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

[LuisDantas]

Acknowledged by whom?

Pretty much all serious groups of Buddhists since early times.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

My point exactly.

Scary. I find myself agreeing with more and more things you say!

 

[RedDragon94]

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

Oh, I think I know. The "prophet" (or what have you) of that group and the individual themselves.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scary. I find myself agreeing with more and more things you say!

There may be hope for us yet.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Pretty much all serious groups of Buddhists since early times.

'Serious' by whose standards?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Oh, I think I know. The "prophet" (or what have you) of that group and the individual themselves.

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase?

 

[RedDragon94]

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase?

Who defines what constitutes that religion? The teacher+ the individual.

 

[LuisDantas]

'Serious' by whose standards?

I am sorry, of course that does deserve some elaboration.

Please keep in mind that we are talking about a fairly small number of core concepts that are in fact closely connected to each other. As @crossfire pointed out in post #95, the role of the Four Seals is not nearly so much to establish what is "true" as it is to delimitate what is to be understood as Buddhadharma.

The specific meanings and consequences are inherently personal, but ultimately any doctrines that do not include impermanence, anatta, shunyata and nirvana are hardly attempting to be Buddhist. They may have high merits and they may even conceivably be more correct and more useful than Buddhism, but they will not be Buddhism.

As for who establishes the standards, the short answer is they have been discussed often and at length among and inside several groups, during the time when the Buddha was alive and many, many times since his death. A fair measure of our original written doctrine, the Tipitaka, does in fact concern itself on discussing what is proper and what is not when it comes to discipline, goals and sometimes beliefs.

Ultimately, the measure of proper Buddhist doctrine is to a very large extent the ability of convincing our sages and our Brothers in Faith of the value of each other's Dharma. For that to have any value, we need the freedom to think on our own and at least potentially decide that we know better, which we often do.

To be sure, it is a hot and sometimes difficult topic. Often a divisive one. I don't know that it can be helped, though. People should discuss what their values are and why, often and sincerely if at all possible. Far as I can tell, there is no other way of keeping any doctrine vital, relevant and valid.

Ultimately there is no conveniently rigid answer, and it would probably be destructive if it existed. What is proper doctrine or not is perhaps by necessity a somewhat fluid matter, because people's perceptions and circunstances are so variable.

It is very troublesome. I don't know that I would like it any different. Agreement from others should be earned, and earned fairly and as often as necessary.

Valuable insights have been attained from disagreements, as well. The eccentricities of several important figures are legendary. And they are important because those oddities and unorthodoxies did not deny them relevance and wisdom.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Who defines what constitutes that religion? The teacher+ the individual.

Okay. But who decides what the teacher said, or what they really meant by what they said?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I am sorry, of course that does deserve some elaboration.

Please keep in mind that we are talking about a fairly small number of core concepts that are in fact closely connected to each other. As @crossfire pointed out in post #95, the role of the Four Seals is not nearly so much to establish what is "true" as it is to delimitate what is to be understood as Buddhadharma.

The specific meanings and consequences are inherently personal, but ultimately any doctrines that do not include impermanence, anatta, shunyata and nirvana are hardly attempting to be Buddhist. They may have high merits and they may even conceivably be more correct and more useful than Buddhism, but they will not be Buddhism.

As for who establishes the standards, the short answer is they have been discussed often and at length among and inside several groups, during the time when the Buddha was alive and many, many times since his death. A fair measure of our original written doctrine, the Tipitaka, does in fact concern itself on discussing what is proper and what is not when it comes to discipline, goals and sometimes beliefs.

Ultimately, the measure of proper Buddhist doctrine is to a very large extent the ability of convincing our sages and our Brothers in Faith of the value of each other's Dharma. For that to have any value, we need the freedom to think on our own and at least potentially decide that we know better, which we often do.

To be sure, it is a hot and sometimes difficult topic. Often a divisive one. I don't know that it can be helped, though. People should discuss what their values are and why, often and sincerely if at all possible. Far as I can tell, there is no other way of keeping any doctrine vital, relevant and valid.

Ultimately there is no conveniently rigid answer, and it would probably be destructive if it existed. What is proper doctrine or not is perhaps by necessity a somewhat fluid matter, because people's perceptions and circunstances are so variable.

It is very troublesome. I don't know that I would like it any different. Agreement from others should be earned, and earned fairly and as often as necessary.

Valuable insights have been attained from disagreements, as well. The eccentricities of several important figures are legendary. And they are important because those oddities and unorthodoxies did not deny them relevance and wisdom.

I couldn't agree more! (there, it happened again!)

