Claiming to be a follower of a Faith

[michel]

Is it possible to claim to be 'of a religion' without adhering to it's dictates 100% ?
This is particularly aimed at Roman Catholics, followers of Islam, Orthodox Christians, and those who follow Judaism.

What I am asking is that -if there is a single inconsistency- does that invalidate your entire belief?

 

[James the Persian]

Is it possible to claim to be 'of a religion' without adhering to it's dictates 100% ?
This is particularly aimed at Roman Catholics, followers of Islam, Orthodox Christians, and those who follow Judaism.

What I am asking is that -if there is a single inconsistency- does that invalidate your entire belief?

What sort of an inconsistency? If it's something big and dogmatised, such as holding some contrary view re. the Trinity, for instance, then it would certainly prevent you being Orthodox. However, if it is a differing view on an undogmatised and less important area of theology (what we call a theologoumenon), then so long as it does not actually contradict the faith, it's OK. An example of the former would be someone claiming to be Orthodox whilst simultaneously holding to the view that the filioque, as understood as the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from Father and Son as of one principle, is correct. Such a person would be at best a rebellious eastern rite RC. An example of the latter might be St. John Chrysostom's belief that the Theotokos sinned. That really isn't an issue.

James

 

[michel]

What sort of an inconsistency? If it's something big and dogmatised, such as holding some contrary view re. the Trinity, for instance, then it would certainly prevent you being Orthodox. However, if it is a differing view on an undogmatised and less important area of theology (what we call a theologoumenon), then so long as it does not actually contradict the faith, it's OK. An example of the former would be someone claiming to be Orthodox whilst simultaneously holding to the view that the filioque, as understood as the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from Father and Son as of one principle, is correct. Such a person would be at best a rebellious eastern rite RC. An example of the latter might be St. John Chrysostom's belief that the Theotokos sinned. That really isn't an issue.

James

O.K, two examples (off the top of my head), 1) belief in the acceptance of women clergy, 2) acceptance of homosexual unions.

 

[James the Persian]

O.K, two examples (off the top of my head), 1) belief in the acceptance of women clergy, 2) acceptance of homosexual unions.

Both of those would be in contradiction to Holy Tradition and hence it would not be possible to hold to them (especially the latter) and remain Orthodox. The former is a little less clear cut as we have had deaconesses in the past (though they had quite a different role to deacons) and there have been some within the Church who have voiced the idea that we should revisit the issue. Personally I don't agree with them, but it's perfectly OK to suggest that we should discuss the issue. What would not be OK would be to unilaterally decide that the Church is wrong in holding to our current beliefs without a synod first ruling on it.

James

 

[michel]

Both of those would be in contradiction to Holy Tradition and hence it would not be possible to hold to them (especially the latter) and remain Orthodox. The former is a little less clear cut as we have had deaconesses in the past (though they had quite a different role to deacons) and there have been some within the Church who have voiced the idea that we should revisit the issue. Personally I don't agree with them, but it's perfectly OK to suggest that we should discuss the issue. What would not be OK would be to unilaterally decide that the Church is wrong in holding to our current beliefs without a synod first ruling on it.

James

Thank you, that makes sense; I am trying to understand a dear friend's position.

 

[Melody]

Is it possible to claim to be 'of a religion' without adhering to it's dictates 100% ?

I think so....that's why I do not claim affiliation with a religion. I haven't found one yet that I believe follows Scripture. They like to add in all these little extras.

 

[James the Persian]

Thank you, that makes sense; I am trying to understand a dear friend's position.

What, if you don't mind my asking, would that position be, and what faith (if any) does your friend follow? It might be easier to discuss this with a little more information to hand, though I will understand if you feel that going into the details will betray your friend's confidence.

James

 

[BucephalusBB]

Maybe a strange comparison, but you can be follower of a footballclub but not agree with a discision of the trainer..

 

[Mystic-als]

You can have fundimentally the same beliefs as a religion but not comply to all the little things. It must be said though that lots of things in todays religions are put there by people.

 

[Melody]

Maybe a strange comparison, but you can be follower of a footballclub but not agree with a discision of the trainer..

They are not the same thing at all, nor with the same consequences, so I don't see the comparison.

 

[BucephalusBB]

They are not the same thing at all, nor with the same consequences, so I don't see the comparison.

Well, in my eyes they are both "clubs" and do have the same consequenses: none.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Is it possible to claim to be 'of a religion' without adhering to it's dictates 100%?
What I am asking is that -if there is a single inconsistency- does that invalidate your entire belief?

Hi!

What you describe covers, tragically, 99.9999999 percent of people!

But I hope we're all working to improve on this!

And no, a single flaw doesn't invalidate everything else, but we all still have the responsibility to grow spritually and develop as many virtues as we can over the time we have. . . .

Properly viewed and practiced, IMHO progress of all sorts, including religious progress, tends to be evolutionary. . . .

Best,

Bruce

 

[Buttercup]

Is it possible to claim to be 'of a religion' without adhering to it's dictates 100% ?
This is particularly aimed at Roman Catholics, followers of Islam, Orthodox Christians, and those who follow Judaism.

What I am asking is that -if there is a single inconsistency- does that invalidate your entire belief?

I've been a Christian for more than 25 years yet in the last several months have been seriously questioning the notion of Hell that I've been taught all along. I can still believe in the Divinity of Christ and call myself a Christian while questioning some of the teachings I believe.

I don't see how a person can be a thinking, breathing, intelligent human and not question some of their particular church's doctrine at some point.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Augustine: "In essentails, unity; in nonessentails, liberty; In everything, charity"

I believe it comes down to what a religion considers essentials verses non essentails. Paul dealt with this issue in 1 Cor. ch.8-9. Most Christian denominations have decided to separate themselves over what at least I consider to be nonessential issues while what some believe to be pseudo-christian groups to have separated themeselves over what are considered essential issues. I don't see an inherent problem with questioning essential christian doctrines as long as it is done with consideration of one's faith and objectively.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[jewscout]

hell many people claim to be jewish and don't practice 100% of the mitzvot of the faith! of course...often times they are jewish by birth so that sort of makes things a bit complicated...