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

[Kirran]

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

And don't mention Mormons and JWs!

 

[LuisDantas]

This depends. I had a Catholic co-worker tell me once that she ''wasn't a Christian, but a Catholic.

the idea may not have been ''invented, by non-catholics, rather, I think that catholics used to make this distinction, sometimes, and it has simply fallen out of favour

First I hear of it.

To the best of my understanding, the distinction has its roots either in the schism with the other Christian Churches in 1054 or, more likely in the Protestant Reform of the 16th century.

In a nutshell, the Schism was arguably a mostly political dispute between two visions of the model of authority in Christianity. The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) claimed supremacy, while what is now understood to be Orthodox Christianity favored an arguably more traditional Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. There were significant issues of doctrine and rite as well, but the actual schism seems to have been mostly a political matter.

The Protestant Reformation, however, had an even stronger political aspect to it, and arguably made more of an issue to distinguish its Christians from those who accepted the authority of the Pope. It is my understanding that to this day it is a common Protestant trait to mistrust the Pope to some degree, or at least to disapprove of seeing him as an appointed authority on matters of faith.

I never heard of it working the other way around, though. And I have certainly never heard before of any Catholics claiming not to be Christians - it sounds more than slightly contradictory.

 

[Desert Snake]

First I hear of it.

Yeah, it's as if some catholics either did or do this, and some don't, or, its regional, I have no idea. I do remember reading something about this elsewhere, however, most catholics dont seem to use this methodology, so,,, whatever

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, it's as if some catholics either did or do this, and some don't, or, its regional, I have no idea. I do remember reading something about this elsewhere, however, most catholics dont seem to use this methodology, so,,, whatever

Maybe it is some form of excessive reaction? Perhaps not unlike that trend of claiming to "reject the Church but accept God"?

 

[Desert Snake]

Maybe it is some form of excessive reaction? Perhaps not unlike that trend of claiming to "reject the Church but accept God"?

That did occur to me. It could also be a /somewhat logical/, way of simple differentiation used in a very 'literal' sense.
Or both?

 

[Desert Snake]

First I hear of it.

To the best of my understanding, the distinction has its roots either in the schism with the other Christian Churches in 1054 or, more likely in the Protestant Reform of the 16th century.

I don't personally know of the prevalence, of Protestants, who outright state that Catholics aren't 'Christians'.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't personally know of the prevalence, of Protestants, who outright state that Catholics aren't 'Christians'.

To clarify, I don't think most Protestants say such a thing. But most people who do say such a thing seem to be Protestants.

 

[RedDragon94]

But who defines what constitutes that religion?

Depends on the source. Do you have a certain religion in mind?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

But even if one accepts what you say above, one is still left with the 'problem' of what the tenets or meaning of that book are. Plenty Christians can pretty clearly hold pretty divergent interpretations of what this or that passage of either the OT or the NT (or any of the supplementary texts or writings that particular denominations might also consider to be important), or indeed of whether the OT even applies any longer.

Mostly, I think the dilemma here is that many people are ME-llenials and are transferring their identity politics to the spiritual realm.

How then do you explain the tendency throughout history for religions to splinter into a multitude of different groups (who, at least for a period of time, may quite violently refuse to accept the legitimacy of other groups)? Were all these groups ultimately founded by the millennials of their day?

Also, why is there necessarily a problem with people 'transferring their identity politics to the spiritual realm', as you put it?

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.

Right, but see my comment above wrt the Christian faith and the Bible.. The same might apply to any other faith which expects you to follow a certain holy book.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

But religions evolve all the time through just such a process of challenge and disagreement.. Sure, that process might lead to the budding off of new religions. But it might also lead to intellectual/spiritual renewal within an existing tradition.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Right, but my point was a broader one of authority within, in this case, Buddhism (but as you may have seen from my other posts in this thread, I am interested in this question as it pertains to any (established) religion or indeed ideology). Who can legitimately say that I am not a Buddhist? Who has that right? Received wisdom? General consensus? The leaders of a particular congregation or community? Who, or what, gave them that authority and power to dictate what is and is not 'allowed'? How, ultimately, did the different schools of Buddhism (which is, let's face it, as diverse a tradition as any other) arise if not through challenge to the received wisdom or authorities of an existing group?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Right, so I could then call myself a Baha'i?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Even if I disagree with the majority view of the community on what are deemed (by the existing community) to be fundamentals of the Faith?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

That might be true, sure. But heresy and heretics have arguably played a vital role in the development of most, if not all, religions (sometimes leading to the splitting off and foundation of new religions, sometimes to revitalisation within a particular tradition). One person's heretic is another person's nutcase is another person's tzaddik. Moreover, less orthodox or indeed heterodox individuals and currents within many religions have a long history of being ridiculed, denied membership to a particular group, persecuted, tortured and killed. That someone holds to a particular, unorthodox view does not necessarily mean that there are not others like them, that there is not an existing tradition within a particular religion (that has, if you will, a history, i.e. is arguably something different from one person's fantasy).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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?

There's obviously a lot more to Judaism than theism (as important as that is to more religiously inclined Jews!). There are all the religious beliefs, understandings, rituals, practices, etc. which an atheist might not see much value in, but there are also the festivals, the foods and drinks, the jokes, the shared history, of the bitter as well as the sweet, in some cases a shared language, i.e. all the 'cultural' elements of Judaism. A sense of belonging to that broader community, without the overtly religious elements.

Now, that might be easier to see for 'recognised' ethnoreligious groups (like, for e.g., Jews). But it might also hold for, say, Catholics (who might in a particular socio-cultural and geographic context be effectively an ethnoreligious group). There's generally a lot more to a religion than the strictly religious elements (particularly for those born and raised within that faith).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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

Right, but accurate by whose standards?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Depends on the source. Do you have a certain religion in mind?

Nope. I think the question applies to membership of any group, ultimately.

 

[LuisDantas]

But religions evolve all the time through just such a process of challenge and disagreement.. Sure, that process might lead to the budding off of new religions. But it might also lead to intellectual/spiritual renewal within an existing tradition.

My point exactly.

 

[crossfire]

Right, but my point was a broader one of authority within, in this case, Buddhism (but as you may have seen from my other posts in this thread, I am interested in this question as it pertains to any (established) religion or indeed ideology). Who can legitimately say that I am not a Buddhist? Who has that right? Received wisdom? General consensus? The leaders of a particular congregation or community? Who, or what, gave them that authority and power to dictate what is and is not 'allowed'? How, ultimately, did the different schools of Buddhism (which is, let's face it, as diverse a tradition as any other) arise if not through challenge to the received wisdom or authorities of an existing group?

See post # 95. The Dharma Seals are the essence of the teachings of Buddha. They were acknowledged as a means to prevent Buddhism from being hijacked. If you are not following Buddha's teachings/methods, can you really call yourself a Buddhist?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

See post # 95. The Dharma Seals are the essence of the teachings of Buddha. They were acknowledged as a means to prevent Buddhism from being hijacked. If you are not following Buddha's teachings/methods, can you really call yourself a Buddhist?

Acknowledged by whom?