If Christianity truly isn't a religion...

[Xiam]

False Dichotomy

Xiam

False Dichotomy

Christianity exists outside of religion. Religion which centralizes itself in Christianity also exists.

Is that so hard a concept?

Yes. Yes it is. How exactly does Christianity exist outside of religion?

How many Christianities are there?

Let's see... there's the umbrella term of "Christianty," and then like many religions, it is separated into sects - Catholicism and Protestantism, mostly, but those themselves (well, Protestantism) can be further separated into other denominations, like Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. etc. etc.

But again, Christianity is not the only one. Buddhism has Hinayana, Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan Buddhism (itself an offshoot of Mahayana), Chan/Zen, and those are only the ones I actually recognize over the list of schools.

And perhaps due to recent events involving us and the Middle East, you might recall a few branches there, as well - the Sunni, Shia, and Sufi branches, themselves splitting off into various directions.

Just about every religion can be found with many denominations. Hey, check it out, a list of lists!

Even newer religions have branches - Scientology has Freezone, and even my religion is so scattered that each sect is basically a different church. We've got the Church of Jediism, the Temple of the Jedi Order, the Temple of the Jedi Force, the Order of Ashla Knights, the Force Academy... I'm sure I missed some... point is, that's just a part of religion. It's not any particular single group, but an umbrella term for many groups. And in spite of what you may think, yes, all of said group will (in spite of their best wishes) be held accountable for a few idiots.

For instance, the Church of Jediism has had a few run-ins with some embarrassing news in the past, and we all have to suffer because of it. Of course you're not supposed to wear a hood indoors! There can't possibly be a religious reason for wearing your hood! You're not going to catch the Dark Side just because you won't look at other people! Come the ******** on!

[Victoria of Gallifrey]

Well, if Christianity isn't a religion, I don't know what is.

[Verene]

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

..then it stands to order that it's practice is not protected under the US Constitution, nor should Christian claim any anti-religious persecution on that basis.

Christian institutions should no longer be afforded any tax breaks or benefits associated with religious charities, ect.

So which is it, Christianity?

Christianity exists outside of religion. Religion which centralizes itself in Christianity also exists.

Is that so hard a concept?

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases? Howabout the Catholic Church? At what point is it fine to draw connections and at what point not?

Christianity is a philosophy with an internal history interpreted differently by various religions. A shouldn't be held responsible for what B did if A disagrees with B to begin with.

One religion - several institutions and interpretations. Pretty sure all branches of Christianity agree on a a few (key) doctrinal points. Also most modern branches share a history - they splintered off a shared earlier institution. The fact they do not get along now, does not mean that they are not derived from the same source.

[Aporeia]

Verene

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

..then it stands to order that it's practice is not protected under the US Constitution, nor should Christian claim any anti-religious persecution on that basis.

Christian institutions should no longer be afforded any tax breaks or benefits associated with religious charities, ect.

So which is it, Christianity?

Christianity exists outside of religion. Religion which centralizes itself in Christianity also exists.

Is that so hard a concept?

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases? Howabout the Catholic Church? At what point is it fine to draw connections and at what point not?

Christianity is a philosophy with an internal history interpreted differently by various religions. A shouldn't be held responsible for what B did if A disagrees with B to begin with.

One religion - several institutions and interpretations. Pretty sure all branches of Christianity agree on a a few (key) doctrinal points. Also most modern branches share a history - they splintered off a shared earlier institution. The fact they do not get along now, does not mean that they are not derived from the same source.

That does nothing to dispute the claim that Christianity is not one single religion, it's many.

[Aporeia]

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases?

They all benefit from the legal perks, so it holds. And as for criticisms, I'm talking about criticisms of RELIGION as a whole, not the myriad of specific quirks which one can point to in Christianity.

But do they all benefit from being "christian" or a religion in general?

Also, pardon me if I'm wrong, but the only people I hear saying "Christianity is not a religion" are the people saying "stop being a conformist sheep and think for yourself for once." And they're saying that specifically TO other Christians. Believe it or not, some people respect the existence of an institution without selling themselves to it entirely. stare

Do care to elaborate on what abuse is being done with the statements that Christianity is not a religion, and why something should to be done about it.

