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

[Tumah]

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?

If you follow the tenets of Reform Judaism, I don't see why not.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But who decides what 'the teachings of that religion' are? For example, what teachings would I need to follow to be a Baha'i, and why those teachings?

Moreover, who decides who is a 'true believer' and who a 'believer in name only'?

The requirements of being a Baha'i was defined by the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, Shoghi Effendi.

Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Bahá’í Cause, as set forth in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present day Bahá’í administration throughout the world—these I conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital decision…."

(Shoghi Effendi: Bahá’í Administration, p. 90)

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

I agree. I would just say, though, that labels do not only have the purpose of helping other people to understand oneself (as important as this is). A label can also signify something important for the person who identifies with that label, in terms of giving them a sense of identity (which is often considered to be an important thing for people to have).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

If you follow the tenets of Reform Judaism, I don't see why not.

But not if I am an atheist Jew?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The requirements of being a Baha'i was defined by the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, Shoghi Effendi.

Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Bahá’í Cause, as set forth in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present day Bahá’í administration throughout the world—these I conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital decision…."

(Shoghi Effendi: Bahá’í Administration, p. 90)

What if I believe myself to be a Baha'i in the sense that I accept Baha'u'llah's status as the current Manifestation for our times, but take issue with certain ordinances (whether those contained in His writings, or those opinions issued by the present-day Baha'i administration)?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"Tumah,"

Namaste,

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

We have the concept of Astika and Nastika, what these categories mean has/have been changing overtime, currently Astika (those who accept the Veda as Parmana*) and Nastika (those who do not accept Veda as Parmana), This may be extended to mean - Astika (Those who advocate Dharmah) & Nastika (Those who do not advocate Dharmah).

As for the OP:

In Hindu Dharmah there are some traditional ceremonials performed to initiate a person into a specific Sampradaya, but to be classified as "Hindu", there is no strict requirements, some would say that a person is born Hindu (largly Indians), some would accept non-Indians as Hindu based on their Shruddha (respect, faith) for the ideals and practices of Hindu Dharmah or a specific Sampradaya.

Anyone can declare that they are Hindu, but not many can just call them self a part of a Sampradaya (e.g: Hare Krishna, Shaiva, ect)

Dhanyavad

*=Proof used to acquire valid knowledge.

 

[Mindmaster]

But who decides what is forbidden/beyond the pale and what not? Who has that right?

Moreover, if I call myself an adherent of religion R, in all sincerity, i.e. I am not just 'passing myself off as a member of that group', even if I am in a distinct minority in calling myself such and by calling myself such, other adherents of religion R think I am being disrespectful towards them, what about my rights? What about respect for me?

That depends on what the ultimate criteria of the religion is but for Christianity it's the Bible, not individual practitioners that define the faith. If you are violating the tenets of that book you aren't a Christian, plain and simple. There are many prohibitions that are simply non-negotiable. In this case, I wouldn't consider the doctrine of particular denominations so critical. For example, Seventh Day Adventists prohibit graven images so they do not use crucifixes -- this is completely at odds with the rest of Christianity for the most part even though it is in the OT. Most people don't consider that symbol a "graven image" hence it is OK. Jehovah's Witnesses reject "pagan" holidays, while all others nearly celebrate them regardless. These types of things are not what I was talking about earlier. For Christians, the Bible is the sole document which defines you as a Christian. Intermediary people have no part of that... Now if you call yourself a Jehovah's Witness and celebrate Halloween, I think you might be barking up the wrong tree. I think you are not a JW if you aren't following their "supplementary" beliefs to the standard Christian views.

Mostly, I think the dilemma here is that many people are ME-llenials and are transferring their identity politics to the spiritual realm. Sorry, it doesn't work that way you don't get to redefine people or faiths with word soup. You're not doing anything terribly wrong, but it's disingenuous. Certain religions expect you to follow a certain holy book, and that is the major criteria which defines you as a part of that faith. If you don't like to follow those "rules" then stop fooling yourself, and merely consider yourself inspired by that person. For other people, you're being really insulting since for many their ancestors have been involved in the path as well. You're mocking tradition, and anytime you do expect to draw ire. That's why I recommend to keep your nose down, lest ye lose it.

I love the messages of Lao Tzu, Buddha, and many others outside of the belief systems I associate with. I don't consider myself a part of any of those ways, just inspired by them. Why others can't do the same is beyond me. I don't need to be on a team and mostly whatever name I call myself it's inadequate - I don't act like I represent those belief systems in entirety.

 

[LuisDantas]

Says who? The above website?

It is really a matter of simply being aware of the doctrine.

Sure, there are those who disagree. But in all honesty there isn't much logic nor purpose in disagreeing about the core and essence of what should be considered Buddhism.

 

[crossfire]

Says who? The above website?

