Oh, I’m Not Religious…

Am I alone on this?

Hell, no, you aren’t. As someone who lives in a community with a heavy dose of non-denominational Christians, the phrase “not religious, just believe in Jesus” makes the little vein in my temple pop out a bit.

“A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.” (Wikipedia)

Belief in Jesus (or any other supernatural being, for that matter) == religion. Saying otherwise is just a blatant attempt to try to make it appear more rational.

I’d take the angle that someone who says this is neither religious or a Christian. If you really believe in something, are you ashamed to admit it?

I like a couple of the comments on Reddit regarding “simply having a different definition of religion”:

Nobodyatall:
Well by my definition you are a walrus while I drive to work in an orange. Automatic orange peeling saves me time. You don’t even want to know my definition of sex. suffice it to say it includes a rugby team, Seven miles of thread and a race around the world

mindbleach:

Marcel Duchamp’s breakfast by Kate Beaton.

Am I alone on this?

FUCK NO!!!

Unless they are a 1st century carpenters’ union, JC should have no other interest to them. The only explanation is that they are religious, like every other Jesus proselityzer.

This is pure deception – worse, it’s self deception; if it’s not a cynical ploy. I don’t care that they might be “nicer” than institutional religion, they are a church. That’s an organization, using a building(s) set up for a religious purpose.
Unless people come in to their church, mill around interacting with one another at random, believing any old thing they want about JC, and don’t attempt to reach others with a specific message, it’s a fricking religion.

It’s simply a communication gap that is easily resolved by five minutes of conversation.

No NO NO! Words mean something. And not just in the Oxford Dictionary sense either. These guys know damn well that a church with a “mission” fulfills the definition of a religion that 99.99999% of the population holds to. This is a con.

My wife HATES church (she is sitting right here watching me do my godless thing) and doesn’t consider herself a member of ANY denomination or even a church, but she freely acknowledges that she is a Christian and she knows it’s a religion.

“Yeh, man, I’m not religious, no way, man. I’m into Jesus, one cool dude. Rock on!”

Right.

As if you’ve never been to a church, or listened to a preacher, or read a bible verse, or had religion forced down your throat.

Right.

One day you were just minding your own business and for no reason at all just reached behind you and pulled Jesus out of your butt.

This is why people should say more than just “religion is bad”. What about religion is bad? IMO, it is not the religious institution that’s bad, but the religious beliefs themselves. People who say they aren’t religious, but have a relationship with Jesus might think they’re pushing themselves away from the evils of religion, but I think they’ve got it backwards.

Whether we define this to be more or less “religious” is beside the point–they’re going in the wrong direction, and that’s that.

I’ve met a lot of religious liberals who say they are “spiritual but not religious.”

I think they say this because traditional Christian religion has an often well-deserved reputation for being petty and close-minded. To many, the “religious” word isn’t a positive one. Here’s a Barna Group study about this perception of traditional Christianity:

A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity

I’d like to add this to the mix. I tend to agree that there is something to what is meant by a person who says they are not religious. There is reason to believe that Christianity is NOT a religion in the usual sense. When you study the world’s religions you’ll find that they ultimately tell a person to do good works, live a good life, and thereby in some way earn the right to go to heaven or the “promise land” or whatever. Christianity as explained by Christ and the Apostles, on the other hand, tells a person NOT to do good works, live a good life, and thereby in some way try to earn the way to heaven. That is what sets Christianity apart from other religions or perhaps it is not a religion in the usual sense.

Strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree??

Best wishes to all,

Happy

The ungodly may not love the grace which is in the children, but since they love the children in whom that grace is found, they are no longer able to speak against religion as they otherwise would have done.

(From C.H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Abijah, or Some Good Thing Towards the Lord”)

Curious how a hundred years or so ago “Christian” and “religion” were commonly used almost synonymously. And it was done so by the spiritual forebears of those who nowadays most use the catchphrase, “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.”

Happy Christian,

I very strongly disagree.

You’re repeating the “Christianity is about justification by faith, whereas every other religion in the world is about justification by works” line. It’s a misrepresentation of other religions.

Each religion has unique aspects. For instance, for many Buddhists their religion is about experience, inner peace and enlightenment. Many Jews see God’s Law as the focal point of their religion. Muslims might see their religion as primarily about submitting one’s will to God. In fact, the whole “faith/works” dichotomy belongs primarily to Christianity. Not all religions draw such a distinction between faith and work.

