What is "organized" religion?

Just a short thread -

I had a discussion with a friend the other day, revolving around what he called "organized religion", that he believes exists to control the masses.

My only point was that all religious beliefs are "organized" to some extent, at least on the thought level.
"Organized" can mean an institution - complete with religious literature, laws and authorities ....
and it can also mean a belief system (new-age religions), that happens to which draw mainly from eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism - which themselves are pretty organized.

Maybe some people have a problem with higher levels of organization (rituals, dietary laws etc), but all religions are organized. So the very term "organized religion" is redundant... like "hot fire" or "wet water".

Kindly note that I'm not talking about personal philosophies that include God and other aspects of religion.

Discuss.

Any one that tells you what to think, eat, how to act or who your personal savior/messiah is. Especially if the information is suffixed by an 'or else'.

A non-organized religion is going for a walk in Muir Woods and actually making note of the fact that you're out in nature (that means no smart phone usage).

reply to post by sk0rpi0n
I was asked not more then 2 hours ago what religion I was ...I thought for a moment and asked .Define religion ....I am not sure if having a belief makes you religious but if that is the case then any one with a thought could be considered religious ...like washing your car on tuesdays or mowing the lawn on wednesdays ... good question though ...

Organized religion is loss of individuality.

Learning about the spirit should be an individual thing between individuals and the spirit. Organizing that into groups or bases tends to pollute that direct connection (something we seem to have lost). It becomes more muddied or dispersed, people rely on the "church" for guidance instead of developing their own path. Over time the church should teach people to become less dependent upon the religious interpretation of the "direct" word and more reliant upon their own inner connection.

Instead the church doesn't really teach us anything new, like how to pray, be generous or love, they just require everyone to show up and let the church do the praying (let us pray) and the preaching (and God says), and the helping (filling the coffers).

The sign of a successful church should be a diminishing membership, not an increasing one.

Over to you...

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

A religion based on grace cannot be used to control the masses, only a religion based on works. This idea of “controlling the masses” via Christianity is wrong from the day Marx wrote it, but continues to propagate through the anti-religion masses.

as a once wise man said:

"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make this contribution and you'll get the better seat!"

he turned into a soppy country and western star though, and now it's all about redemption.

But organised religion is simply that. Organised beliefs. Kinda ironic. Believe what I tell you or else.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Organized simply means one that is well-formed and well-established. Christianity never started out organized, and as a whole it still isn't. Not all Christians are Roman Catholic, there are many who are Orthodox. I think the better way of putting that is to think of each organization as a company with its own head and descending authority. You find that everywhere, even in the modern "pagan" religions. Even those "pagan" religions have rites and rituals associated.

The only way one won't find a religion organized is if they are the only adherent, and if they recruit someone else, then it has to become organized.

I don't really agree with this, there can/could be systems of thought that are left to the individual interpreter, or that set someone on a path but with independence.

You could almost call a vision quest a type of independent religious experience. (?)

The tradition is old, the course is linear, but the interpretation is up to the individual observer/participant, who get what they get out of it.

I'm sure there are better or at minimum other examples out there of the same thing.

reply to post by WarminIndy


It's organised like crazy. Who really finds religion. It's by birth that it is bestowed onto most people. Their parents tell them what to believe, with threats of hell. No different than telling them that santa won't bring presents if they're naughty... except at some point the admit santa isn't real.

It has as much commercial value too.

It's ritualised.. that requires organisation. Go to church on sunday. Go to confession once a year (?). Celebrate easter, observe lent for 6 weeks.

I saw a lady on a train today reading her little book and every 3 or 4 minutes she would perform the sign of the cross.

If no one was around to teach these rituals, and there was no organised religion, people still might find 'god' but it would not be in this religion, or with these organised rituals that people engage in without even thinking. And it would come to them, not be thrust into them under fear of punishment by an invisible man who loves you unconditionally but not that much.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


"Organized" Religion is not being used to "control the masses", as your friend says. It is "Religion" its self that does so.

The word 'religion' originates from the Latin "religare", which means "to tie back, bind fast, tie up". Belief systems that literally define as "hold you down and control you"...

