I love Jesus, I hate religion

[Bloody Rose]

I do hate religion, for quite a long time I been telling people that to only have them tell me that I am a sinner. However they did not see my point. A couple of weeks ago I came up with this video on facebook which tells you exactly what I think of religion in general. I hope you watch it and tell me what you think and what you think of Religion in general, is he right? wrong? and why?

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

[Shjade]

I find it a little difficult to take someone seriously who is essentially describing the concepts of his own religion while simultaneously tearing down the concept of religion. It's one thing to believe in god/God/whatever apart from specific religions' interpretations of what that means; it's another to say you follow the creation of one of those religions but not the religion that created it. That seems...odd to me.

Aside from that apparent contradiction, I'd say the content sounds fair enough but the delivery needs work.

[Iniquitous]

Actually - what he is saying is the dogma that is religion is what is wrong. He is not contradicting himself, he is actually speaking very clearly about the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the dogma that is the church.

It is completely possible to believe and follow Jesus and yet hate the rules and laws of religion. It’s called being spiritual instead of religious.

[Sure]

Reminds me of this (from a comedy show):
bad vicar

[Serephino]

He makes a good point.  I wish I'd saved it, but I remember this article that was 13 reasons why if Jesus were on earth today he'd be Pagan.  He encouraged people to turn against organized religion and follow another path.  He taught that it wasn't as simple as following a set of rules.

Take the whole walking on water thing.  Throughout the whole journey Peter is kissing Jesus' ass.  In the eyes of the modern church that would make him a good Christian.  He was even the first to step out of the boat to prove he was a loyal follower, but he started sinking.  He wanted to look good, but he didn't have enough faith.  The moral of that story is faith is what matters, not how you appear to others.

Church people drive me nuts.  They put on nice clothes and go to church every Sunday, and they think this makes them a good Christian.  They will be the first to criticize others who are 'sinners', but you know what they say, when you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you.  None of us are perfect.

[Shjade]

Oh, I'm aware it's possible to hate rules and regs and still love the spirit of the thing, but he's painting with a pretty broad brush there. I've seen religion accomplish both good and bad; I think whether Jesus would hate religion, as he claims, would depend a lot on which specific church he happened to walk into that day.

[Iniquitous]

Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. *


Ok, with that said - the next thing to say here is: Jesus was not a christian. Nor were his disciples.

Wha…?

They were Jewish. And Jesus DID speak out against the established church (tabernacle/temple) on numerous occasions.

What Jesus was preaching was a philosophy. A way of life, a way of thinking, a way of being. He was not preaching a religion. The term ‘christian’ came about after Jesus died - and with the Council of Nicaea came the canon laws (aka dogma) that would form Christianity.

In order to understand what is being said in that video you have to be able to differentiate between the philosophy that Jesus taught and the religion that has become Christianity. Don’t get me wrong - I am not saying that the entire christian religion is bad - it’s not. Just like any set religion, it does have it’s wrong doings and it’s nut jobs that cast bad light on the fundamental teachings it was based off of.

I am a big fan of (and firm believer in) getting rid of religion in favor of learning the true philosophy that was taught. If we learned to live by the philosophy instead of the dogma, if we stopped believing that our (individual) religion was the one true way, then this planet would be a lot better off. Get rid of the labels, get rid of the classification system, stop judging and condemning.

In either words - get back to the basics.

* the Buddhist religion. This makes me twitch because I have been taught that Buddha is not a god. Buddha is, quite literally, a teacher - and according to those I have studied with, anyone can become a Buddha. Thus, the teachings of Buddha are a philosophy. Not a religion.

[Will]

Jesus also taught some pretty radical things, like the fact that he was the son of god, and that no one could be saved from death except through him.  There was plenty of philosophy in there as well, talking about loving your neighbor, not judging others, and so on, but it wasn't all just "be a nice guy and you're fine."  The bit about him being the way, the truth, and the life is pretty intrinsically tied into everything he said and taught.  I'm not sure how easily one can set aside half of what he said while claiming the rest to be solid spiritual guidance.

I'm not a Christian, for the record, though I have read the sourcebooks a few times. :)  I just see this spiritual v. religious question now and then, and it really baffles me.  Some of the dogma of Christian sects could be seen as unnecessary or extraneous, definitely.  But throwing out all of it, and still claiming to believe in Jesus for who he said he was?  I'm not sure how that works.