It's basically a way to deflect the criticism of being overly dependant on religion by simply saying "But I is CHRISTIAN, so I'm not part of a religion, your argument is invalid."

It's also their means of criticizing religion as invalid and silly, but when you attribute similar behaviors to Christianity, they get to wag their finger and say "No no, I is Christian, and we're not a religion."

But you can be a Christian and not ascribe to any institutional dogma. A lot of people see a major problem with organized religious hierarchies telling others that if they don't ascribe to their specific interpretation of the texts, than they are going to hell.

There's a huge dilemma in the philosophical studies where people are very divided on at what point a philosophy/belief becomes a religion, and what a religion objectively is. This is a specific area where that distinction comes in to play. If you are against the higher order of an institution, are you still religious?

Is belief in santa claus a religion? Howabout Asceticism? Hedonism? At what point does something become a religion, and what point does it cease to be? The word Religion is not objectively defined.

When someone says "I'm not religious" they can mean something entirely different than what you think they mean. Maybe their concept of "religion" doesn't line up with yours. The fact the word is vague makes that very easy to happen.

[Verene]

False Dichotomy

Verene

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

..then it stands to order that it's practice is not protected under the US Constitution, nor should Christian claim any anti-religious persecution on that basis.

Christian institutions should no longer be afforded any tax breaks or benefits associated with religious charities, ect.

So which is it, Christianity?

Christianity exists outside of religion. Religion which centralizes itself in Christianity also exists.

Is that so hard a concept?

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases? Howabout the Catholic Church? At what point is it fine to draw connections and at what point not?

Christianity is a philosophy with an internal history interpreted differently by various religions. A shouldn't be held responsible for what B did if A disagrees with B to begin with.

One religion - several institutions and interpretations. Pretty sure all branches of Christianity agree on a a few (key) doctrinal points. Also most modern branches share a history - they splintered off a shared earlier institution. The fact they do not get along now, does not mean that they are not derived from the same source.

That does nothing to dispute the claim that Christianity is not one single religion, it's many.

The U.S. is one country made of many states with varying cultural norms, social and ethnic identities, languages spoken, and layers of institutional law and standards that do not always agree with each other, and even differing interpretations of what it means to be "American" or a "Citizen". This does not prevent it from being a singular country. I may not want to be judged or identified with the actions of some one in Montana or new Hampshire, and on an internal level - I as a Washingtonian am unlikely to be. On a grander scale though - I'm still going to be identified with these places and cultural ideals because we share the same overarching umbrella in the form of the U.S. and all fall under the umbrella Nationality of "American."

I see this as being at least somewhat analogous to Christianity; a Catholic may not wish to be identified with an Anglican or Copt for theological, legal, social, and cultural reasons. From the outside though, I'm still going to say all three believe in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and consider themselves followers of Christ. Can I not therefore lump them together under the umbrella religion of Christianity? Particularly as Christians DO recognize this shared umbrella - a Lutheran, or Episcopalian can walk into a Presbyterian church and call themselves Christian and not be challenged in that claim. There is an understanding that while a different form of Christianity is practiced by this person, they are still going to hold certain values and beliefs in common, that there is a shared identity in worship of Christ, that is going to be accepted by that congregation. If an Atheist, Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, or Jain were to walk into that same church and announce their identity as being such, the assumption is likely going to be that they do NOT share a common set of beliefs or cultural practices, or identity with the congregation.

[Aporeia]

Verene

False Dichotomy

Verene

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases? Howabout the Catholic Church? At what point is it fine to draw connections and at what point not?

Christianity is a philosophy with an internal history interpreted differently by various religions. A shouldn't be held responsible for what B did if A disagrees with B to begin with.

One religion - several institutions and interpretations. Pretty sure all branches of Christianity agree on a a few (key) doctrinal points. Also most modern branches share a history - they splintered off a shared earlier institution. The fact they do not get along now, does not mean that they are not derived from the same source.

