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.

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.