[Garou]

Will, Jesus never introduced himself as "son of God", people gave him that name later.    Personally I have not a good word for organised faith.  They are just a tool to control the mass.  An example: after Jesus dead there was no such thing as a single church.  A few factions "fought" amongst themselves to proof they were the real messengers of god.  In the end our church won this competition.  One of the other factions was a group that even has more feministic views.  I think they also had something to do with Maria Magdalena (sorry don't know how you american's call her) , but I can't remember the details anymore

[Shjade]

* the Buddhist religion. This makes me twitch because I have been taught that Buddha is not a god. Buddha is, quite literally, a teacher - and according to those I have studied with, anyone can become a Buddha. Thus, the teachings of Buddha are a philosophy. Not a religion.

Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

You don't need a god involved to have a religion. Many do, but not all. Buddhism is a philosophy, yes. So is Christianity. Any religion is a philosophy in some part. Not all philosophies are religious, but when one revolves around a widely-spread belief system about the universe and souls and rebirth and so on, you're probably talking about a religion. I mean, what is dharma if not a religious moral code to which one must adhere if one ever wishes to transcend the current plane of existence?

Of course Jesus wasn't Christian; Christianity didn't exist yet and it was built up around him. Assuming he existed in some way resembling how he's portrayed, he basically laid the groundwork for Christianity, but that didn't make him a member of it any more than the Buddha would have been called Buddhist in his day. That doesn't mean they were anti-religion. He wasn't tearing down the established church because it was a church, he was tearing them down for missing the point of the church existing. He was preaching a religion. Whether people lived up to his preaching is another story.

All conjecture, of course.

[Will]

Will, Jesus never introduced himself as "son of God", people gave him that name later.

He actually does.  I'm not interested in picking out specific verses, since a quick google search could do that for you, but I assure you it's there.

My point is that Jesus' whole deal was salvation, not just clean living.  Being a nice guy was secondary to that, or maybe a result of it.  Any interpretation of Jesus as some kind of nomadic hippie philosopher and nothing more is totally out of touch with his depiction in the bible.  He made some claims that there is really no backing away from.  Either he was a lunatic, or he was god in the flesh.

[Iniquitous]

@Shjade - I do see your what your saying and at this point I think it is all in how one interprets/believes. I am willing to admit that how I perceive things can be wrong.

@Garou - Will is correct, Jesus does state in the bible that he is the son of god.

@Will - Or the third option - that things were attributed to him that he never said/did by those who wrote the bible. Of course, that all depends on whether you believe the bible is the infallible word of god given to man to write. Which is a whole other can of worms that is best left closed.

[Shjade]

He actually does.  I'm not interested in picking out specific verses, since a quick google search could do that for you, but I assure you it's there.

In case anyone is interested but doesn't feel like exerting themselves with a Google search.

The trouble with the "fraudulent portrayal in the Bible" angle is, well, the Bible is one of few sources that claims Jesus even existed. If you set that aside by saying the things in it referring to Jesus' teachings were misattributed, you pretty much set aside the majority of Jesus' character, at which point, well, why is he relevant in any context? It's sort of a chicken-vs-egg thing, trying to separate Jesus from Christianity and its related materials.

[Lilias]

In case anyone is interested but doesn't feel like exerting themselves with a Google search.

Funny that Matthew 3:17 isn't on the list...

[Oniya]

It's interesting to note that the earliest canonical Gospel (Mark) was written somewhere between 50 and 70 CE, according to most Biblical scholars.

[Will]

The trouble with the "fraudulent portrayal in the Bible" angle is, well, the Bible is one of few sources that claims Jesus even existed. If you set that aside by saying the things in it referring to Jesus' teachings were misattributed, you pretty much set aside the majority of Jesus' character, at which point, well, why is he relevant in any context? It's sort of a chicken-vs-egg thing, trying to separate Jesus from Christianity and its related materials.

Right.  If you say "Jesus was really X and Y" because of things he purportedly did and said in the bible (I'm assuming that's where one would get that idea, because there aren't any other accounts of his actions), it doesn't make sense to ignore other things he did and said in the bible due to it being a questionable source.  It is pretty well acknowledged that the gospels were written a fair while after Jesus was supposed to have died, but if anything, that just throws the whole lot into question.

[Shjade]

Funny that Matthew 3:17 isn't on the list...

God claiming Jesus as his son != Jesus claiming God as his father.

[Trieste]

I realize he is relying somewhat on rhetoric to make for rhymes and to drive his point home, but preaching about how he's tight with J.C. and then talking about how he hates, resents, and despises religion smacks of hypocrisy. It's essentially the same hate the sin love the sinner stuff that fundies preach to gays.