That does nothing to dispute the claim that Christianity is not one single religion, it's many.

The U.S. is one country made of many states with varying cultural norms, social and ethnic identities, languages spoken, and layers of institutional law and standards that do not always agree with each other, and even differing interpretations of what it means to be "American" or a "Citizen". This does not prevent it from being a singular country. I may not want to be judged or identified with the actions of some one in Montana or new Hampshire, and on an internal level - I as a Washingtonian am unlikely to be. On a grander scale though - I'm still going to be identified with these places and cultural ideals because we share the same overarching umbrella in the form of the U.S. and all fall under the umbrella Nationality of "American."

I see this as being at least somewhat analogous to Christianity; a Catholic may not wish to be identified with an Anglican or Copt for theological, legal, social, and cultural reasons. From the outside though, I'm still going to say all three believe in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and consider themselves followers of Christ. Can I not therefore lump them together under the umbrella religion of Christianity? Particularly as Christians DO recognize this shared umbrella - a Lutheran, or Episcopalian can walk into a Presbyterian church and call themselves Christian and not be challenged in that claim. There is an understanding that while a different form of Christianity is practiced by this person, they are still going to hold certain values and beliefs in common, that there is a shared identity in worship of Christ, that is going to be accepted by that congregation. If an Atheist, Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, or Jain were to walk into that same church and announce their identity as being such, the assumption is likely going to be that they do NOT share a common set of beliefs or cultural practices, or identity with the congregation.

Please define religion objectively.

[Verene]

False Dichotomy

Please define religion objectively.

My understanding of religion is that it operates as a system of shared beliefs and cultural traditions, and way of aligning a world perspective with in a group for the purpose of defining humanity in relationship to itself and its place/purpose in this greater world for that group. Frequently involving some sort of unifying mythos or underlying story to provide a shared framework for a system of moral values, or to explain lifestyle norms of the group to those who believe in that shared system. I would also say that there is an internal (personal) aspect as well as a public (shared) aspect to that belief system.

Really though, it is a word which is going to be impossible to define objectively as it has a multitude of difference nuances of meaning and no one definition is going to cover both the widest extent and narrowest extent to which the word may be used in discourse.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your definition of religion? It is possible we are simply using the same world at differing points in the meaning spectrum.

[Aporeia]

Verene

False Dichotomy

Please define religion objectively.

My understanding of religion is that it operates as a system of shared beliefs and cultural traditions, and way of aligning a world perspective with in a group for the purpose of defining humanity in relationship to itself and its place/purpose in this greater world for that group. Frequently involving some sort of unifying mythos or underlying story to provide a shared framework for a system of moral values, or to explain lifestyle norms of the group to those who believe in that shared system. I would also say that there is an internal (personal) aspect as well as a public (shared) aspect to that belief system.

Really though, it is a word which is going to be impossible to define objectively as it has a multitude of difference nuances of meaning and no one definition is going to cover both the widest extent and narrowest extent to which the word may be used in discourse.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your definition of religion? It is possible we are simply using the same world at differing points in the meaning spectrum.

I don't have a definition of religion because the word is not all encompassing. Buddhism is not easily related with Christianity. What makes Christianity a religion is not necessarily what makes Buddhism a religion. If you draw lines between the two, and say what is similar about Christianity and Buddhism makes them religions, then you can place that against a philosophy, like, say, Hedonism, and instantly the concept falls apart because Hedonism is not a religion.

There is no certain point in which something goes from a philosophy to a religion. It's all perspective.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Xiam

Vety Nai

But Christianity is a religion for something like tax breaks.

It is only like not a religion when something likes separation of church and state is involved.

There's a saying that goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." I always thought that saying was stupid, but I like the meaning behind it, which runs contrary to the actual statement. If they want all the perks of religion, but not the restrictions on it, then somewhere along the lines they ******** up.

