July 12, 2007
Posted at 2:33 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, christianity, church, definitions, evangelism, religion. Popularity: 14% [?]
Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:
“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.
For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.
I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)
Permalink
Share This
July 1, 2007
Posted at 12:00 am by Richard and tagged bible, books, catholosim, evangelism, marriage, morality, religion, sex, slavery, sociology. Popularity: 16% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. Last time, I outlined a somewhat extreme view of what some people think of morality without religion. In this post, I’d like to explain how I feel Christian morality (and religion-based morality in general) can be flawed and potentially abused. Next time, I’ll outline some of my ideas about morality.
Immoral Religion
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
As Steven Weinberg suggests, some people use religion to justify their immorality. I remember a joke I was told a few years ago (by a Lawyer, I think - who knew they had a sense of humour?), that talked about there being two types of Catholics - those who felt so restricted by their religion, that they had very dull lives, and those who live life to the full (”immorality” and all), and then simply ask forgiveness. Religion, I suppose, can be quite liberating for one’s morality if one can always rely on the forgiveness of sins.
According to one book (at least, the review of it that I read) evangelical Christian teenagers, although likely to think not having sex before marriage is the right thing to do, are actually more likely than many other Christians to commit this “sinful” act.
80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics.
Sure, maybe you could argue that these teenagers “aren’t true Christians”, otherwise they wouldn’t be having sex before marriage. But then, that wouldn’t stop people using the bible to justify slavery (as long as the slaves are from neighbouring nations), and killing people who work on the Sabbath. Not to mention all the historical atrocities committed in the name of religion.
I’m definitely not claiming that religious people are necessarily immoral, but I think I’ve shown that it’s certainly possible to “live by the rules” of religion, and act completely immorally (honestly, does anyone still think slavery is moral?). There’s people out there clearly saying that religion is not always a force for good, and they make some pretty good points!
Why, then, do people persist in claiming that religion is the only way to live a moral life?
Permalink
Share This
Posts
