I've been hearing some tributes to Rev. Billy Graham today and one of the things that people were praising him was that he "emphasized people over religion". Now I'm guessing that is not necessarily the Catholic definition of religion which is "the virtue of reconnecting with God". So, it seems to me, based mainly off of my interactions with Evangelicals here and listening to Christian Radio that religion is either bad or a necessary evil. But is this what Evangelicals truly believe? Are they always talking about organized religious ceremonies when they say "religion"? Is there a concrete definition of what religion is, according to Evangelicals?

I am someone who has only recently converted to Christianity, and I came upon a troubling point. If it is a sin to have other gods above God, then how does He feel about countries where everyone has a religion different from it? Is that entire country just doomed for hell, or is there an allowance made for those people with no knowledge of Christianity?

Reading online, there is a significant number of people who believe Jesus was a Christian. To my mind that would require Jesus to travel to the future and read the new testament. Then go back in time to follow his own teachings and fulfil the events of the book. Is that what happened?

It has been suggested that the religion of Christianity arose as a result of the destruction of the Jewish temple and the Jewish priesthood by the Romans in the year 70. This date marks the inception of the religion and not AD30-33 when Jesus was supposedly crucified. The theological concept of the sacrifice of one man, namely Jesus, to replace the annual Jewish ritual of the Atonement arose at this time and not before because there was no need for the concept prior to this event. Furthermore, it is asserted that the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels was invented to explain how the religion arose, but it actually arose as a consequence of the interplay of expectation and traumatic events consistent with normal human behaviour. **What is the evidence for and against this hypothesis?**

I suppose this is a very broad subject with varying opinions. According to Britannica, Confucianism is associated with the following terms & definitions: ( Reference: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confucianism ) ".... the way of life propagated by Confucius...." "....substance of learning, the source of values, and the social code...." ".... a worldview, a social ethic, a political ideology, a scholarly tradition, and a way of life." "..... a philosophy and sometimes as a religion, Confucianism may be understood as an all-encompassing way of thinking....." Also, according to Britannica, Daoism is associated with the following terms & definitions: ( Reference:  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Daoism ) "Daoism, also spelled Taoism, indigenous religio-philosophical tradition...." Also, according to Britannica, Buddhism is associated with the following terms & definitions: ( Reference: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism ) "Buddhism, religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings...." Therefore, I was trying to determine if it would be correct to associate Christianity with some of the aforementioned terms & definitions. We can definitely associate the term "religion" with Christianity because there are even bible scripture verses that give evidence that Christianity is a religion: > ( James 1:26-27 ) > > 26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world Would it correct to say that we could associate Christianity with terms like "way of life", "lifestyle", "philosophy" etc.?  Please feel free to elaborate.

I have a boyfriend we are okay and happy to each other until one day he asked my religion. I said I'm a Christian and he said to me that we can't be together because he's a member of JW and I'm not from his church. I said we can find a way and he trust what I said. My question is can a Christian and unbaptized Jehovah Witness can be marriage? If not can be one of us change religion? In case someone say that I'm crazy because I'm willing to change a religion just for someone. I just believe that it is not in religion when it comes on God it is about your faith and trust in him.

Before I start just want to say I do not intend to offend anyone I just came to look at the Christian perspective on this question. So I was reading about a psychological study about how people believe that with pain and struggling you will end up receiving great rewards. See the article [here](https://www.behaviorist.biz/oh-behave-a-blog/suffering-just-world) . This seems like the basis of a few of the major world religions and I feel like religion may have been used to keep society under control at a time where it was far from it. Also looking at paintings historically you can see that there was a time where they tapped into religiosity and then into monotheistic religiosity which also kind of adds to the fabricated nature. In Christianity do you have any evidence that the religion is man made? Is there any psychological, philosophical or other scientific studies to back it up? What is the Biblical evidence

**NO REASON TO CLOSE THIS QUESTION** The reason why this question is not opinion based, is because I am asking how C.S Lewis himself arrived to the conclusion of his dilemma. Because as it reads from this excerpt, his conclusion is arbitrary. Now, that's not to say that his decision truly is arbitrary, maybe there is something to be said about his decision from citations from his other works. But the question remains the same, I am asking it to be point outed how C.S Lewis himself came to this conclusion, **there is no matter of opinion involved.** ***Now to the question itself:*** Reading Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, Lewis tries to go point by point from merely observing reality and our nature to arriving at the Christian God, so cutting to the chase -- he basically says that by observing ourselves we come to conclude that we are under an inescapable Moral Law of good and evil. He eventually goes on to say that this is evidence of a higher power, and eventually God, and evidently that this is a God that takes sides and espouses good, and so he narrows it down to Judaism, Christianity and Islam which are centered around a God that espouses moral laws of good and evil. This is where I start to really disagree with him, he narrows it down to say that it is Christianity to be chosen but he doesn't address why Judaism and Islam fitting his standards were unfitting candidates. In any case, he goes on to say the following: > I am trying here to > prevent anyone saying the really fool-ish thing that people often > say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral > teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is > the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and > said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. > He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says > he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You > must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or > else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you > can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet > and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising > nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left > that open to us. He did not intend to. > > We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are > talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, > or something worse. **Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a > lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, how-ever strange or > terrifying or unlikely it may seem, *I have to accept the view > that He was and is God*. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in > human form.** C.S Lewis then goes on to his next point explaining the basics of Christian doctrine and theology, treating the matter established -- yet he has not. He gives us a dilemma, that Jesus is either a lunatic, truly God, or something worse, then says "how-ever strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God" then treats it as a closed cased, but hold on, why do we come to say that he is God simply like that if he could also be a lunatic or something worse? He made this huge leap in his argument without giving any valid reasons, yet he simultaneously acknowledges that it is strange, terrifying, and unlikely. So why does C.S Lewis conclude that Jesus is God?