Personal experience, personal gnosis, personal kgnowing, and a personal relationship with God/Self/Existence is much more beneficial than being tied down or bonded by the agenda of others.

winofiend
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

It's by birth that it is bestowed onto most people. Their parents tell them what to believe

Except for conversions and people who go from atheist to religious and the opposite. Not everyone qualifies in your statement. And Christians are made, not born. That's a fundamental thing you need to understand. One might be baptized by a priest as a baby in the Catholic church, but in essence that just means they were had water sprinkled on them. A lot of Catholic children grow up to follow different religions.

It has as much commercial value too.

Even paganism is commercialized to a certain degree. Halloween is very much commercialized but began as Samhain.

It's ritualised.. that requires organisation.

Even the Church of Satan by Anton Levay and Temple of the New Dawn by Aleistair Crowley were full of rituals and organization. Even Wiccans have rituals. Handfasting is just one such ritual. And if I am not mistaken, many Wiccans do have candle lighting rituals.

Go to church on sunday. Go to confession once a year (?). Celebrate easter, observe lent for 6 weeks.

Seventh Day Adventists go to church on Saturdays. Sacred Namers celebrate Jewish holidays. And the Orthodox have different Saints Days. Come to think of it, some Catholics go to Saturday Mass as well.

I saw a lady on a train today reading her little book and every 3 or 4 minutes she would perform the sign of the cross.

Is it a terrible thing for her to express her religious viewpoint? She didn't force you to genuflex, did she? But she is Roman Catholic I presume. I am not Catholic and no Protestant does that. I once knew a guy who thought he would worship Horus, until we drove through a tornado on the interstate, he suddenly cried out for Yaweh.

If no one was around to teach these rituals, and there was no organised religion, people still might find 'god' but it would not be in this religion, or with these organised rituals that people engage in without even thinking. And it would come to them, not be thrust into them under fear of punishment by an invisible man who loves you unconditionally but not that much.

Or a god that has no interest in interaction whatsoever. Rituals are important and whether we realize or not, our mundane lives are surrounded by rituals. Are you afraid of serving God because you might be punished by Him?

And it's really unfair to single Christianity out for rituals and organization, because all religions are constructed that way. Perhaps it would be better if we were all Mayan and perhaps we could all be sacrificed on the pyramid to Quetzlcoatl?

Religion is ..what you "believe"...and have "faith in.In Greek(The New Testament being the main source of this Greek definition) they are the verb pisteuo and the noun pistis.Everything mankind does is based in belief of faith.Everyone is religious...it is inescapable ...but not fatal.

Organized religion is methodical and has doctrines yet still everyone has their own "religion". The greatest grand delusion is that religion is believing and having faith in the creator God...when in fact all religion is diametrically opposed to God.It is literally "your"religion" what you believe in and "the God" is you...."My God"

That is the great,great grand delusion ...no one is God ..though some believe they are or can obtain "Godhood" by religion.Many of the other "believers"(the many are called) will vehemently deny`this "My God' religion .Some (many) will say they are so and so(example.. Christians) and Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....More grand grand delusion.

There are those that have no belief in a God or organized religion(agnostic,atheist, etc) and again it is just another form of "belief" through faith in something that is always centered in themselves.It is inescapable..... mankind is born religious by nature.

The Good news is... everyone will be cured of it ...by no choice or work of their own(most hate that!!).The reality and fact is there is a creator God and God alone IS doing everything for and to us.Religion is not the cure for being sinful...being religious is sin...falling short of the mark of perfection(maturity)....another metaphor..."eating" the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

All religion will be destroyed by God(BY GOD!!!). Everyone is walking "their" path of life (metaphor for...religion!)Their path is part of the wide road(it is like a vascular system and is all connected).The wide road leads to the gate of destruction (the heart) where religion begins to be destroyed which is called salvation .It's a process not an event..no one is or ever will be "saved" past tense.Salvation is growing IN maturity and all growth is CAUSED by God.

When religion is destroyed you enter onto the narrow straight path that leads to the narrow gate that enters in the infinite green pasture field IN your midst...The Kingdom of God...which comes without observation and is neither here nor there but IN your midst)...the Knowing of God.

