What Does it Mean to Follow a “Holy Book” But Claim to Not Adhere to Any Religion

I hear this a lot from Christian Bible Apologists, here’s the latest iteration:

RIS said:

so far. First, I wouldn't join any organized religion, church or political group.

Click to expand...

Other versions are “I’m non-denominational” or “I’m a believer but don’t follow organized religion”


ANd then they start their argument based on bible quotes.


I find this fascinating. Because they are indeed following an organized religion; the one that wrote the bible, and also the one that curated the bible in 300AD or so, and also the one that provided that translation of the bible, and the one(s) that interpreted that translation. If they claim that they learned biblical Greek and read it in the original and perfoirmed their own interpretation, they are following the church that wrote all those Aramaic thoughts into Greek.

So the monumental lack of self awareness to think they are capable of being a blank slate without influence from the religion that they decided to follow seems so unscholarly.


I would posit that by using the Christian Bible as an information source about anything. Non-scientific is, by definition, joining and adhering to a religion.

This thread is to explore a couple of points there.
Why do people feel the need to distance themselves from organized religion while still adhering to its most organized artifact?
Does this reveal anything about the strength of that person’s belief?
What would it look like to truly “not adhere to organized religion”?

Rhea said:

What would it look like to truly “not adhere to organized religion”?

Click to expand...

A lot like my life, I would imagine.

My parents were atheists (so were my fathers parents), and they made a positive decision when they had children to not tell them anything they knew was not true.

I never believed in Santa, and was shocked when I first went to school to discover that there were actual adults who genuinely didn't know that God was make believe.

I don't go to church services; I have attended three christian services and one jewish, two of them funerals, one a wedding, and one because I was invited by a girl who I had a massive crush on.

I have visited dozens of churches and synagogues to look at the buildings, and other points of interest. The chained library at Lychett Minster is a particular highlight for me. Growing up in the UK, I was fortunate to be surrounded by church (and secular) buildings dating back a thousand years in some cases.

Never once has religion struck me as particularly important personally. It's a thing that exists, but nothing to do with my life, as I live it.

The only time I even think about religion these days is in discussions here, or on the very rare occasions when someone directly raises the subject IRL. Fortunately Australia has inherited the British attitude that it's generally not polite to talk about religion with strangers.

I have the same relationship with religion that I do with any other pasttime I don't indulge in. I am aware that people get very passionate about (for example) basketball; But when they suggest that I am somehow not living my best life, because I don't know the minutiae of the rules, and the names of the top players, or even of the best teams, I just don't get why they think I should care. It's their hobby, not mine.

I genuinely and honestly don't think about basketball at all, most of the time. It would be rather odd if I did. Same with Christianity, Islam, Tennis, Shinto, Judaism, Badminton or Hinduism.

They are other people's hobbies.

If I were to stomp in to a forum for people who are sick to death of football, declare that I don't care about any organized football competitions, and then try to explain why everyone there is wrong not to care deeply about changes to the offside rule, you might be forgiven for thinking I was insane.

I've known people who say they are non practicing Christians. I think they just don't like going to church. My grandfather was sort of like that. He called himself a Catholic but only went to church on Xmas and Easter. He also did the Ash Wednesday thing, now that I think of it. The funniest part was whenever he drove by a Catholic Church, he would say, "I tip my hat to the lady".

Don't people always cherry pick when they embrace a religion? I have a neighbor across the street and a close friend who identify with Christianity but never go to church. They both know we are atheists and it doesn't seem to bother them in the least. It doesn't bother me that they enjoy their fairy tales either. Oh wait. I have another friend who identifies as Christian but never goes to church. He told us recently that since Trump won the election due to so many Christian votes, he's not sure he can still identify as a Christian. Another one told me she believes because she doesn't want to go to hell. Two of these friends are Black and two are white, so the indoctrination stays to some extent regardless of the culture.

Considering that I live in the Bible Belt, it's hard not to think about religion, as I'm faced with it daily. It does make for some good humor. On our way home from lunch today, we saw a sign on someone's lawn that said, "Thank you Jesus". Mr. Sohy asked me what was that about and I said, "Maybe Jesus helped them get the down payment for that house."

On the other hand, when two people died during a tornado that hit here about two years ago, it was hard to stay quiet when the Christians around me were all praising god. I so badly wanted to ask whey their god let a 7 year old child and an emergency worker die in the storm, not to mention the severe damage the storm did to so many homes and businesses.

