Organized Religion...it's Good For You

[Brian J. Rivera]

Now first I just want to state that organized religion being a bad thing has to be one of the worst arguments I've heard. Firstly because it is way too general. Second the actual term is stupid, I recall watching an episode of Game Grumps and this actually came up. (btw it's a gaming channel not a religion or apologetics channel and they're all atheist) Basically person A asks person B

A:"hey who do we worship again?"
B:"I think it's BOB"
A"I thought it was God"

Lastly there is nothing wrong with having organized religion. Most will bring up the medieval ages and say "well there's your proof". This is not a good example because we can just say they were being hypocritical. We can also reverse the argument and say secular gov is not good because of all the wars for secular reasons. Personally I'd rather not have a religious government, or lax one. Having organized religion would probably also help for educating Christians about what the bible actually says. Just think of all the monks that became scientists. What do you think about this?

 

[Barnabas]

The Bible teaches organized religion, cover to cover. To object to organized religion is to object to the Bible.

Someone recently posted a link about an Independant Baptist church. It's even on of the country's biggest megachurches. The pastor taught the most blasphemous and perverted things, such as Communion is sex with Jesus. No surprise, that pastor is now a convicted child molester. The point is, this church, like other "non-denominational" churches, wants to avoid accountability. Those against "organized" religion want to avoid accountability, which would hinder their blasphemy and perversion.

 

[DavidG]

I don't see any way one can get around the adherence to and organization of the Christian community in scripture. But I also think perhaps "organized religion" when used as a pejorative may often be a misnomer. It seems to me people who are against "organized religion" are more often thinking of "religious corporate bureaucracy," or "politicized religion" or even "unapologetic corporate hypocrisy." When their conscience is (often rightly) offended by one of the latter, they wrongly do away with the former by association.

Those against "organized" religion want to avoid accountability, which would hinder their blasphemy and perversion.

While this may sometimes be the case, there are definitely many who have just been hurt by badly run churches and now have trust issues. Contempt is most often a defensive action. Nothing gives you a feeling of mental safety and distance from something like hating it.

 

[TezriLi]

. . . While this may sometimes be the case, there are definitely many who have just been hurt by badly run churches and now have trust issues. Contempt is most often a defensive action. Nothing gives you a feeling of mental safety and distance from something like hating it.

This is where my family is. They have been so trampled that they just cannot find a place to settle into.

 

[Barnabas]

While this may sometimes be the case, there are definitely many who have just been hurt by badly run churches and now have trust issues. Contempt is most often a defensive action. Nothing gives you a feeling of mental safety and distance from something like hating it.

Such reasoning would never be accepted in other circumstances, like when it to something like race, where a bad experience with one member of a certain population becomes a valid excuse to oppose all members of that population. I don't accept the "hurt badly" argument. People with that excuse need to get over their prejudice and show some fortitude.

Also, the point I previously made is that abusers are the first to oppose organized religion, because they want to be free of the accountability of organization. You don't run into the jungle to live because a dog bit you in civilization.

No offense, but I think your post represents part of what's wrong with modern Christianity. It's an attitude that teaches people to be weak, ungodly, and biased against Christians. It teaches people to dwell on themselves, instead of on God. And, it turns religion into therapy, not repentance and faith.

The vast majority of people who oppose "denominations" and "organized religion" aren't even primarily motivated by the "bad experience" card. Most of these people who oppose organized religion are simply biblically illiterate and spiritually immature, and someone has suckered them into believing the Bible doesn't teach organized religion,

 

[Big Moose]

those I know who had bad experiences with a church, just go to another one they like and feel welcome at.

 

[DavidG]

Such reasoning would never be accepted in other circumstances, like when it to something like race, where a bad experience with one member of a certain population becomes a valid excuse to oppose all members of that population. I don't accept the "hurt badly" argument. People with that excuse need to get over their prejudice and show some fortitude.

...but people do have bad experiences with other races and then oppose all members of a given population. It's half of human history. It's half of modern events. Tribe against tribe, people against people based on injury, fear and revenge. Of course it's unacceptable and an invalid excuse, but sadly acceptability and validity have nothing to do with it. It's part of what is broken in this world and in us and why we need to be redeemed. Man is broken, our hope is not in personal fortitude that can triumph over prejudice, we're too flawed for that. Our hope is in the sacrifice of Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit making us a new creation.

Also, the point I previously made is that abusers are the first to oppose organized religion, because they want to be free of the accountability of organization. You don't run into the jungle to live because a dog bit you in civilization

I caught that point. I think you're right on. People who reject accountability flee from it. But that being one reason people leave doesn't entail that there are not other reasons as well, does it?

No offense, but I think your post represents part of what's wrong with modern Christianity. It's an attitude that teaches people to be weak, ungodly, and biased against Christians. It teaches people to dwell on themselves, instead of on God. And, it turns religion into therapy, not repentance and faith.

None taken But I disagree. I think when people understand the brokenness of the part of them that wants to become a spiritual hermit they are more likely to humble themselves and allow the scriptural mandate "do not forsake meeting together as is the habit of some" to call them back into fellowship. Understanding your own spiritual poverty is a pretty vital prerequisit to the repentance and faith you rightly mention.

The vast majority of people who oppose "denominations" and "organized religion" aren't even primarily motivated by the "bad experience" card. Most of these people who oppose organized religion are simply biblically illiterate and spiritually immature, and someone has suckered them into believing the Bible doesn't teach organized religion,

That's a really interesting statistic. Where did you find that?