There is no faith in the Kingdom of God only knowing.That is not the end and everything is perfect afterwards.It is the beginning of the beginning.It is all Growing into the Kingdom of God.ALL will enter into the Kingdom of God in their "own" order which is ordained 100% by God.

Religion is a natural part of the process yet it is diametrically opposed to God (as that truth is diametrically opposed to the many are called logic). We first come to believe in God through faith.(yes ....everyone will believe in the "Creator God") the ultimate purpose is to Know God.

The good news is God is doing it all.Working his will (not ours) according to Gods purposes not ours.Mankind would be satisfied in the "safety" of their "religion",yet God will not let them.There is no choice but Gods....perfection.This is the crux that all religion rejects.That God is sovereign and mans mythical free will has no say so in anything.The myth of the free will of mankind is the greatest of all delusions that must and Will be overcome(the great destruction at the wide gate)

Mankind has NO idea whom they are dealing with in the Creator God.Mankind's deepest imagination cannot even perceive the slightest Truth about God...thank God we don't have to!!...Imagine...no religion.....

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I believe that when people say Organized, they are referring to the actual Structure of Religion in the modern day beliefs. Like going to church for example. Everyone sits there and listens to the "Organizer" tell them what is right and wrong, they interpret their version of the bible, the book of Mormon, whatever the case may be. This act is "Organized" by the Organization, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or whatever. These people go into a building where it is more like a dictatorship than a community. They don't share their personal Ideologies amongst each other, they listen to the ideals of one singular person. Unorganized religion would be where everyone has a go at what they believe and the ones who aren't speaking listen and interpret until it is their turn to share. That would be more of a communal religion...

intrptr
Organized religion is loss of individuality.

Learning about the spirit should be an individual thing between individuals and the spirit. Organizing that into groups or bases tends to pollute that direct connection (something we seem to have lost). It becomes more muddied or dispersed, people rely on the "church" for guidance instead of developing their own path. Over time the church should teach people to become less dependent upon the religious interpretation of the "direct" word and more reliant upon their own inner connection.

Instead the church doesn't really teach us anything new, like how to pray, be generous or love, they just require everyone to show up and let the church do the praying (let us pray) and the preaching (and God says), and the helping (filling the coffers).

The sign of a successful church should be a diminishing membership, not an increasing one.

Over to you...

edit on 24-9-2013 by intrptr because: oops

I couldn't have said it better myself. I will also add my opinion of why ritualistic organised religious gatherings are more detrimental than not. It is for the simple fact that it promotes an inward, rather than outward way of thinking. My personal spiritual path can be described as a continuously winding, branching road. My "bible" is still being written and consists of everything iv'e absorbed during my time on Earth. From birth until death. As a result, my Spirit is ever-evolving.

When an individual attaches a name to their spirituality (or religion), they leave that individual path. Focusing solely on the contents of someone elses "bible". And then inserting it as their own personal truth. Simply ridiculous.

Concluding that church-goers (in my opinion, of course) are the Life equivalent of the kid who would rather cheat off his/her classmates paper rather than study themselves. And unfortunately, the smarter kids sit on the other side of the classroom.

It's pretty straightforward

Definition - Organized Religion -

Noun 1. organized religion - an institution to express belief in a divine power

Definition of Organized Religion - According to the English Dictionary

noun (religion) institutionalized religion, usually with a hierarchical clergy and rules to govern the means by which adherents participate

Examples of organized religions ... Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Amish, Judaism, Islam, etc I'm thinking coven wiccans might be but stand alone wiccans aren't. (not sure of that).

A personal belief system devoid of institution is not an organized religion.
Many new agers are devoid of institution. They are outside of organized religion.

I think it is a way to categorize people by their belief system. Since belief is not apparent immediately when you look at someone (unless it's clergy or muslim wearing clothing denoting said belief), organized religion provides venues to people with similar thoughts. Belief is a thought. Thiests can attempt to demand or legislate non-believers to "respect their beliefs". I don't respect anyone's beliefs. That is, I don't respect a thought. I respect you as a person, but don't care one iota about your beliefs.

