Religion vs. “a faith”

Home Forums All Things Catholic Religion vs. “a faith”

This topic contains 7 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  James 6 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #814

    Andres Ortiz

    Way too often I hear some radical Christians proclaim that religion is bad, religion will send you to hell, etc. and that they have a faith in Jesus.

    How is their faith not a religion? What do you view as a religion? To me, a religion is something with a set of beliefs that is a guiding principle for life. How is faith in Christ anything but a religion? <img src=:” title=”Question” />



    Instead of being lead by God’s prophet, Samuel, the Chosen People themselves chose a foreign system of kingship. Here even God’s accession to the will of the people was blessed and horribly fulfilled in Christ’s kingship under a crown of thorns.

    People need leadership from God. In the Old Testament, the corrupt spiritual leader was defined as a foolish shepherd. Christ went one step further in warning, not merely of foolish shepherds, but of wolves in sheep’s clothing. The contrast would be familiar to keepers of flocks. Good shepherds would lose not a single sheep. Bad shepherds would kill sheep when they were hungry. Wolves would kill, not just for hunger, but for the sake of killing, leaving a ravaged and scattered flock.

    Even with the Romanized leaders in His time, Christ said to do what they taught, though not what they do. Those who rejected Christ’s messiahship on the basis of Moses’ Torah were told that they would be judged by Moses, his power and authority still in effect.

    Christ created the Catholic religion in giving all the power and authority vested in Him by the Father to Peter and the Apostles. “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell (crack troops stationed in fortified rooms by city gates) will not prevail against it.” Power and authority vested in God’s men rule Christ’s religion, and we are to do what they teach in Christ.

    Religiosity is God’s religion without God’s power and authority; or without doing what is taught; or without oversight against predation. Each person can indulge in their own deadly masquerade to some degree, myself included. Some have a more systemic effect.

    Luther removed himself from apostolic oversight. Luther rejected Christ’s call for “spiritual eunuchs” to serve His kingdom. Luther preached his wedding sermon with the counsel to indulge in sexual exchanges with others if one’s spouse wasn’t up to it, SOLA SCRIPTURA, just like the Old Testament patriarchs did.

    Religiosity, cultural Catholicism, a false look of holiness without love and obedience given to God, is the corruption of which Christ warned. For example, the American bishops said Christ’s warning for those scandalizing the young of a judgment more irreversible than being drowned with a millstone in the ocean’s deep was a “prophecy” fulfilled in our time. The parallel corruption of the cultural Catholic laity is to carry on, refusing to demand accountability for the ravaged flock.

    [b:15mnx3xi]May the Virgin Mary, pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed, expose all thoughts, cleansing them in the loving fire of her Son’s Sacred Heart. AMEN[/b:15mnx3xi]


    "Jon":2bg3gksp wrote:
    Way too often I hear some radical Christians proclaim that religion is bad, religion will send you to hell, etc. and that they have a faith in Jesus.[/quote:2bg3gksp]
    Jack Chick, who I assume is a major Anti-Catholic, believes in just this.
    Just recently, I went to my local Religious Store. I was looking for a bible when I looked over at the children’s section of the store were I stood, frozen with terror.

    Jack Chick’s tracts were there in a container. And they were in the children’s section! I wanted to tell someone but I just couldn’t. I felt my heart sank with sadness and frustration. I knew that those little comics aren’t really for entertainment and had a much more deeper meaning than whimsical characters on paper.

    I decided to take a look at the little selection and thank goodness they weren’t like the ones on his website. Sadly, though, they give the same meaning but it’s hidden within the child-friendly comic strip.

    I left in disgust….
    and I didn’t buy a bible. :lol: ha ha Oh well. Maybe next time.



    actually, I think they were the same as the website tracts but i think they were less severe.



    I think one of the problems is that we use the same vocabulary, but not the same definitions.

    Religion comes from two Latin words, re and lingo, meaning to bind, or to tie back to. For a Catholic it refers to what binds or ties us back to God. Sin has broken our bond to God, and the Religion He founded is what binds us back to Him.

    To the radical they use the term Religion, but they define it differently, in essence they re-define most words to suit the purpose they intend it to mean. In using the same words as Catholics, (or anyone who came before them) they mean something else. To them the Term Religion means any (False) system of belief that disagrees with the idea that the true worship of God is a personal idea, and not bound to any organized corporate faith. (Contrary to what the Bible teaches.) The false and anti-biblical system of belief they say they hold is contrary to what they really practice. An example of these beliefs would be Ron, who used to come here and bash the Catholic Faith.