Your religion is unique, for sure. But it’s still religion. The faith/works dichotomy does not change the fact that it’s a religion. Also, this claim:

Christianity as explained by Christ and the Apostles, on the other hand, tells a person NOT to do good works, live a good life, and thereby in some way try to earn the way to heaven.

…is contradicted by the New Testament. From James 2:20-24:

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

And, yes, I realize that you could quote in reply verses from the writings of Paul which claim that it is by faith alone that one is justified. Of course, that’s just one of the many contradictions in the Bible.

It’s possible to believe in a god and not be religious if all you have is a belief, but once you start doing things because of that belief, whether it’s praying, reading a certain book about your god regularly, or gathering with and talking to other people about your belief, then that’s a religion.

So I suppose a case could be made that a deist or pantheist might not have a religion if they aren’t doing anything, but once you have some kind of habitual activities related to some kind of belief in supernatural forces, then you have a religion. (The supernatural element is what differentiates it from other habitual activities like baseball or knitting.)

At first I thought these “non-religious Christians” were really just trying to separate themselves from organized religion, but since it’s sponsored by a church I don’t know what their angle is.

Or how about instead of calling them “religious” we just call them “superstitious”. 😉

May I respond to a couple of issues stated by Wes and Miller.
From the time of the writing of the new testament until now orthodox Christianity has made it clear that justification — God’s act of declaring a sinner righteous — is by faith alone through God’s grace. Such righteousness is entirely from outside them and that righteousness not only comes from Christ but actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to Christians. Rom. 5: 1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. James does not disagree with this when he stated, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.” So what is the place of good works? We need every good work we can get. It is the difference between “I MUST do good works to earn earn God’s favor and be allowed in heaven” and “I WANT to do good works to please the One who gave me the gift of imputed righteousness.” How does a fellow human know that the transaction of imputation mentioned above has happened for me? It is by good works. James stated it in 2: 18 “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. So there is no contradiction.
It is nice to be in this conversation.
May you all have a good Sunday.

I am yours truly,

Happy

James 1:26-27, going from the NIV:

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Obviously anyone who goes on Survivor isn’t keeping themselves form being polluted by the world. I’ll take her word on the fact that she doesn’t look after orphans and widows. So she’s probably right.

Happy Christian,
I’m not particularly interested in a discussion of good works vs faith, especially a Bible-based one. Ok, so I’ll retract my statement that Christianity as a whole emphasizes good works. It really depends on what kind of Christianity it is.

You’ll not get a lot of sympathy here for faith. From the atheist’s perspective, good works are much better than faith, hands down.

From the time of the writing of the new testament until now orthodox Christianity has made it clear that justification — God’s act of declaring a sinner righteous — is by faith alone through God’s grace.

Well, Happy, at least you’ve got your talking points down pat. Now, how about doing some reading? I’d start with the Early Church Fathers and go on from there. The “faith alone” thing is medieval; a lot was written and thought prior to that that might give you a different view of what is “orthodox Christianity.” Are you willing to educate yourself? Do you withhold judgment pending investigation?

Secular Planet said,

You’re not alone, Hemant. I hear people say that Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship with Jesus. I’m not sure what they think makes something a religion or why they’re running away from it.

Then ask them to define Jesus.

To Happy Christian: In your first post, you said you agree with the “Christianity is not religion” idea, but in your second post, you used the word “God” about six times. That sounds like religion. You might not have the same conception of God as other religions, but you still think that God exists. So to us they are the same.

James stated it in 2: 18 “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. So there is no contradiction.

Tsk tsk. Quote-mining your own scripture. In context, it’s easy to see that James 2:18 (of which you only quoted a portion) is in line with James 2:24, which I quoted. Here’s even more context, including the verse you quote-mined:

James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

The author of James very clearly espouses a theology in which Christians are justified by faith and works together, not by faith alone. He says it multiple times in the passage quoted above.

By quoting only the response in James 2:18 without quoting that to which he is responding, you have misrepresented what the author of James said. He’s telling Christians that if they rely on faith alone for justification, they can be impugned by those who do good deeds. And he explicitly says that faith is not enough, that good deeds are necessary for justification.

