On what basis can someone declare themselves to be an adherent of a particular religion?

[arthra]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?
On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?
This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

The essential requirement to become a Baha'i is to accept Baha'u'llah as the Lord of this age... there's an expectation that the believer applies for membership in the local community and usually there's a consultation that takes place where the applicant can inquire about what it means to be a Baha'i...such as our laws and so forth. Usually there are also study classes available for a new believer.

There's a step by step process given online as follows:

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Baha'i

 

[LuisDantas]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

Roughly speaking, there seem to be two conflicting (opposed even) main takes on the matter.

The first view is that religion is supposed to be an unifying tradition and a main trait of families and wider communities. By this take, it is inherited and adherence is assumed unless specifically rebelled against, be it by neglect, heresy/splitting out, open abandonment or conversion to some other Faith. While popular, it has the serious drawback of demanding people to accept labels until and unless they object to them. It sacrifices meaningfulness to benefit demographic spread and, granted, social bonding.

The second view is that adherence to a religion is supposed to be conscious, voluntary and personally meaningful.

While the first is far more widespread, I think it melds cultural and religious matters far too much to be meaningful. So does the second, to a degree.

My personal criterium is that while people can and should learn about various religions, meaningful adherence can only be attained by, for practical purposes, becoming one's own priest and religious authority and deciding matters of doctrine on a personal level. It is for the practicioner to give credence to the religion, not the other way around.

My view runs against the grain of the traditional role of religion as a core element of social identity, but all the same I find it overall more meaningful and more productive than the alternatives.

 

[Tumah]

I think if you conform to the doctrines and requirements of a given faith, you can call yourself an adherent of that faith. If you don't, you should choose another name that expresses your choice of religion.

 

[Laika]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

It may not appropriate unless you define religion extremely losely as ideology, but I am effectively a Communist because I accept the philosophical system or worldview its built on (dialectical materialism) even if I may not agree with all the politics. In terms of identity, I feel I "belong" to that belief group based on shared history, attitudes, values etc.

It also has some very pronounced personality and emotional patterns that come with it as part of self-improvement and reinventing oneself so I can "think" and "feel" in a similar way to marxists that I'm reading and you get an intuition of what they mean. You can often tell who is a member of the "faith" based on these habits and patterns. A "non-believer" is identifiable based on either lacking or the immature development of these sort of triats. It has very practical consequences on how you behave and so you can spot it.

The oddity is that I can use the same ideas and then apply it to something new, only to find out there was an eqivilent used in an earlier time by other Marxists when I research it. So there is a sort of "mirroring" effect which makes you feel as if I belong as well.

That said, I'm not a "true believer" and any hard line Communist could tell pretty quickly. The way you think, feel, behave are all interconnected so you just "feel" it as much as you think it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think if you conform to the doctrines and requirements of a given faith, you can call yourself an adherent of that faith. If you don't, you should choose another name that expresses your choice of religion.

How do you feel about "nonpracticing" or "cultural" adherence to a faith? It is very common in Catholicism.

 

[Tumah]

How do you feel about "nonpracticing" or "cultural" adherence to a faith? It is very common in Catholicism.

I don't think that such a person should call themselves by the name of that faith or at least they should add "cultural" to to differentiate it from the normative.
I mean look, a name is mean to be descriptive. Catholicism already has a meaning. Why confuse people by calling yourself a Catholic when you don't adhere to anything Catholic? How is that Catholicism?

Imagine if I called myself a socialist that believes in private ownership and advocate capital accumulation in a free market. So what makes me a socialist? Well I grew up on a kibbutz and a few times a year I spend some time there visiting them and I really like the atmosphere.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that such a person should call themselves by the name of that faith or at least they should add "cultural" to to differentiate it from the normative.

I agree.

I mean look, a name is mean to be descriptive. Catholicism already has a meaning. Why confuse people by calling yourself a Catholic when you don't adhere to anything Catholic? How is that Catholicism?

Reasonable enough questions. To the best of my understanding, most of the time the intention is to intentionally obfuscate, presumably in order to avoid painful arguments with family and friends.

I am not saying that it is a good thing, mind you. Far from it. It just turns out that sometimes the available alternatives are worse.

Imagine if I called myself a socialist that believes in private ownership and advocate capital accumulation in a free market. So what makes me a socialist? Well I grew up on a kibbutz and a few times a year I spend some time there visiting them and I really like the atmosphere.

That may be a more realistic example than you meant it to be...

 

[crossfire]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

For Buddhism, it is the Four Dharma Seals. (The Three Marks of Existence + the teachings on Nibbana/Nirvana.) If you don't hold to the Four Seals, you are not following Buddha's Dharma.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/fourseals.htm

 

[Akivah]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

A person can label themselves however they wish. However, your society at large will determine if they agree with you based on your words and actions.

For example, a person can claim to be any religion. But if your actions or deeds in real life contradict with the norms of belief, then your fellow congregants may bar you from their place of worship. Alternatively, a person can claim to be a certain religion online. But if their posts contradict the norms of belief, then other posters of that certain religion may publicly disagree with your online self-identification.