Glass houses... stones... judge not... etc...

[Serephino]

Okay, so Jesus said he was God's son, and God said Jesus was his son.  The Bible also says we are all his children, and he is our father.  Also, believing he was who he said he was and tossing out the dogma is easy.  He said salvation was through him.  Ergo, believe in him; that's it.  All he ever said we had to do was believe in him and accept his sacrifice.  That's why all the rules baffle me. 

[Will]

Okay, so Jesus said he was God's son, and God said Jesus was his son.  The Bible also says we are all his children, and he is our father. 

It's made pretty clear that he didn't mean son of god in the general sense, when they threaten him with execution if he doesn't take it back.

Also, believing he was who he said he was and tossing out the dogma is easy.  He said salvation was through him.  Ergo, believe in him; that's it.  All he ever said we had to do was believe in him and accept his sacrifice.  That's why all the rules baffle me. 

Now that, I can totally agree with.  It's just the claim of Jesus being a "hippy prophet" or just a "cool dude with good ideas" that makes me go cockeyed. 

For what it's worth, the guy in the video doesn't make that claim.  I actually agree with most of the things he said about religion, too. :P

[PeacethatPowerbrings]

Okay, so Jesus said he was God's son, and God said Jesus was his son.  The Bible also says we are all his children, and he is our father.  Also, believing he was who he said he was and tossing out the dogma is easy.  He said salvation was through him.  Ergo, believe in him; that's it.  All he ever said we had to do was believe in him and accept his sacrifice.  That's why all the rules baffle me. 

Tossing out Christian Dogma, certainly, but you're still stuck with the issue that Jesus was a religious figure, a religious figure from the Jewish tradition. Jesus doesn't say that the only requirement is to believe in him, that actually is a relatively recent development of some theologies. He does add that you must believe in him, that the "only way to the father is through me," but that isn't all.

Matthew 5:18, for example, when Jesus explicitly says that the Law is not changed. He was referring to the Jewish law of course, which is explicitly religious.

[blueyaoi]

I did not like that opening video. I don't like people separating Jesus from religion either. It's been a while since I've read the bible, but I'm going to stretch out my atheist muscles and give this debate a shot. I agree with what Will says, Jesus was not a hippie prophet with good ideas that the church just twisted. Although the modern church does add or emphasize some things, the bible truly does say some unaccepting stuff. Jesus was not a loving, accept everybody guy. It frustrates me when people the bible explicitly does not approve of are Christian and just say that they don't agree with that part. If you're Christian, I don't respect you picking and choosing pieces of the bible and saying that the things you like are what Jesus really meant. In the new testament it says that people who have gay sex will go to hell. It says that women should obey their husbands like their husbands obey God. For these reasons, I don't think that any self respecting gay person or woman should be a Christian. I actually agree with the vicar in that TV show clip (I love that show, by the way). If you're going to be a Christian, be a Christian. Read the bible and accept it. People's modern ideas about love and acceptance being part of Christianity are new and unfounded. I read the bible Genesis to Revelation and as soon as I finished I gave up Christianity, because I finally understood what it was based on.

[Lilias]

That's pretty much like saying 'Give up democracy, because there will always be something that 49% of the population will not agree with.'

In any spiritual practice there will be elements with which someone will struggle, and that does not invalidate a person's identification with said practice. Spirituality of all flavours, after all, is all about personal development and rising to a higher standard. If we all fit the ideal from the beginning, where would the challenge be?

[blueyaoi]

Just to elaborate a little, if my memory of the New Testament is clear, Jesus says that you need to accept him and follow certain rules to get into heaven. Being a good person but also an atheist won't get you there. Believing in Jesus but also having sex with someone of the same gender(and I think lying is one too. I remember there being a little list, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.) won't get you to heaven either. People tend to want to throw out one or the other. They either want to say "Accept Jesus, and he'll save you no matter what." or "God would never send a good(in the Christian sense) person to Hell." But, the Bible doesn't agree. If the Bible is true, good people and people who accept Jesus but also same-sex love will have a one-way ticket to Hell. Of course, there is good news. As far as I can remember, the only biblical description of Hell says it's something like a dark and lonely place which means that it could just be like sitting alone in your room. Which, while not fun, beats lakes of fire.

[blueyaoi]

In any spiritual practice there will be elements with which someone will struggle, and that does not invalidate a person's identification with said practice.

Mm, not really. Monotheistic religions believe that one god is perfect and knows everything. If he's perfect and knows everything you can't question him or his rules. There's not a lot of room for flexibility.