And as for this:

Such righteousness is entirely from outside them and that righteousness not only comes from Christ but actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to Christians. Rom. 5: 1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have already replied to it above:

And, yes, I realize that you could quote in reply verses from the writings of Paul which claim that it is by faith alone that one is justified. Of course, that’s just one of the many contradictions in the Bible.

Paul claimed that Christians are justified by faith alone. The author of James claimed that faith is not enough and good works are necessary for justification. It’s a contradiction, and quoting Paul at me combined with dishonest quote-mines from James does not resolve it.

Mike Clawson@12:09am,

I checked out Mirriam-Webster’s online dictionary to see what their take on the origin of “religion” was. I’ll copy and paste directly.

Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at RELY
Date:
13th century

I can see the similarities to “reconnect,” but the connotation seems to be entirely different.

Wes, I think you have it right about what James was saying, but the argument of Paul is a bit more nuanced than you have suggested. Putting that aside for the moment, I think it is possible to develop a single theology of salvation that reconciles Paul and James for two reasons: First, Paul never says that we are justified by faith “alone.” The word ‘alone’ was added to the text in translation. So, James and Paul are in agreement that we are justified by faith, the only question is what kind of faith. This is where I think James is more to the point than Paul.

Paul clearly shows in his writings that works (born our of love, that fulfill the whole Law) will be the final standard of God’s judgment. Paul’s intricate arguments were required by his chosen project: to develop a Gospel that could be preached to the Gentiles–those without the Law and the promise made to Israel. Paul was fighting a battle on two fronts. He was trying to convince the Gentiles that salvation had come to them without need of circumcision and conforming to the Law of Moses, and he was trying to convince the Jews of the same thing, with an additional aspect: the Law was always intended to be a spiritual thing, that which was written in stone, was meant to be written on the hearts of people. And the intent of the Law, and its fulfilling, had to do with acts of love rather than attention to petty details like dietary restrictions.

Paul bit off quite a bite here. He was tackling a very practical problem: Jewish-Christians (the first ones) in Jerusalem were insisting that the Gentile converts keep the Law of Moses as the Jews had done. This rankled Paul because he thought that it was an unnecessary encumbrance upon the Gentiles and because it entailed a failure to truly understand the intent of the Gospel message. A new covenant had come about that superseded the old. One was free to keep the Law of old, but its keeping was not a requirement. In fact, mere observance of it was insufficient for salvation.

The friction between James and Paul arises out of the difference between Jewish-Christian worship and understanding of the faith and that of the Gentile-Christians. This was the source of the uncomfortable contratemps between Paul and Peter in Antioch. Paul is often misunderstood because of the subtlety of his argument: Faith without the keeping of the Law is all that is required for salvation, but faith is only faith when one observes the law of love, which is the fulfilling of the whole Law. Paul has two conceptions of faith just as James does. And both authors were misunderstood by audiences then and since.

I’m Happy we are talking about keeping things in context.
In Psa. 14: 1 it states, “There is no God.”
Some would say, “Hip, hip, hooray! Let’s celebrate! Finally the Bible agrees with us.” Well, of course the context is, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Wes, related to the way I quoted James 2: 18 [part not all] does not change the point I was making. Quoting part of Psa. 14: 1 has a major impact. And keep in mind that the ultimate context of James 2 is the entire new testament.

Actually, Darryl, we agree about 90%, especially when you say, “Faith without the keeping of the Law is all that is required for salvation,” but then you indicate that something else needs to be done by saying, “faith is only faith when one observes the law of love,”
You seem to think one needs to take the action to “observe” something after you have said, “Faith without the keeping of the Law is all that is required for salvation,”
I don’t see much friction between Paul and James. As you said, both have two conceptions of faith. One needs to receive the imputed righteousness by faith along. Paul would agree with James that, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”. Once that is settled, then one shows his faith BY his works. Paul and James would agree on that. Thus, Wes, there is no contradiction
.
My original point was that other religions present the opposite and perhaps Christianity is not a religion in the way a vast majority understand religion.
By the way, please forgive the duplication of my above post. My bad.

Best wihes to one and all for a good week ahead.
Happy

Happy Christian said,

My original point was that other religions present the opposite and perhaps Christianity is not a religion in the way a vast majority understand religion.

So Christianity is not a religion because it disagrees with other religions? Can’t other religions also make that claim?