Do they truly believe that the story actually happened? Or do they recognize the possibility of it being a fiction and try to just keep the mental lessons from them? Is religion just a guide to the life and a way to connect to the society? Or is it something that has to be believed as an absolute truth? I am curious what faith means to the religious people.

We as Christians acknowledge the God’s plan of salvation at work first through Judaism in OT and then through Christianity in NT. So this question does not apply to Judaism. This plan of salvation right from man’s fall in Genesis to the NT, is like a well oiled machine, where the OT and NT are in sync with each other. This I am saying because we accept OT in same spirit as NT and Judaism as from God because that is how God wanted to mould Jewish people to make them ready for receiving His promised Messiah. Contrary to this we find all other religions not at all compatible with each other and that applies their relation with Judaism and Christianity also. So what would be the best viewpoint to take on these other religions? How Christians are expected to accommodate or view them vis a vis our belief. Do we have to treat them as teaching that did not have origin from God but only from human thinking or from some hallucinations? I am looking for answers from the Christian point of view only and not from any other position of belief/unbelief. ### Are all other religions man-made?

I have heard this term used and would like more info about this idea. It really sounds like a hippie thing...

Has the Catholic Church, or any large Christian churches or denominations, ever had a policy of paying money to people to not have abortions? For example, paying $10,000-$40,000 for a mother to complete her pregnancy without alcohol, drugs or smoking and give the child up for adoption?

I'm afraid I may have slunk to the depths of troll question engineering, but I'm having a hard time with this answer. According to some facebook meme it is "dictionarily" invalid to argue that "sanctity" is a state that can be enforced by the government. I attempted to call this particular facebook personality out on the carpet by saying that their definition of religious was invalid; that it did not include worship. I've been hearing a lot about this recently on Relevant Radio concerning the redefinition of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean literally, freedom of worship, instead of freedom of religion. Did any of the Popes write on this? What is Christian religion over and above Christian worship and why must it be protected?

The three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, generally view sex and sexuality as a taboo: Private matters, restricted from the public sphere (both the practice and discussion of it). The Abrahamic religions tend to sanctify sex and sexuality as a matter between a man and a woman in a private institution. Pornography is deemed sinful. There are also many restrictions on sexual actions and relations, for example incest, homosexuality, anal intercourse, and masturbation. This tendency is not seen among other religions. For example, in pre-Meiji Japan (before strong influences from the West) *shunga* pornography is a common public consumption in urban areas. Sex is understood as a worldly pleasure and should be embraced - it could be seen on how in transaction among merchants, prostitutes is sometimes offered to smooth the deal. In pre-colonial Nusantara (contemporary Indonesia), the story of Prince Puger of Mataram who performed oral sex on his recently deceased uncle is widely believed among the masses as a legitimation of his rule. Practice of homosexuality was also common in Japan and Nusantara. Kamasutra, the popular sex manual which actually also includes sexual mores, originated from ancient India, is available for public consumption and didn't draw complaints from priestly authorities. This makes me wonder: What was the social context that provided a background for this tendency? Why does it prevail in three different religions that arose in three different eras?

I have heard this statement used by Christians. Atheists counter that the [lack of belief](http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism) isn't a religion or belief system. Is there a logical justification for the charge that atheism is a religion? _I'm looking for more than just appropriately defining the terms to make the sentence technically correct._

I have watched the movie Zeitgeist where Christianity has been treated as a mere *astrological thing*, Jesus was also compared to the other gods and found out some profound similarities. Is Jesus the Sun? To support this idea, a documentation made by National Geographic about Ancient Egypt also revealed the incontrovertible pattern of Christianity and *their* ancient traditions.

If there is only one God, then why is there so many "different" religions an beliefs about the "same" God?

Do not know if I worded that right. But was wondering what you call someone who does not believe in organized religion at all. They may go to church but never as a member or follower of any particular group.

This question is closely related to those regarding the definition of a Christian that was also discussed on the meta site here and here . While I consider that question answered and outside the scope of this site (as discussed in Meta), it seems that there is still room for this tangent. Quite apart from what individuals are labeled as Christian, is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible? _____ Background: I recently referred an acquaintance to an article describing differences between Jews and Christians. I (converting to Judaism) said that I thought the article pointed out important differences between Christianity and Judaism. He (a Christian) said that he thought the article pointed out the differences between some Christians and some Jews. Obviously he is correct in his observation, but, by doing the latter, the article was (to my mind) also doing the former.