institution” (Princeton Wordnet). Like many definitions, this has problems, but probably not as many as one might think. It appears you are understanding the term “institution” as some sort of organization or society (i.e. “church”). If this is what the Princeton definition meant, this would be very problematic for A LOT of religions – you could actually probably discount the majority of past and present religions with this. However, I don’t think this is what the definition means. While “institution” may mean a type of organization (like the church, or the government), it may also simply be an “established law, practice, or custom” (Oxford American), as in “the institution of marriage”. I believe that this is a little more inclusive of the term “religion”, and especially makes more sense once compared to some of the definitions I gave in my original post.

This is certainly not to discredit more “spiritual” or “mystical” Christians, but this makes them actually MORE religious rather than less so, since there is less of the “churchiness” to distract them from their connection to the supernatural. Dishonesty is not always intended – sometimes it just flows from a lack of pretentious scholarship.

You seem to define “religion” as some sort of belief system with an organizational structure. Religion, at its core, has nothing to do with this. From what I can tell, all religions seem to focus on the suffering and ignorance of humanity through transcendent, and sometimes Divine means. Of course, that is just my lousy definition, but it seems to fit the bill.