against religion.

Matthew 15
8 'This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from Me. 9 But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of Men.' 10 And after He called the multitude to Him, He said to them, 'Hear, and understand. 11 Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.' 12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" 13 But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up." 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Lips = external service to the superficial. Lips send words out of the body for the benefit of appearances to others.

Heart = the deeply rooted inner center of a person's soul, consciousness, being.

There are countless examples in which man, utilizing his own creativity and industry, has created for himself such clever institutions and devices which produce effects not previously accounted for in his plan. Weapons, which man initially created to attack with, were used by others to attack and eventually kill him. Governments, which were conceived so as to provide liberty, freedom and justice for all within their borders, but eventually came to rule over their citizens with a rod of iron. And religion, the great hopes of men to appease their gods, gain their favour and create a formulaic systematic approach to attaining eternal salvation, ultimately led believers not to the object of their belief, but to belief in the exclusive method of their belief itself.

Constant reinterpretations of religious belief have done little to change the problem, instead they continually mask the fallacies of religion in a new facade. They are but a new sheep-skin to clothe the same old wolf within. Words like revolution and relevancy flood the religious advertising market, perpetually selling the same product under a different name and label.
Of course there are elements of truth buried within the elaborate institutions of religious belief systems, but if one is able to separate those truths from the religion, it is safe to say that truth is not owned by a particular group of exclusive believers.

'Do not kill' is one of the ten commandments initially given to the Israelites via Moses via God, yet a great many people not associated with any religious system would agree that killing is wrong. We do not consider 'do not kill' a distinctly jewish truth, it is universal. And likewise, if morality can be found independently of religion, it may be said that morality does not belong to religion.

Since God and religion are not inextricably intertwined, it is safe to say that belief in the former does not demand belief nor participation in the latter. If one knows the source and subsequently cuts away the middle-man, one is still able to interact directly with the source without the added formality of dealing with the demands of the middle-man. If I owe a man a debt, i do not need to pay someone else in order for that person to then deliver the money I owe to the man it is owed. Yet, with increasing regularity, the lives of the religious not only reflect the lives of the irreligious, but they seem to outdo the irreligious in their own irreligiousity. That is to say, in the affairs of romantic love, sexual promiscuity and marriage, the striking statistic is not how much better the lives of the religious are, but how much worse they are by comparison. It is now postulated that over half of all religious marriages end in divorce.

Given the failure to lead believers towards ethical lifestyles, religion seems more like the political ideal of communism, in that it works perfectly in theory and is ultimately desirable as the best society, yet it is inevitably malpracticed. Ironically, in the communist system, religion is often one of those institutes that is black-listed and done away with. Though some may claim this to be communism's premier inherent flaw, societies that endorse religion also fail. The reason for this, it seems, is that idealism is perfectly suited to the ideal, yet its shortcomings all too exposed in the practical. Religion, not being a practical institution, also fails in its human execution of the ideals it promotes. It is the case of one talking a great deal of great talk that is ultimately impossible to act out in great action, and what is it that seems to make up for pragmatic inadequacy? More great speeches about the potential religion possesses.

It seems rather clear to me that the worst starting point for any institution are claims to have arrived at its destination prematurely. That is to say, in theory, religion has been developed to the best extent that is exhibits the ultimate in morality and faith. Yet the very notion that we are constantly becoming seems to nullify this ideal of arrival. Is the ultimate pursuit of religion that transforming of one into the best sort of person, or that rendering of worship and service one should present unto God? If the former then religion has very little to do with the God it proclaims to believe in and more to do with the people that form its various denominations. If the latter, one is perfectly able to carry out these tasks without a religious systematic ideology altogether. For how is it claimed that man should live? In justice, goodness and modesty. These are not ideals possessed by singular religious institutions, they are universal. And how does one live out these ethical ideals? By not over idealizing them and therefore rendering them impossible in the pragmatic sense.

To serve is an action, it requires no great speeches or sermons, it is merely a question of either doing or not doing. Is love between Christians to be considered the only true love? Surely not. Doctrines and creeds are not prerequisites for love. Compassion. Genuine kindness. Selflessness. The Christian 'fruits of the spirit' are not only exhibited by Christians, for there exist countless tales of exploits carried out, in action, by those outside of religious association. Are these acts less moral given their irreligious agents? If yes, then the ethical is not universal and is relative to one's convictions alone. Surely religious association is not a prerequisite for exhibiting moral behaviour.