 

[Mindmaster]

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.

This is certainly pretty reductionist, in many of my posts I have made the difference between a religion and a denomination abundantly clear. Christians have no debate over whether the NT supersedes the OT, it always does and will for them.

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?

Yes, even though this wouldn't be what they were called. We used to call them Protestants, etc. Again, this is reductionist logic at play -- many things could be Christian but someone couldn't be compatible with a certain denomination. If they are doing something different they are certainly NOT following that groups teaching, but doing their own thing. They can call themselves whatever they want, but they still are just doing their own thing.

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

If you hold the specific beliefs in total of a denomination then you are part of it, if you are syncretizing it with something else that is all you are - YOU. You aren't sharing beliefs with the others who view this differently. It is not an and/or but an exclusive OR. You can be as weird as you want, but realize that your weirdness isn't part of the dogma of a certain faith. I think some people just want to be snowflakes rather than commit to anything, as that seems to be the trend. Hence my comparison in the first place.

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.

Certainly, I'm just simplifying for countless examples.

 

[LuisDantas]

I couldn't agree more! (there, it happened again!)

Maybe a vacation could help?

 

[RedDragon94]

Okay. But who decides what the teacher said, or what they really meant by what they said?

The individual.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

Yes of course.

When I first became a Baha'i I accepted it because I loved the idea of oneness, that of universal fellowship.

Then after a few months I remembered I didn't believe in God. I challenged the Baha'is, told them I thought they were a terrific bunch of people except they believed in this superstitious nonsensical imaginary figure called God.

This tore me apart because they seemed to have something I never saw anywhere else. Anyway I eventually started reading their literature and came across some things about God and I realised that God does exist but not how we imagine.

Then I approached the Baha'is and said I wanted to become a Baha'i, but really and truly, this time, but they refused and said that I was already considered a Baha'i and even though I was against many basic things they still treated me as one of their own knowing that we all grow and develop and mature gradually and slowly and so they were extremely patient with me.

A seed doesn't become a tree immediately upon planting it.

So for that time I was against many teachings I realised I wasn't really a Baha'i but the Baha'is didn't see me that way. They were loving and inclusive and let me work it out and gave me time and space.

That was in my case. With others it may be different. Some might want to investigate first and agree on everything first.

 

[Tumah]

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).

I'm not arguing against reformations. But I'm saying do what people have done. Newfangled Christianity? Call it Protestantism. Reformed Islam? Call it Ahmadiyya. Want to change Islam more throroughly? Call it Baha'i.

 

[Tumah]

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).

None of those things that you are calling Jewish culture can actually be called Jewish culture. There are no festivals that are not religious in nature. The food and drink are the culture of the country of origin. I'm not sure what jokes means. Not everyone of Jewish descent is Jewish, so shared history doesn't mean Judaism. And there is no common language among all Jews.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this would be buying into a stereotype of Judaism based on the European Jew, not realizing that half the Jewish population comes from the Middle East. They doesn't speak a word of Yiddish, they don't share the past 1,500 years of history with their European counterparts, nor are they known for their humor, they don't share any cultural foods or drinks with European Jews. If a Hungarian Jew walked into a Yemenite synagogue, he wouldn't understand a word they were saying.

In other words, Jewish culture is not Judaism because there is no culture unique to all Jews. To put it another way, you can't point to any specific cultural elements and say to a non-Jew, 'if you do those things, you can call yourself a cultural Jew'. So I think it would be wrong to define a comedian of Jewish descent who enjoys a piece of gefilte fish as "Jewish" strictly for those qualities.

I think the same would be true for any religion that's developed in multiple geographical locations. Calling oneself a Catholic because they like to decorate their yards with those little statue things and it helps then fit it with their community is wrong. Catholicism already has a meaning. If I'm the one that departs from that meaning, its on me to find myself a new label.

 

[arthra]

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?

and that's why we have a consultation with a new believer to be sure they understand what being a Baha'i is about..... When they've asked questions they have and these issues have been dealt with they can decide if they want to be Baha'i!

 

[arthra]

Want to change Islam more throroughly? Call it Baha'i.

I think Baha'is identify themselves as an 'independent" religion and not a reform movement in Islam.

 

[Tumah]

I think Baha'is identify themselves as an 'independent" religion and not a reform movement in Islam.

I didn't mean to say that Baha'i should be classified as Islam. I meant to say that Baha'i grew out of Islam. The founders based Baha'i on changing Islamic doctrine.

 

[Thanda]

Really? I mean I think I've noticed Catholics being labeled Ca

?