 

[Mindmaster]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

This could be about any religion, or indeed the question of adherence/belonging/identification with any other group.

I'd venture to say that you could be an adherent of any sort of religion without approval from anyone else. There is one main caveat, however, in that most religions have differing points of view and remain incompatible. You can borrow from anything, imho, but you are not following Islam if you are syncretizing it with something else since it explicitly forbids this sort of thing and any sort of pagan or non-Quaran sourced views. Judaism and Christianity have various prohibitions against graven images, speaking with spirits, and other occult type things. You can't be ceremonial magician and a Christian in the truest sense, because you are contradicting the Bible by dabbling in the occult. So while people have various opinions of these things, realize that when you mix certain things together you are violating the basic tenets of the religion. You're doing more of a self-made pick-a-mix than following any faith. If I were a follower of said religions, I would probably find issue with you calling what you do by the name of my faith -- not that I have one.

If none of this bothers you then proceed, but don't expect to find members of that faith to embrace your unique interpretation of their beliefs. Do what you do, but don't pass yourself off as a member of that group. I think that is just a part of being respectful.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I think if you conform to the doctrines and requirements of a given faith, you can call yourself an adherent of that faith. If you don't, you should choose another name that expresses your choice of religion.

That is surely the point. For some-one to say they're a Jew, Christian, or Muslim if they cannot accept the basic profession of faith is just being silly. Another poster compared it to stating your favourite colour, but it's more like saying you accept evolution. Either you believe humans have evolved or you don't. Similarly, either you believe Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead or you don't.

This even applies to religions that lack dogma. To say you're a Pagan implies that you believe in gods and are not an atheist.

Of course, there are always people here who believe they are entitled to call themselves whatever they like. Similarly, there are people who believe they're Napoleon...

 

[Kirran]

That is surely the point. For some-one to say they're a Jew, Christian, or Muslim if they cannot accept the basic profession of faith is just being silly. Another poster compared it to stating your favourite colour, but it's more like saying you accept evolution. Either you believe humans have evolved or you don't. Similarly, either you believe Jesus is the Son of God and rose from the dead or you don't.

This even applies to religions that lack dogma. To say you're a Pagan implies that you believe in gods and are not an atheist.

No it doesn't. There are atheist and monotheist Pagans.

More broadly, this understanding of truth claims and professions of faith as central to what defined your religious adherence is an Abrahamic phenomenon generally speaking. Tradition and practice are more important for many religious groups.

 

[sovietchild]

The Prophet Muhammad said, “He will not enter Hellfire who has the weight of a seed of faith in his heart, and he will not enter Paradise who has the weight of a seed of arrogance in his heart.”

 

[Tumah]

No it doesn't. There are atheist and monotheist Pagans.

More broadly, this understanding of truth claims and professions of faith as central to what defined your religious adherence is an Abrahamic phenomenon generally speaking. Tradition and practice are more important for many religious groups.

You're not saying something different, you're just shifting the concept to a different area. What if you have a guy who does puja had his keshanta, practices vratas, etc. and calls himself a Zoroastrian? Its just not right, innit?

For some religions, its specific requirements of faith, for others its specific ritual requirements and for a third it could be some combination of the two. But the point is that all these faiths already have defined characteristics to one extent or another, even if for some those definitions are more loose than for others.

 

[Tumah]

The Prophet Muhammad said, “He will not enter Hellfire who has the weight of a seed of faith in his heart, and he will not enter Paradise who has the weight of a seed of arrogance in his heart.”

You may want to look into this.

 

[sovietchild]

You may want to look into this.

Can you explain to me in simpler terms for me to understand you?

 

[Kirran]

You're not saying something different, you're just shifting the concept to a different area. What if you have a guy who does puja had his keshanta, practices vratas, etc. and calls himself a Zoroastrian? Its just not right, innit?

For some religions, its specific requirements of faith, for others its specific ritual requirements and for a third it could be some combination of the two. But the point is that all these faiths already have defined characteristics to one extent or another, even if for some those definitions are more loose than for others.

Hmm, fair enough. So maybe some religions can be said to be defined by their truth claims and others not.

As for that Zoroastrian - yeah, why not? I know Christians who do puja regularly.

 

[Tumah]

Hmm, fair enough. So maybe some religions can be said to be defined by their truth claims and others not.

As for that Zoroastrian - yeah, why not? I know Christians who do puja regularly.

The question is not if you know people doing it, but if it is logical to describe oneself as Christian while engaging in Hindu practice or whatever the case may be.
Just because people do it, doesn't make it good.

 

[Mindmaster]

The question is not if you know people doing it, but if it is logical to describe oneself as Christian while engaging in Hindu practice or whatever the case may be.
Just because people do it, doesn't make it good.

I think it's just dishonest really. If you are not following the beliefs of the faith in total you're not really living that path, but one of your own construction.

 

[RedDragon94]

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

I think the religion one pursues dictates what counts and what doesn't. If a person lives up to the tenets of that religion then that makes them that.

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

Is it any of said person's business?