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

[Tumah]

?

That's what happens when you think of a response, decide not to go with it, but forget that the RF Man is saving every keystroke you make in the response box...

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

So it's a numbers game - the more people that share your beliefs, the better?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The individual.

Amen to that!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Or something else..

 

[The_Fisher_King]

None of those things that you are calling Jewish culture can actually be called Jewish culture.

I agree - not 'Jewish' culture, because in the same way there is not one monolithic 'Judaism', there isn't a monolithic thing called 'Jewish culture' - but multiple kinds of Jewish culture, in the same way there are multiple Judaisms (as there are multiple Christianities, Islaams, Buddhisms, etc.).

There are no festivals that are not religious in nature.

Right. But that doesn't stop 'ethnic Jews' from celebrating them.

The food and drink are the culture of the country of origin.

Right, but different communities within different countries have their own particular dietary customs, to some extent perhaps shared with other communities within a particular country or region, but showing their own peculiarities (I don't mean that in a disparaging way).

Not everyone of Jewish descent is Jewish, so shared history doesn't mean Judaism.

Again, I agree that that doesn't mean 'Judaism', but it might apply to certain forms of Judaism and Jewish communities in different parts of the world.

And there is no common language among all Jews.

I never said there was.

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.

I agree - because 'Judaism' is not one monolithic thing, but has taken and continues to take different forms and manifestations in different parts of the world throughout history (partly reflecting different people's different ideas, beliefs, etc., but also other factors like a particular country or region's foods and drinks, languages, idioms, influences from other religions and customs, etc., etc.). The same is true of all other religions (well, at least of religions that have a bit of history/'maturity' to them).

In other words, Jewish culture is not Judaism because there is no culture unique to all Jews.

Or rather, because there is neither a single monolithic Judaism, divorced from any socio-cultural context, nor a single monolithic thing called 'Jewish culture'. 'Just' multiple forms/manifestations of Judaism that meld the 'strictly religious' with the 'strictly cultural' (to the extent one can even separate the two). Same goes for Catholicism, Protestantism, Christianity, Islaam, Sunni Islaam, Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, etc. etc.

 

[Tumah]

Or something else..

Or something else.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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!

And if I've been a Baha'i all my life, and truly understand the teachings, but take issue with certain things considered fundamental by the community?

 

[Tumah]

I agree - not 'Jewish' culture, because in the same way there is not one monolithic 'Judaism', there isn't a monolithic thing called 'Jewish culture' - but multiple kinds of Jewish culture, in the same way there are multiple Judaisms (as there are multiple Christianities, Islaams, Buddhisms, etc.).



Right. But that doesn't stop 'ethnic Jews' from celebrating them.



Right, but different communities within different countries have their own particular dietary customs, to some extent perhaps shared with other communities within a particular country or region, but showing their own peculiarities (I don't mean that in a disparaging way).



Again, I agree that that doesn't mean 'Judaism', but it might apply to certain forms of Judaism and Jewish communities in different parts of the world.



I never said there was.



I agree - because 'Judaism' is not one monolithic thing, but has taken and continues to take different forms and manifestations in different parts of the world throughout history (partly reflecting different people's different ideas, beliefs, etc., but also other factors like a particular country or region's foods and drinks, languages, idioms, influences from other religions and customs, etc., etc.). The same is true of all other religions (well, at least of religions that have a bit of history/'maturity' to them).



Or rather, because there is neither a single monolithic Judaism, divorced from any socio-cultural context, nor a single monolithic thing called 'Jewish culture'. 'Just' multiple forms/manifestations of Judaism that meld the 'strictly religious' with the 'strictly cultural' (to the extent one can even separate the two). Same goes for Catholicism, Protestantism, Christianity, Islaam, Sunni Islaam, Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, etc. etc.

At that point, you've blown cultures so wide open as to be not recognizable as an identity.

How about this: Can a person of non-Jewish descent engage in Jewish cultural things and call himself Jewish? If he eats mufleta and gefilte fish, dances with the hand-waving thing, sings 'hava nagila' and teaches himself Ladino, would you say he can call himself a Jew because he practices 'Jewish culture' (I don't know the counterparts for other religions, or I would give them as an example as well)?

I propose that if those things are not enough to call a non-Jew "Jewish", than they are also not what is making the ethnic-Jew "Jewish". Likewise for other religions as well.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

At that point, you've blown cultures so wide open as to be not recognizable as an identity.

How about this: Can a person of non-Jewish descent engage in Jewish cultural things and call himself Jewish? If he eats mufleta and gefilte fish, dances with the hand-waving thing, sings 'hava nagila' and teaches himself Ladino, would you say he can call himself a Jew because he practices 'Jewish culture' (I don't know the counterparts for other religions, or I would give them as an example as well)?

I propose that if those things are not enough to call a non-Jew "Jewish", than they are also not what is making the ethnic-Jew "Jewish". Likewise for other religions as well.