Really @Barnabas , believe me, it was not my intention to soft pedal organized religion. I believe it is vital and it is right. I am (like you) alarmed both at the number of professing Christians who have forsaken organized religion and that they have often managed to make their position seem cool rather than tragic. I believe that the body is often(not always) better served when you stay the course through opposition in your church rather than leaving to find a group of people just like themselves who will grow spiritually myopic due to their single shared perspective.

I offer my observations on possible motives and causes for exiting the organized church not as excuses but from the position that understanding the source of a problem often leads to most successful solution. I really don't see us as legitimate opponents for a decent debate.

 

[Barnabas]

...but people do have bad experiences with other races and then oppose all members of a given population.

It's statistically rational to refuse to walk through the ghetto. But, it's immoral and nothing we should accommodate when someone writes off a whole race for the actions of a few. And, there's nothing rational about writing off organized religion for a bad experience with one or a few churches.

I think when people understand the brokenness of the part of them that wants to become a spiritual hermit they are more likely to humble themselves and allow the scriptural mandate "do not forsake meeting together as is the habit of some" to call them back into fellowship. Understanding your own spiritual poverty is a pretty vital prerequisit to the repentance and faith you rightly mention.

There are people who are so deeply wallowing in their own brokenness that they're unable to grow. And, brokenness is no excuse to make bad decisions, like avoiding organized religion.

That's a really interesting statistic. Where did you find that?

Nearly everyone I've ever talked to who has argued against organized religion has called organized religion unbiblical.

Here's a non-denominational mega-church that has been a nest of homosexual predators. The pastor wrote a book called Marriage: The Divine Intimacy. There is a chapter celebrating Communion as the act of a man having sex with Jesus! If that church were in a denomination, the pastor would have been drop kicked out of it, long before he was convicted of child molestation. Likewise, a person who refuses to go to church does so because he doesn't want accountability. He wants to shack up with a girl or hold some blasphemous doctrine that being a member of a church would get in the way with.

 

[Glomung]

I'm curious. What would disorganized religion be?
Since the word "religion" itself refers to "a set of rules".
Would disorganized religion be something like the Unitarians, where anything is OK?
Or does the pastor roll a set of dice on Sunday morning and say "ok, rolled six, today we're Buddhist"?.

 

[Dave Lucas]

It's statistically rational to refuse to walk through the ghetto.

It is fear and fear alone. Not rational at all.

Let me share a thought with you.

If you walk down a street in Compton, the murder rate is 21 per 100,000 yearly.
One in ten die climbing Everest.

There is not a rational reason to refuse to walk through a ghetto. It is fear only. You're safer in Compton than on Everest.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I'm curious. What would disorganized religion be?
Since the word "religion" itself refers to "a set of rules".
Would disorganized religion be something like the Unitarians, where anything is OK?
Or does the pastor roll a set of dice on Sunday morning and say "ok, rolled six, today we're Buddhist"?.

If he throws three sixes in a row, watch out!

 

[Glomung]

It is fear and fear alone. Not rational at all.

Let me share a thought with you.

If you walk down a street in Compton, the murder rate is 21 per 100,000 yearly.
One in ten die climbing Everest.

There is not a rational reason to refuse to walk through a ghetto. It is fear only. You're safer in Compton than on Everest.

I would assume you haven't seen our ghettos. Trying walking through north-east D.C. if you're not a bro.
Make sure your insurance is up to date and your next of kin notified.

 

[Dave Lucas]

88 murders in 2012 out of a population of 646k.

That Everest is looking still more perilous.

But Everest is so chic to climb. No one is going to make that's awesome posts on my FB if I go to DC.

 

[Barnabas]

It is fear and fear alone. Not rational at all.

Let me share a thought with you.

If you walk down a street in Compton, the murder rate is 21 per 100,000 yearly.
One in ten die climbing Everest.

There is not a rational reason to refuse to walk through a ghetto. It is fear only. You're safer in Compton than on Everest.

I'm not going to climb Everest, either. Why don't you compare the robbery rate on Everest with the robbery rate in Compton? Most of Compton isn't a ghetto, so you're combing high-crime areas with the larger low-crime area (only a third of Compton is black). Plus, being seen as an outsider to the ghetto very much skews the danger in my direction. Your argument is very flawed.

 

[Dave Lucas]

I'm not going to climb Everest, either. Why don't you compare the robbery rate on Everest with the robbery rate in Compton? Most of Compton isn't a ghetto, so you're combing high-crime areas with the larger low-crime area (only a third of Compton is black). Plus, being seen as an outsider to the ghetto very much skews the danger in my direction. Your argument is very flawed.

The argument is about perceived statistical threat of possible harm to ones' self.

The climbing of Mount Everest has a one in ten chance of killing you, pretty harmful and if you were a betting man
you would not go there on those odds.

Whereas Compton has much better odds 24 in 100,000.

So if you were to bet your life which is the safest statistically, which is the word that brought on this argument, which would you choose? I'd take Compton if I wanted to live another day.

Argument valid.

 

[Barnabas]

The argument is about perceived statistical threat of possible harm to ones' self.

The climbing of Mount Everest has a one in ten chance of killing you, pretty harmful and if you were a betting man
you would not go there on those odds.

Whereas Compton has much better odds 24 in 100,000.

I'm always amazed when people repeat the same solidly refuted argument, as if they hadn't been show its flaws. But, such blindness does seem to be human nature.

Looking at crime stats for the ghetto in Compton vs. where I live now, I figure that Compton is about 200 times more dangerous for me. So, yes, I would be stupid to choose to walk through the ghetto. Very stupid.