You are still talking about God in your life. That is still religion.

I agree, Hemant. It’s still religion. They still go to church every week. They still preach to people. They still believe in orthodoxy and theology and all the doctrines of Christianity.

IMO, it’s a just form of bad Christian advertising — they change the package, but not the substance.

It doesn’t matter if they’re baptist, missional, emergent, or whatever. They’re still Christians and Christianity is a religion.

Happy,

You’re still misunderstanding Paul and James. Read the relevant passages with no assumptions about faith. Let them tell you what it means. James is very clear about this.

It is religion however they slice/name it, but if it makes them feel better . . .

and to know that something better than this tragic world is waiting for us after we die.

This part of their mission makes me sad. To define this world as tragic is,for lack of a better word tragic. For the love of god, take a look around focus on the now and enjoy life.

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

How do you define “religious” ? – not denotation, connotation

Religious = foolish, traditional, ignorant, weak minded, rote learning, habitual, cold, unloving, boring, not creative, not intelligent, obstinant, stuck in my ways, irrelevant.

By that definition, I believe in Jesus and I’m definitely not religious. It seems that simply by believing in Jesus you would put all those pejoratives on me. Is that not so?

Seriously, how intolerant and judgmental is that?

Happy, let me apologize up front for the length of this post. I think you’ve understood James but not Paul. When Paul is discussing works versus faith in Romans he has in mind the Law of Moses and the Jewish-Christians’ insistence upon keeping that Law (which includes circumcision) in order to be a Christian. He is not addressing the general relation between works or deeds and faith. You must read Paul elsewhere than the passages you have cited in Romans for a clearer presentation of that subject.

Do a study of what Paul has to say about the last judgment, and I think you’ll find that his thinking reflects that of the O.T. and that he was consistent with that. Begin with Romans 2. Here you will find all of the elements of the Gospel that he developed that included both Jews and Greeks–a people with the Law, and one without. I will quote it here with italics added:

1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.

3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11For there is no partiality with God.

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Also consider these passages:

Job 34:11 For He pays a man according to his work, And makes him find it according to his way.

Psalm 62:12 And lovingkindness is Yours, O Lord, For You recompense a man according to his work.

Proverbs 24:12 If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?

Jeremiah 32:19 great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds;

Ezekiel 33:20 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.”

Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

Romans 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

If you can reconcile Paul’s meaning in Romans 2 with his meaning later in the book then I’ll think you’ll see the sophistication of his argument, and why he has been often misunderstood.

I should add that I’m not arguing that the theology of Paul and James matched exactly–as an atheist I don’t need to adjust all statements so that they fit together to protect some idea of inerrancy of the Bible. But, I think it is possible to reconcile them since I think they both thought that all people are ultimately judged by their deeds, that works of love are a necessary component of real faith, and that the grace of God in Christ was the means by which salvation has come to all people.

Of course Christianity is a religion. The Oxford American Dictionary’s description says that religion is, “The Belief in, and worship of, a superhuman, esp. a personal god or gods”. I think there’s nary a Christian who would deny such a statement as being applicable to their own faith.

On the other hand, not all Christians are “religionists”, which is defined by the same dictionary as: “One marked by excessive religious zeal”. No doubt there are many “religionists” out there, and they usually are louder and more domineering than other members of their own religion, but the majority of Christians are simply religious by definition.

Of course, Christianity is one of the only religions that holds “belief and worship” to be elements of a relationship with said personal God. Consequently, Christians are both religious, and at the same time pursuing a relationship.

My problem with the perspective postulated in this post is that it fails to take into account the fact that there are hundreds of denominations, thousands of churches, and millions of self-ascribed Christians in the United States alone. Consequently, there are vastly differing perspectives on theology, and probably as much (if not more) heated debate within Christianity between differing viewpoints, as there is between Christians and non-Christians. So to use one constituency’s poorly thought-out proselytizing tactic as the ultimatum for all members of a vast religion seems rather hasty to me.

Admittedly, I am a self-professed Christian, but in consideration of the cornucopia of interpretation of Christianity and the Bible, I hold many parts of theology as loosely as possible. I have seen my own faith morph considerably over the past few years, and I don’t doubt that I will continue to approach my faith with an open mind, and consequently see even more changes over time. I hold that Christianity is a dynamic religion that is not, and should not be defined by one perspective or interpretation.