What I'm talking about is multiple kinds of Jewish identity (which meld, in different 'quantities', different manifestations of the 'strictly religious' and the 'strictly cultural', historical, social, etc.) (I'm not talking about caricatures). One can obviously take what I've said to cultural destruction (or the emergence of new cultures and identities, over time), but I'm not really talking about that.

If someone of non-Jewish descent wants to engage in those 'Jewish cultural things' and call himself a Jew, I'm not going to stand in his way. He may or may not be accepted as a Jew by others (depending on amongst other things, whether he converts to some form of Judaism, marries into a Jewish family, becomes a part of a Jewish community, etc.), and might have to bear any resultant social consequences, but he can identify as he pleases as far as I am concerned.

But that's not my point. You seem to be saying that it is possible to talk about adherents of a particular religion or religious denomination (with enough adherents to be recognised by others as a legitimate denomination of a particular religion) in terms solely of the 'strictly religious' aspects of their faith, as if they can exist like that, suspended outside of a particular socio-cultural milieu. I'm saying that's not really possible. We all exist within a particular socio-cultural milieu, and that means religion is so much more than just the 'strictly religious'.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.[/QUOT

Experience would indictate they can claim it on almost any basis.

 

[Mindmaster]

So it's a numbers game - the more people that share your beliefs, the better?

Not really, it's just we decide all of these things via real life magic. The boundaries of our countries, states, towns, and even our addresses are simply products of consensus. There has to be one to for something to be at all. So a few people agree what the term Catholic means, and some others agree what Sunni Islam, and so on. As soon as there is an agreement between a few people, they all behave as though it exists, so it does.

However, if you are the type involved in these syncretic beliefs you will find that you are the only one that believes your faith exists. It exists, only for you. Such is the limitations of the human condition.

 

[arthra]

And if I've been a Baha'i all my life, and truly understand the teachings, but take issue with certain things considered fundamental by the community?

You are free to provide an example... I've been a Baha'i since 1965.

 

[arthra]

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.

Somewhat the way Christianity grew out of Judaism perhaps....

 

[Tumah]

Somewhat the way Christianity grew out of Judaism perhaps....

Exactly, yes.

 

[Tumah]

What I'm talking about is multiple kinds of Jewish identity (which meld, in different 'quantities', different manifestations of the 'strictly religious' and the 'strictly cultural', historical, social, etc.) (I'm not talking about caricatures). One can obviously take what I've said to cultural destruction (or the emergence of new cultures and identities, over time), but I'm not really talking about that.

If someone of non-Jewish descent wants to engage in those 'Jewish cultural things' and call himself a Jew, I'm not going to stand in his way. He may or may not be accepted as a Jew by others (depending on amongst other things, whether he converts to some form of Judaism, marries into a Jewish family, becomes a part of a Jewish community, etc.), and might have to bear any resultant social consequences, but he can identify as he pleases as far as I am concerned.

But that's not my point. You seem to be saying that it is possible to talk about adherents of a particular religion or religious denomination (with enough adherents to be recognised by others as a legitimate denomination of a particular religion) in terms solely of the 'strictly religious' aspects of their faith, as if they can exist like that, suspended outside of a particular socio-cultural milieu. I'm saying that's not really possible. We all exist within a particular socio-cultural milieu, and that means religion is so much more than just the 'strictly religious'.

Do you have any standard by which one can identify themselves or do you believe anyone call identify themselves any way they want?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Not really, it's just we decide all of these things via real life magic. The boundaries of our countries, states, towns, and even our addresses are simply products of consensus. There has to be one to for something to be at all. So a few people agree what the term Catholic means, and some others agree what Sunni Islam, and so on. As soon as there is an agreement between a few people, they all behave as though it exists, so it does.

However, if you are the type involved in these syncretic beliefs you will find that you are the only one that believes your faith exists. It exists, only for you. Such is the limitations of the human condition.

Sounds like a numbers game to me!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You are free to provide an example... I've been a Baha'i since 1965.

Baha'i view of those beings described as Djinn in Islaam.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Do you have any standard by which one can identify themselves or do you believe anyone call identify themselves any way they want?

It's not for me to dictate these things...It's up to people to identify themselves as they see fit.

 

[Mindmaster]

Sounds like a numbers game to me!

Not really, your faith exists even if it is just you that would believe in it. It just doesn't exist in a reality external to yourself.

 

[arthra]

Baha'i view of those beings described as Djinn in Islaam.

The Baha'i view of "Djinn":

"Regarding your question as to the meaning of Jin or Genii referred to in the Qur'an, these are not beings or creatures that are actually living, but are symbolic references to the power of men of evil and may be likened to evil spirits. But the point to bear in mind is that these have no positive existence of any kind."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, June 26, 1936: Bahá'í News, No. 105, p. 1, February 1937)