I don't see anything wrong with telling a kid to believe in Santa, as childhood is a time of make believe. I figured that one out by the time I was 4. And, as a former poster used to say, "God is Santa Claus for adults". I guess that may be why so many claim not to be religious but they need a Santa in their lives.

Rhea said:

I hear this a lot from Christian Bible Apologists, here’s the latest iteration:

RIS said:

so far. First, I wouldn't join any organized religion, church or political group.

Click to expand...

Other versions are “I’m non-denominational” or “I’m a believer but don’t follow organized religion”

Click to expand...

Rhea said:

ANd then they start their argument based on bible quotes.

Click to expand...

If only science minded atheists would do that or even had some text to hold them accountable.

Rhea said:

I find this fascinating. Because they are indeed following an organized religion; the one that wrote the bible, and also the one that curated the bible in 300AD or so, and also the one that provided that translation of the bible, and the one(s) that interpreted that translation. If they claim that they learned biblical Greek and read it in the original and perfoirmed their own interpretation, they are following the church that wrote all those Aramaic thoughts into Greek.

Click to expand...

It isn't really necessary though is it? The Bible wasn't written for us but rather the people in the time and place it was written.

Rhea said:

So the monumental lack of self awareness to think they are capable of being a blank slate without influence from the religion that they decided to follow seems so unscholarly.

Click to expand...

That is one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. There's so much about it that is funny.

Rhea said:

I would posit that by using the Christian Bible as an information source about anything. Non-scientific is, by definition, joining and adhering to a religion.

Click to expand...

There isn't anything original out there about a four-thousand-year-old text that has had the attention it has had. Cut out the crooked middle man. Religion is only "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance," whether atheistic (Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, or communal approach to any of the rest) or theistic. You have to take the "scholarly" with a grain of salt, most of it is corrupt, like science, which is failing before our eyes for the same reason.

Rhea said:

This thread is to explore a couple of points there.
Why do people feel the need to distance themselves from organized religion while still adhering to its most organized artifact?
Does this reveal anything about the strength of that person’s belief?
What would it look like to truly “not adhere to organized religion”?

Click to expand...

No religion has ever remained true even to itself.

Rhea said:

Why do people feel the need to distance themselves from organized religion while still adhering to its most organized artifact?

Click to expand...

Simply put, they like to leave themselves an "out". It comes in very handy in semantic and rhetorical emergencies such as have been manufactured here. Claiming disaffiliation, saying everyone they know is an atheist (then why come here instead of trying to sell THEM your BS?)
etc. leaves the devout free to disavow whatever logical contradiction their proclamation of faith might raise. As long as they can continue to imagine some high ground that they occupy in their own mind, nothing else matters, and nothing can penetrate the invincible ignorance.
Not particularly sophisticated, IMHO.

The funniest thing about the Christian religion is that it is not needed, according to their own Holy Book. Jesus died for our sins; that's it, nothing more needs to be done or said, to be saved, as we are already saved by something that happened two thousand years ago.
So, everything that Christians do and say regarding God, Jesus, and the Bible, is futile.

Elixir said:

Rhea said:

Why do people feel the need to distance themselves from organized religion while still adhering to its most organized artifact?

Click to expand...

Simply put, they like to leave themselves an "out". It comes in very handy in semantic and rhetorical emergencies such as have been manufactured here. Claiming disaffiliation, saying everyone they know is an atheist (then why come here instead of trying to sell THEM your BS?)
etc. leaves the devout free to disavow whatever logical contradiction their proclamation of faith might raise. As long as they can continue to imagine some high ground that they occupy in their own mind, nothing else matters, and nothing can penetrate the invincible ignorance.
Not particularly sophisticated, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I feel like this fills in the gaps pretty well. Especially juxtaposed against the reply above it.

RIS’ reply was curious because they were specifically invited to talk more about “not being a part of any religion” and chose to use the space to obfuscate, deflect and distract. And not spend any time at all engaging in the curiosity inviting them to expound on something else they wrote.

~shrug~ I guess they chose to say what they wanted to say. Which was, “I don’t want to talk about that.”

Leaving us with your conjecture, Elixir.

Nit exactly what I thought I’d get, but, it does make a lot of sense.

My parents were atheists and active socialists. I was always fascinated by the Bible and religion in the same way that I was fascinated by the 1,001 Arabian Nights. I attended a French catholic university and took a course from a liberal priest in the philosophy of religion. I wrote a paper comparing the eschatology of socialism and Christianity, arguing that socialism transposed the Kingdom from heaven to Earth. Later, I became frustrated with the venality of politics and sought a deeper grounding in life. I found what I was looking for. I came to this forum with the idea that perhaps I could help others like myself.