Apologies from me as well for the length of this post.

I’m a Christian, and I don’t like this slogan, and happy is wrong.

When people say things like this they mean “I’m not Catholic/Orthodox/Mainline Protestant, I’m Evangelical/Fundamentalist.” They believe that since they don’t have priests, icons and fish Fridays, they are not part of any religion.

So the people who wear t-shirts that say, “Religion is a lie” are referring Catholics et al, who they must save from the flames of Hell because they belong to a “religion.” But then they issue statements like the one above, saying that certain things must be done, and certain things must be believed.

I certainly agree- religion has caused a lot of problems in this world.

I have some sympathy for people who don’t want to identify themselves with the horrible things religion has done, but can’t let go of their own religion. I can’t really blame them for trying to find some way to express their religious feelings without mainstream religion.

However, people like a former friend who say things like “I’m not into religion. I’m into reality- and that just happens to include Jesus dying on the cross,” sound more like the sort of people this article is about.

I also dislike the contention of many that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Without exception, such people meet standard dictionary definitions of “religious” … even if they’d prefer it were not the case.

I also agree that it’s even worse when a fundamentalist Christian says, “I’m not religious, but I have a ‘relationship’ with God/Jesus.” That too is disingenuous; having a “relationship” with a deity is, by definition, a “religious” act.

It’s time for people to just stop misrepresenting themselves. I get that they’d like to disassociate themselves from all the negative connotations of the words “religion” and “religious,” but that desire does not entitle them to lie about themselves. Just once, I’d like a little honesty from people.

To the world, you look like a saint when you do good deeds, right? well, no one is perfect except God. In Christianity, we accept God as our savior, and strive to be like Him. Jesus did good deeds. Not because he would get the love of the world, but so others could see that he was God’s son. In this way of thinking, there were also many Christian Martyrs. Does every Christian have the Bravery to be sacrificed for God? no. But does that mean they do not have Faith? of course not. Not everyone is perfect. we all have tempers and make mistakes, but God still forgives.
the point is, it doesn’t matter if you have been a saint in the world’s eyes, or have done all the good deeds you can do. The perfection and forgiveness comes from faith in God.

I’m probably not going to get a popular response for this since I’m not a friendly atheist, let alone an atheist.

I think you’re missing the whole point about “relationship”. Christianity is a religion meaning it’s a belief like hinduism or islam or catholic, etc and if you are a Christian, you have a set way of thinking, acting, believing, etc. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER RELIGION. But when people say they aren’t “religious” they’re saying that their connection with God has nothing to do with ritualistic stuff, it’s purely a “relationship”

which won’t make sense to athiests because if you don’t believe in God to begin with, to you, we don’t have a relationship with anyone! So, you can’t convince some who knows that God exists that they don’t have a relationship with “nothing”. So you see it as “religious”.

But let me pose this question to you. You probably have a girlfriend who you are in “relationship” with, right? If you worship the ground she walks on, is willing to do ANYTHING for her because she’s so darn beautiful AND if who you are is wrapped up in who she is, than congrats! You’re in a religion! Yes, I said “Religion!” . 🙂 But to you, it’s absurd for me to say that. She’s just your girlfriend after all. I mean, I go to ‘church’ God’s house! 🙂 Well, you probably go to her house on occasion, right? I pray to God, not the ‘religious’ “Our Father…” no, it’s straight talk, just like you talk to your girlfriend on the phone…Granted, if she’s smart, you even go to her for counsel, direction and advice – I do the same thing too…with God of course!

So, having a relationship is different than religion, if you see it that way. If you still don’t, than it’s only right to say that everyone in the world who is in a relationship, is “religious”. Which isn’t bad because relationships are AMAZING!!!

Bottom line, God is real, that is my conviction and the conviction of many others. I’m not trying to convince YOU that God is real; I’m saying that we have a real relationship with our God…call it “religion” or “relationship” it’s still a “relationship!”.

And yes, if you don’t have a girlfriend, may I suggest asking God for one? He’s the best matchmaker I know! 😉

LOL @ Kent: Depends what you talk to your girlfriend about! 😉

I’m not religious but I have a relationship with Jesus is like saying, Oh I don’t believe in a deity but I’m not atheist.