    Ron proposed that the teachings of the Catholic Church, are a false system of Religion. (If you read some of his illogical on other areas of the web, it includes Lutherans and other churches too) He proposed that individuals all came to Jesus, not because of or thanks to the Church, but rather as individuals, who could each determine through direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit just what the Bible said, and had no use for any organized Church. True believers according to the school he belongs to exist within different denominational sects and independent of them. They even hold that there are some true believers who attend the Catholic Church, just as long as they attend Catholic Churches but reject what the Catholic Church teaches. Most of them hold that all of the Sacraments are purely symbolic, and have no effect on the soul, (each one holds from two to seven sacraments, and disagrees on what they are or symbolize, contrary to what the Bible teaches.) The problem is that they obtain the theology they teach and the system of belief they hold, not from the Bible alone, nor from their own study of the Bible, but rather from other “teachings of men”.

    Reading what Ron (as one example) has written reveal how blinded they are by the hate of true religion by the teachings of other men that they follow. Ron who refused while he was here to name the church he was affiliated with showed this by his insistence that he had his Pastor review his (Ron’s) writings, and he (the Pastor) told him he had no errors in them. He was depending on someone else to approve his writings. He also tells the tale that he became “Saved” and for the first year or so read the Bible on his own, but he contradicts himself, by informing us that he learned the Bible from a Billy Graham Bible Study course. Either he learned the Bible on his own, or he was directed by a school of someone else, with its own particular view. He also tells us that we don’t understand the Bible, and he has to teach us. In the process of his teaching us, he sites various other teachers, and resources, most published by Baker and other Protestant publishing houses. The authorities he cites to prove his points are sometimes groups or people who like his own “personal faith story” contradict each other. He depends on those sources that agree with his interpretation of the Bible, and religion as absolute proof of his position, while he rejects what he is told the Catholic Church teaches. Another of his problems (and the whole school that rejects what they call “Religion”) is that they follow “teachers” and “teachings” that tell him to reject formal Religious beliefs, while at the same time becoming followers of these new teachers and teachings who simply pick and choose what to believe and reject from other teachings and teachers, taking the framework of the new religions they found from what they like in other teachers until they find something that does not agree with what God gave us, but simply agrees with what they want to believe.

    I use Ron as an example, because he is a glaring example of the confusion among various “Bible Believers” who claim to not need any direction except the Bible, and Personal Inspiration, while depending on others to tell him what that Personal Inspiration by the Holy Spirit is. Another problem with this kind of man made Religion, is rather than conform to what Christianity has always taught, he sets himself up as Judge, Jury and Executioner, when it comes to other’s souls. Ron claims to be able (although he would deny that he has the authority) to judge other peoples souls. If someone says they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, (which he claims is all you have to do to be “saved”) but disagrees with Ron, then he was never really a Christian. His salvation was a false one, and that person is going to hell. Even though that person did exactly what Ron says is the only thing one must do to be saved, they end up damned, because they disagreed with what Ron (or any other self appointed authority) says.

    Once again, I have used Ron as the most glaring example of someone who holds Religion to be bad, but only because he posted here, and is a follower of the school that defines Religion in an inaccurate manner, blind to the fact that he himself is a follower of the teachings of others.



    I think that it makes more sense to me that you use Ron as an expample of this contridicting theology some sadly follow



    In addition to what I wrote above….

    Most who hold the type of systems of belief that are exemplified by Ron also refuse to look at what the Church believed in antiquity. The belief of the Early Church is well documented in the writings of the Early Fathers, and among both Pagan and Jewish writers of the day. You can see in Ron’s writings how he uses the usual phrases of he has picked up by those who without a cogent argument against the Church, and orthodox teachings when they say, “Keep your catechisms, and histories, I’ll keep the Bible.” They take the Bible out of context, only quoting the individual passages that support the teachings they want to believe in. They isolate texts out of context not just to the Bible itself, but interpret it without regard to what the text would mean to a Jew in the First Century or before, (in the context of the times.)

    Along with the denial or rejection of what historians of the time, and modern day historians who have reviewed the archeology, writings and artifacts of the time, they deny the Infallibility of the Pope, marking him as an Anti-Christ, or as part of an ancient conspiracy with Pagan Rome to supress the “Authentic Chirsitan teachings” which only developed in the past two hundered years. They do however claim an infallibility that by far outstrips the limited infallibility that the Catholic Church defines for the Pope, and for the sources that they use, most of which have been disproven as fantasy and a misreading of history outside of context.


    "LARobert":1a4hz8g4 wrote:
    You can see in Ron’s writings how he uses the usual phrases of he has picked up by those who without a cogent argument against the Church, and orthodox teachings when they say, “Keep your catechisms, and histories, I’ll keep the Bible.”[/quote:1a4hz8g4]
    Isn’t the Bible history too? From what I’ve learned, catechisms are books to help understand the bible (and traditions depending on what catechism you read) a little further.

    It confuses me how people can have a faith in Christ but they claim it’s not a religion

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.