The article is for general information and gives the reasoning as to why the Four Seals were adapted. If you would like the take on the Four Seals from specific Buddhists sects, there is a link in my signature line to start with. The Dharma Seals as a means by which to discern a Buddhist school are part of the traditions of the different schools of Buddhism.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What if I believe myself to be a Baha'i in the sense that I accept Baha'u'llah's status as the current Manifestation for our times, but take issue with certain ordinances (whether those contained in His writings, or those opinions issued by the present-day Baha'i administration)?

Your belief is basically between you and God. We grow and mature slowly. Accepting the Faith is a learning process so there will be doubts along the way.

 

[arthra]

So if I were to accept Baha'u'llah as the Lord of this age, that would give me the right to declare myself a follower of the Baha'i Faith?

Essentially yes but as I indicated above you would still need to be in contact with the Baha'i community in your area and this might involve say a consultation with you that you understood what it means to be a Baha'i:

"A person becomes a Bahá’í by recognizing Bahá’u’lláh as the Messenger of God for this age and informing the Bahá’í community of their desire to join the Bahá’í Faith..."

https://join.bahai.us/Invitation.aspx

In the United States for instance you would part of the Baha'i community and as an adult be able to vote in Baha'i elections for instance and possibly hold an office on the Assembly in your community.

 

[Tumah]

I agree. I would just say, though, that labels do not only have the purpose of helping other people to understand oneself (as important as this is). A label can also signify something important for the person who identifies with that label, in terms of giving them a sense of identity (which is often considered to be an important thing for people to have).

The problem I do have though is when someone has limited number of elements related to one's religious label, or even elements that contradict one's religious label yet still maintains it. That's not giving them a sense of identity, that's living in a fantasy.
If they said, "I have two feet, just like a chicken. I have two arms and a head, just like a chicken. And look at my chin, you might call that a double chin- but that's a wattle!" There may be some general similar features between a person and a chicken. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to call the hospital.

 

[Tumah]

But not if I am an atheist Jew?

Well, I'm not even sure why one would want to. But what part of "Judaism" does an atheist follow? I'm tempted to say that in this case, the 'atheist' part indicates that the 'Jew' part is an ethnic identity. (Which I don't think would be relevant as a religious label like on RF, but as a more general means of identification). But how would that work with an atheist Christian?

 

[Laika]

Okay, so you believe you have the right to call yourself a Communist, based on certain criteria you have decided are sufficient for someone to be able to call themselves a Communist? Even if there are other people who call themselves Communists who might say, no, you're not a (real) Communist, because you don't believe x, y, z? And indeed you yourself believe you can identify who a 'non-believer' is, on the basis of your criteria, even if they perhaps identify as a Communist, based on their criteria?

Yes. I'm not pretending its rational here but the ideas affect you as a person and so can have a very distinctive psychological "fingerprint" if you will. If I tried to describe it, It comes with a certian seriousness, a methodical approach to things, a willingness to believe in and want the best for people and a heavy amount of intellectualism. Theres so much marxist theory that your going to spend alot of time with your head in a book or discussing ideas with people so you pick up habits because of that.

Communists, as dialecticans, don't think in absolutes- in black or white terms. The more troubling aspects of that is it blurs the whole concept of good and evil so there is a certian ruthlessness at work as well. The lust for power is there in the background too but its not something you demonise as inherently evil as it depends what or who its used for. The dialectical thought patterns can have some really subtle effects on behaviour because it changes the way you feel. For example, It has been used to reduce anxiety.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy

This sort of observation based on the "inner" experience of these beliefs as well as talking with those who share them. I understand if its not convincing but its just how I live with these beliefs.

 

[crossfire]

Says who? The above website?

The Dharma Seals are part of Buddhist tradition as a means by which to discern Buddhadharma from non-Buddhadharma. When Buddha was declared an avatar of Vishnu, some Vaisnanvite schools arose that worshipped Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, but did not teach Buddha's teachings. The Dharma Seals are a means by which to recognize the schools that taught Buddhadharma from those that did not.

 

[Kirran]

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

Eh, they're a lot more prominent on the Internet and in academic circles than 'on the ground'.

 

[Tumah]

Eh, they're a lot more prominent on the Internet and in academic circles than 'on the ground'.

In Academic circles? Like in Japanese Bioethic courses?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

People can label themselves as they please. The labelling is not always accurate of course.

 

[Kirran]

In Academic circles? Like in Japanese Bioethic courses?

(It's worsened. I now have the options of Beginners' Mandarin and German too.)

But no, not in those courses!

 

[Thanda]

I'd be inclined to agree. But who decides what counts as 'the religion'? I could practice what I think 'the religion' constitutes and it shapes my lifestyle, the decisions I make, etc. But someone else who says they adhere to that religion could come along and say, no, you don't practice 'the religion', etc. Who holds the 'correct' view/has the greater 'right' (if you will) in such instances?

Indeed, I have noticed many Christian denominations don't regard Catholics as Christians. I find that most odd.