Explain your Religion

It depends on your definition of religion. In my view, there are at least three or four kinds of definition for religion. At times, I use each one and in such times that can make me look like I am either for or against religion. 

There is the typical definition of religion. Something to do with the belief in a supernatural being, god or principle.  This definition is the classic Western view of religion.  At times I hold to this view. It is also the legal definition in Australia. It is appropriate at times to do so.  Hence the idea of separation of church and state.

There is another quite general definition of religion. It is that worldview is identical to religion. This is more of a classic non-Western position. It holds the view that religion is inescapable.  Everything is religion.  Hence the idea that church and state cannot be separated on one level. I think I prefer this definition most of the time. Under this second definition - secularism, and atheism are considered religious - because religion is inescapable. 

There is a third definition of religion. It is the idea that humanity is seeking to appease God or the gods and hence, requires humanity to live good lives, do good works, make sacrifices, etc.  Opposed to this idea of religion is the view that man can't please God. The Reformation view of Christianity holds to this latter oppositional point of view. It would suggest that man can't please God and therefore that religion is evil and bad (taking into consideration of course James 1:27 of course).  Hence the Reformation View of Christianity says - since religion is evil per se, God must take the initiative and save humanity, out of his mercy and grace.  When I use this definition - which I do from time to time, then I say "I am not religious". I even call religion evil and that it should be abolished.  Ironically, under this third definition, I would consider classic Reformation and Protestant Christians as NON-RELIGIOUS. 

There are other definitions too but that is enough. Hence, I would be religious under the first and second definitions but anti-religious under the third definition.   

I have explained my reasoning above.  In relation to a religion being the best and most probable, I think this is a flawed question. How do we determine or measure what is best? Is it because I hold to already? Is it because I have considered other religions and therefore dismissed them. And what makes something probable or more probable?  I think Buddhism is foolish, but it is more than probably a religion. It is a religion. The same applies to every religion under the first definition. It applies to every religion under the second definition.  I hold to the view that Christianity is the only religion which will see members - and not even all of them - go to heaven. Does that make it the best? I also think that Reformation Protestant Christianity is the most accurate compared to the Scriptures.  Scriptures defined as the Bible, 66 books.  But in my view, all of the Christian denominations so far as they hold to the Trinity and that Jesus is divine are correct.  Hence, the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Church of Christ, many of the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, the Brethren etc are part of the christian religion.  On the other hand, some so-called Christian movements are not part of it, the cults, like JW, the SDAs, the LDS, the Jesus people, many Charismatic groups, many Baptist groups, like the Westboro heretics. 

My view is that NOT all roads lead to God or to heaven.  There is only one name by which we can be saved. But salvation is not the only hallmark of a religion nor is it the only hallmark of what makes it better than another.  

Okay.