The only religions I can think of off the top of my head that could be said to be "religion but not religion" would be something like Taoism or Buddhism, which can often ignore the supernatural entirely (a major part of religion). There are those who argue they are philosophies rather than religions, due to the overall fuzziness involved. Christianity is not fuzzy, they have a specific stance on the supernatural - "There is a God, this is it, no questions asked, and here is what He wants you to do." It follows all the descriptive aspects of what qualifies for a religion.

As far as the United States government is concerned, if something claims "religion" for tax exempt status, then it's a religion. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s.

Well, they might be working off an ethical obligation to be treated as a religion when it is of benefit and not as a religion when it would be a hindrance.

[Loverling]

GunsmithKitten

..then it stands to order that it's practice is not protected under the US Constitution, nor should Christian claim any anti-religious persecution on that basis.

Christian institutions should no longer be afforded any tax breaks or benefits associated with religious charities, ect.

So which is it, Christianity?

Wether the church gets tax breaks or not does not matter to me. I'm not going to put a price on my ability to gather with other believers in a safe environment, which does not even require a building or whatever it is that would be taxed.

[Martha von Burgendorf]

Xiam

Let's see... there's the umbrella term of "Christianty," and then like many religions, it is separated into sects - Catholicism and Protestantism, mostly, but those themselves (well, Protestantism) can be further separated into other denominations, like Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. etc. etc.

To be precise, Eastern Orthodox isn't a part of Protestantism, but a Christian denomination on its own.

[Defenestrate Windows]

stealthmongoose

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

False Dichotomy

GunsmithKitten

No, but it is incredibly dishonest and self serving. You can benefit from all the legal perks of religion, but be immune to all the criticisms as a special snowflake? Doesn't jive.

But Christianity isn't ONE religion, it's several. You can't hold one organization responsible for what another does. I am not responsible for what other churches do, and I refuse to be held responsible for it. At the same time, why should my church be held responsible for what a neighbor church does?

Should the Southern Baptist Convention be held responsible for the Westboro nutcases?

They all benefit from the legal perks, so it holds. And as for criticisms, I'm talking about criticisms of RELIGION as a whole, not the myriad of specific quirks which one can point to in Christianity.

But do they all benefit from being "christian" or a religion in general?

Also, pardon me if I'm wrong, but the only people I hear saying "Christianity is not a religion" are the people saying "stop being a conformist sheep and think for yourself for once." And they're saying that specifically TO other Christians. Believe it or not, some people respect the existence of an institution without selling themselves to it entirely. stare

Do care to elaborate on what abuse is being done with the statements that Christianity is not a religion, and why something should to be done about it.

It's basically a way to deflect the criticism of being overly dependant on religion by simply saying "But I is CHRISTIAN, so I'm not part of a religion, your argument is invalid."

It's also their means of criticizing religion as invalid and silly, but when you attribute similar behaviors to Christianity, they get to wag their finger and say "No no, I is Christian, and we're not a religion."

Add to this abuse of power and special privileges granted as an ascension over the rest of their peers, and this is a disgusting insult to every single good thing the Christian doctrine does have to say about abuse of power and religious authority.

Christianity not a religion? Not a good idea. Unless we want to let comic book nerds and anyone else with some organized power and a fictional premise have the same privileges.

Please let this happen. I want the world to be more like Superman. Lets make laws and policy based on this! Since it isn't a religion it is ok.

[Xiam]

Anaria Kuruba-no-imoto

Xiam

Let's see... there's the umbrella term of "Christianty," and then like many religions, it is separated into sects - Catholicism and Protestantism, mostly, but those themselves (well, Protestantism) can be further separated into other denominations, like Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. etc. etc.

To be precise, Eastern Orthodox isn't a part of Protestantism, but a Christian denomination on its own.

Yeah, I know, I wanted to separate that... I also almost added Greek Orthodox... xd

[Lukyo]

GunsmithKitten

..then it stands to order that it's practice is not protected under the US Constitution, nor should Christian claim any anti-religious persecution on that basis.

Christian institutions should no longer be afforded any tax breaks or benefits associated with religious charities, ect.

So which is it, Christianity?

This is a joke right?