IMO that is the difference between Christianity and the other two Abrahamic faiths Islam and Judiasm.

To be a Christina one only has to say one is a Christian. Baptism is the only common ritual for entry. I met a few non Jews who were self f declared Jews. There is one in my building.

I worked with a guy who tried to convert me. He asked if I was baptized which I was as a Catholic, and he said I 'can take that into any church'.

Religion is not about truth or logic, it is about personal experience. Community, identity, and most importantly a sense of empowerment in a chaotic world where most people have little power.

When I started out somebody told me you can't apply engineering logic to people, he was right.

In the 70s wen I was driving cross country I picked up two sisters hitch hiking to Denver to visit their father. They were from rural Tennessee. One said to me if I were passing through and asked to sleep in the barn I'd be taken into the house. She also said even if you are not a church going Christian be sure to say I am a believer and read the bible.

There is no consistent or singular Christian. Individuals rationalize themseves as we see on the forum.

Spacetime Inhabitant said:

The funniest thing about the Christian religion is that it is not needed, according to their own Holy Book. Jesus died for our sins; that's it, nothing more needs to be done or said, to be saved, as we are already saved by something that happened two thousand years ago.
So, everything that Christians do and say regarding God, Jesus, and the Bible, is futile.

Click to expand...

Some certainly do act like they can do no wrong, and are out to prove it, by doing everything as wrong as possible.

The 'funny thing' about the notion that "everyone is already saved etc & etc." According to Mathew, the understanding when correct, is it is not actually the case. Especially for those who profess to be Christian, doing quite the opposite to what Jesus preaches as the verses below show. You see...the bible demonstrates self-regulation within the faith that those who claim to be Christian are by their actions... accountable!

Matthew 7:13-14
(verses applies to preachers,false prophets i.e. Hypocrites)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Learner said:

The 'funny thing' about the notion that "everyone is already saved etc & etc." According to Mathew, the understanding when correct, is it is not actually the case. Especially for those who profess to be Christian, doing quite the opposite to what Jesus preaches as the verses below show. You see...the bible demonstrates self-regulation within the faith that those who claim to be Christian are by their actions... accountable!

Matthew 7:13-14
(verses applies to preachers,false prophets i.e. Hypocrites)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Click to expand...

This is because religion is interpreting the Bible to suit its narrative (the priests need a livelihood). These passages refer to the way things were before Jesus did his big sacrifice.
EDIT: And yes I know that the Gospels were written after his death, but they claim (as they were not actual witnesses, but wrote several decades after the alleged events they are describing) that these are words he said before the big event, so that surely changed the narrative?

Learner said:

The 'funny thing' about the notion that "everyone is already saved etc & etc." According to Mathew, the understanding when correct, is it is not actually the case.

Click to expand...

While I actually agree with you about the supporting passages, I do always get a little amused when someone says, “that is not the case,” or “that is not true.” I feel like the only accurate statement of disagreement can be, “that’s not supported by the words in this version of the bioble,” because really, outside of some supernatural announcement, can you really be sure what’s the case and what isn’t? The best you can ascertain, it seems to me, is “that’s not consistent with the text of a specified version of the bible.” Because even within the faith, it cannot be claimed (I don’t think?) that any living people have heard Yahweh speak definitively to more than one person at a time. Every single contemporary claim to know what God Really Means is one single person’s personal opinion of what they claim they heard.

Rhea said:

Learner said:

The 'funny thing' about the notion that "everyone is already saved etc & etc." According to Mathew, the understanding when correct, is it is not actually the case.

Click to expand...

While I actually agree with you about the supporting passages, I do always get a little amused when someone says, “that is not the case,” or “that is not true.” I feel like the only accurate statement of disagreement can be, “that’s not supported by the words in this version of the bioble,” because really, outside of some supernatural announcement, can you really be sure what’s the case and what isn’t? The best you can ascertain, it seems to me, is “that’s not consistent with the text of a specified version of the bible.” Because even within the faith, it cannot be claimed (I don’t think?) that any living people have heard Yahweh speak definitively to more than one person at a time. Every single contemporary claim to know what God Really Means is one single person’s personal opinion of what they claim they heard.

Click to expand...

Point understood. Yes of course to clarify. I would mean in context that the narrative I propose to be 'untrue' is just an argument verses an opposing 'who gets saved' argument. The intention of the particular narrative i.e. what we think the texts mean.