What if the greatest event in history was turned into the cause for the very thing it was meant to fight against? What if the great Hero of that event was now championed as leader of the very movement he rivaled? The countless attacks on the religious leaders and establishment of His day make it all too clear that Jesus was working to subvert religion, and not merely revolt with the hopes of starting a new religion. What if later writers had used this great Hero in order to begin their own institution in the pursuit of, what may have originally been, an ethical lifestyle? The irony of Christianity lies in the truth that while, originally, it was thought that Christ came to overthrow the Roman empire, Christianity and the Roman empire eventually merged into the infamous Holy Roman empire. I need not go into great length in establishing the truth that the Holy Roman empire was not holy at all, but in fact, a gross historical reminder of the dangerous potential for evil that exists within man-made religious systems. Given the nature of institutions and their idealism mixed with the inevitable corruptibility of man, it is not the institutions which change man, but man which distorts whatever ideals those institutions originally implied. As result of this historical pattern, it seems that the institutions exist as arbitrary illusions of progression. True change comes as the result of action alone.

The ethical, however, is such that it is impossible once transgressed against. That is to say, an offense against an infinite being is an infinite offense. Once I have crossed the line, there is no return. I may not live a perfect moral life, and therefore the ethical points to the need for salvation. Yet, how does salvation come? In order to make amends for the wrong committed, there must be a substitute.

It has somehow been engrained in our consciousness, and we have subsequently been conditioned by it, that God and religion are one. As a result of this deception, a misreading of my intentions here will be inevitable. I am not out to kill God or to argue against him, that is not the purpose or nearly at all the scope of this essay, instead I am interested here only in testing the hypothesis that religion is unnecessary in belief, because it is not the cause of nor object of a belief in God.

It is all too easy to become dependent upon the religious system, and those that find themselves within the dogmatic trenches of the so-called spiritual warfare find it very difficult to question the nature of their fight, especially those who are the enemy and those who are allies. I am speaking, of course, of the countless expressions of religious fundamentalism which have led to, and caused, some of the worst events in human history. From the inquisition to the crusades to the modern-day bombings of abortion clinics and terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The religious system is such that it is vague enough for members to be dependent upon guidance from a 'pastor' or 'spiritual leader' and also direct enough to be absolute. One is either a part of the religion or one is on the outside, often looked down upon with pity or, in some cases, outright hatred.

How does one separate their belief in God from the confines of a religious system? I do not pretend to be an expert in world religions and therefore must limit my answers to their applications to the Christian religious system. Christianity is so cleverly named that it seems impossible to separate it from the faith one may have in Christ, since it implies 'follower' or 'disciple' of Christ. Yet, there are many dogmatic traditions within the religious institution of Christianity which seem founded not on the teachings and life of Christ, but more on the life and teachings of the propagandist Paul and other early church heroes. A careful study of the Christian sacred texts, namely the new testament, seem to present a dualism between the loving, accepting Christ and the dogmatic orator Paul. The ironic truth about Paul is that he was first a part of the old religious system which Jesus criticized and then immediately following his conversion began an entirely new religious system, set up and churches and oversaw their development, keeping a careful eye on them so as to make sure they understood his teachings and did not stray from them.

The Roman Catholic church has always been quick to point out a particular verse in the book written by the author Matthew. In the sixteenth chapter, verse 18, Jesus states: "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." This verse has, for years, been constantly used to affirm the authority of the religious institution and the dogmatic traditions of fundamentalist Christians & Catholics. Both, however, seem mistaken in their rendering of the text. The new testament was written in greek, not latin, and the word most often translated as 'church' in the greek is 'ekklesia.' This unique word has a number of possible definitions, among them the words 'assembly' or 'group' could be accurate translations. In fact, the greek word for church is actually a part of the origin of the english word, in greek it is 'kyrianos.' This greek word is translated directly as meaning 'church.' So why didn't Matthew use 'kyrianos' in the text of Jesus' speech? Perhaps Jesus did not intend to build a church based solely on the foundation of Peter the disciple. Perhaps Jesus' intention was for believers, independently believing Christ to be who He claimed to be, to live together in assembly, in groups and together, ask tough questions about life. To seek out the truth in every situation. To knock in search of finding God in their lives. Not another religious system.