You can take yourself to an official religious building and share your beliefs. There appears to be great respect there. Out in society, I don't want to have to acknowledge your religious beliefs in my daily activities.

Wear a robe, stand on a pulpit in a church, tell a flock of followers while holding an ancient tome that you heard gods' words in your head, maybe even receive nods of approval. Outside the walls of organized religion this scenario gets you into jail or an asylum.

reply to post by WarminIndy

She didn't force you to genuflex, did she? But she is Roman Catholic I presume. I am not Catholic and no Protestant does that.

Wrong. Totally wrong. I was raised in the Episcopal Church (an offshoot of the Original Church of England - definitely considered "Protestant") - it has been conjectured that Henry VIII (the founder) wanted things to be quite similar to the RCC, just without the Pope running things and the strict laws against Divorce and Sexual restraints and without the Corruption (money-grubbing). He did NOT like Luther's and Calvin's styles of "Protestantism" - couldn't stand the Anabaptists, and was quite dismayed that his people were turning from what he believed -- he was also fearful for his own soul, and sought God's grace (in the forms of sending him a son, or winning battles)

I was baptized as a baby, went through confirmation as a middle-schooler, and then became able to "take communion". We ALWAYS genuflected WHEN ENTERING OR LEAVING A PEW. We USED the sign of the cross multiple times during services (and were taught how to do it properly, and what it meant). When you say "she didn't force you to genuflex, did she"? it shows that YOU do not understand what genuflection is, and when and WHERE it is appropriate (NOT on a train to a woman reading a Bible).

There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what "Protestants" are and what "Christians" are.

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

She didn't force you to genuflex, did she? But she is Roman Catholic I presume. I am not Catholic and no Protestant does that.

Wrong. Totally wrong. I was raised in the Episcopal Church (an offshoot of the Original Church of England - definitely considered "Protestant") - it has been conjectured that Henry VIII (the founder) wanted things to be quite similar to the RCC, just without the Pope running things and the strict laws against Divorce and Sexual restraints and without the Corruption (money-grubbing). He did NOT like Luther's and Calvin's styles of "Protestantism" - couldn't stand the Anabaptists, and was quite dismayed that his people were turning from what he believed -- he was also fearful for his own soul, and sought God's grace (in the forms of sending him a son, or winning battles)

I was baptized as a baby, went through confirmation as a middle-schooler, and then became able to "take communion". We ALWAYS genuflected WHEN ENTERING OR LEAVING A PEW. We USED the sign of the cross multiple times during services (and were taught how to do it properly, and what it meant). When you say "she didn't force you to genuflex, did she"? it shows that YOU do not understand what genuflection is, and when and WHERE it is appropriate (NOT on a train to a woman reading a Bible).

There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what "Protestants" are and what "Christians" are.

edit on 9/25/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Well, I have never seen an Episcopalian do that. In fact, I have only been in an Episcopal church one time. If you say they genuflect, then that's what they do. But the sign of the Cross, people do that all time. People pass graveyards and do it, people hear bad news and do it, some even do it when they think someone is casting a spell on them with the evil eye.

I do sincerely apologize for my lack of understanding Episcopalians. But I think as an Episcopalian, you were really insensitive to her expression. She didn't do anything to you, so why get all up in arms over her signing the Cross while she was reading?

Who says it is not appropriate for her to sign on a train? She didn't bow the knee, which is genuflection, isn't it? I mean she just sat there reading and signing the Cross. What's the big deal?

I know what genuflection is. I was saying she didn't force you to genuflect, she didn't force you bend your knee in the wrong place and the wrong time. She simply gave the sign of the Cross as she read. So?

reply to post by WarminIndy

But I think as an Episcopalian, you were really insensitive to her expression. She didn't do anything to you, so why get all up in arms over her signing the Cross while she was reading?

Indy,
I was not the one who saw the lady on the train. That was winofiend. (And he certainly wasn't "all up in arms" over it. Kindly refrain from exaggerating and projecting onto other members. )

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if a lady is reading the Bible and crossing herself - I would simply feel sorry for her that she was missing the view, and so immersed in her reading that she wasn't really tuned in to "life in the moment."