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

[The_Fisher_King]

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...

This all seems reasonable. Who gets to say what is the basic profession of faith for any given religion?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.”

Two nice quotes. If we take the first quote, what exactly counts as a seed (or atom - I have heard and seen the relevant Arabic word translated as 'atom or something smaller than this') of faith, or a seed (atom, etc.) of arrogance?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

But who defines what constitutes that religion?

 

[sovietchild]

Two nice quotes. If we take the first quote, what exactly counts as a seed (or atom - I have heard and seen the relevant Arabic word translated as 'atom or something smaller than this') of faith, or a seed (atom, etc.) of arrogance?

Yes there is a lot of different versions like this one for example.

"He who has in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of pride shall not enter Paradise."

 

[Kirran]

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.

Like, having encountered it personally I see no issue with it at all. I don't see why people should be pushed in X box - if you believe all religions can take you to the same place, and that they fuzz together and overlap, what you call yourself isn't so important. So just roll with what you were raised as.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So if I get together with a big enough group of others who share similar views to me, big enough to mount a challenge to the current dominant/orthodox view, that is what is required for me to be able to claim that I am an adherent of a particular religion (even if those who adhere to the current dominant/orthodox view will say, no, you are not an adherent of religion R, because y'all don't believe x, y, z )?

I guess. It reminds me of the Haley's Bop incident. If fifty jump off a cliff, ten would probably inch, and five may actually job. That is, if they actually believed god was at the bottom.

I don't know how to describe that "need to follow" need. I felt it in Catholicism and it's pretty strong. Though, I wouldn't give up my life for it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say because Jew is derived from Judaism, which is a religion.

... and the word "Judaism" is derived from "Judah", as in "the tribe of Judah"... which seems to me to be more about ancestry than belief.

Other than that I don't see a strong reason why it can't be the other way. So long as the identification is true and clear.

And you have the power to identify yourself clearly by your own word choice... so problem solved?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It's as simple as this: you want to join a group you have to play by their rules. It's up for the group to decide, however they want to do that. There's no set rules for how a religion organizes itself, and anyone can say or do whatever they please, but to pass for a member of any group you have to conform to their norms enough that they, and others around the group, accept you as one of them, or else you just look awfully silly and a little fake. That's just the social reality of it.

I can agree with that. But disagreements happen all the time, groups splinter off, schisms occur. Initially, one individual or small group of individuals might well be considered heretics, no longer members of that group, but over time, that might change (or it might not). Is it then ultimately a numbers game? Or a question of time 'healing wounds', letting ideas (and people) mature, etc.?

 

[Kirran]

I know religious Jews - the religion just happens to be other than Judaism!

The leaders of the faith, the majority of the people following the faith, or general consensus.

Man, we have none of those working in Hinduism!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The leaders of the faith, the majority of the people following the faith, or general consensus.

So if a minority, say, take a different view, they have left the faith? They just do not have the right to call themselves adherents of that faith (until they become the majority!)?

 

[Tumah]

Like, having encountered it personally I see no issue with it at all. I don't see why people should be pushed in X box - if you believe all religions can take you to the same place, and that they fuzz together and overlap, what you call yourself isn't so important. So just roll with what you were raised as.

So like, you can take the A46, M1 and M69 to get to Leicester. So if someone asks you for directions from Northhampton, just tell him to take the A46. If all these roads go to Leicester, what difference does it make which one you tell him to take?

 

[Tumah]

So if a minority, say, take a different view, they have left the faith? They just do not have the right to call themselves adherents of that faith (until they become the majority!)?

That's exactly what we see them do. Exhibit A, B and C: Mormons, JW's, and Quakers. Take a new name and start your own line.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

"Ethnic Jews". "Ethnic Druze". "Ethnic Sikhs".

That would be one way of distinguishing, I guess. So if I, as an 'ethnic Jew', who just cannot accept whatever are considered by the community leaders/majority/general consensus to be absolute fundamentals of the faith (I might be atheist, secular, liberal, progressive, or hold heretical opinions on certain things), you would greatly disapprove if I called myself simply 'a Jew'? That would just not be on?

 

[Tumah]

... and the word "Judaism" is derived from "Judah", as in "the tribe of Judah"... which seems to me to be more about ancestry than belief.

Actually that's regional to the area called Judea. But the ism of Judaism no longer indicates one's being in the state of Judea.

And you have the power to identify yourself clearly by your own word choice... so problem solved?

One of them, sure.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes there is a lot of different versions like this one for example.

"He who has in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of pride shall not enter Paradise."

Right. So what exactly counts as the weight of a mustard seed of pride in the above example? Who gets to decide?

 

[Tumah]

That would be one way of distinguishing, I guess. So if I, as an 'ethnic Jew', who just cannot accept whatever are considered by the community leaders/majority/general consensus to be absolute fundamentals of the faith (I might be atheist, secular, liberal, progressive, or hold heretical opinions on certain things), you would greatly disapprove if I called myself simply 'a Jew'? That would just not be on?

It would be misleading at worst or vague as to be as useful as calling yourself human at best.

 

[Tumah]

I know religious Jews - the religion just happens to be other than Judaism!



Man, we have none of those working in Hinduism!

But you do have sub-categories, such as Vedic and non-Vedic groups with which to distinguish one another.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

That's exactly what we see them do. Exhibit A, B and C: Mormons, JW's, and Quakers. Take a new name and start your own line.

But plenty people might still consider them all to be Christians (and plenty not, of course!). Maybe not to begin with. Is it just a question of having enough people behind you, and time?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It would be misleading at worst or vague as to be as useful as calling yourself human at best.

Okay, so let me dig a bit further with this particular example, if I may. Can I, as a Reform Jew, call myself simply a Jew?

 

[Tumah]

But plenty people might still consider them all to be Christians (and plenty not, of course!). Maybe not to begin with. Is it just a question of having enough people behind you, and time?

I think its a question of how are people going to understand you when you identify yourself. That is the purpose of a label.

You can say, "I'm a follower of Jesus who believes the church got everything messed up and almost two thousand years later a man named Joseph Smith had an angel named Maroni reveal to him a set of gold plates that rectified the teachings of the church, etc. etc.."

Or you can call yourself a Mormon.

I think either one works.