Purism in Religions - You MUST do this to be Authentic!

[Quintessence]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

How do you compare what is authentic/purist and what is not in your view (or definition of the word)?

Some people say their religion is authentic because of tradition. Some say because of time period (the older the religion, the more true it is), while others say authenticity comes from within-true nature. edit Some say it's based on facts. Others say its based on mystery.

 

[Katzpur]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

Great idea for a thread!

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?

To a huge extent, unfortunately. I wouldn't say it's so much an "official" thing as it is a "cultural" one. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, once said, "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." I was looking for that quote when I ran across a website in which many of our current (or very recent) leaders have said much the same thing. Unfortunately, what's the case in principle doesn't necessarily follow through in practice. If you read my signature, you'll see that I often feel like an outside in my own religion.

What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

For me personally, if someone identifies as a Mormon, I'm taking their word that they mean it. That's the same thing I do with respect to Christianity in general. I'm pretty uncomfortable saying that someone isn't a Christian unless they believe what "LDS Christianity" teaches. If someone says, "I'm a Christian," I accept him as a Christian. If he says, "I'm a Muslim," who am I to question that?

With respect to Mormonism, I think most Mormons accept anyone who says he's a Mormon as being a Mormon. What they often don't do is accept people as being "good Mormons" if they ever take issue with any of the Church's policies, or do not prioritize all of the church's doctrines the way that is considered "the norm."

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

Basically, it sucks, because it mostly just ends up hurting people.

 

[Politesse]

I seem to always be outside of someone's standards, even when I used to try and fit in. With a whole and gullible heart in my younger days, then with a more pragmatic and strategic one later. Didn't work, anyhow. I've declared the whole project a bust.

It's often phrased as though it is about identity. I don't think it really is about defining what one is; I have come to the conclusion that such rules are always exclusionary, sometimes thinly disguised and sometimes not at all disguised attempts to keep certain people out, not in. And nothing is safe; something that fell within normal variation in one generation becomes the next generation's heresy. When I was a kid, Lutherans in the US seldom fell cleanly into the categories of conservative or liberal as defined by popular religious culture. We were our own thing, with our own theological reasoning and politics. By the time I began seminary, it had all fallen apart; and I found that I was expected to fight in a pointless battle for "identity" on someone else's terms by virtue of which seminary I had enrolled in. And it looked suspiciously like the same politics and issues that were ripping the country apart politically at the same time. Which makes you wonder whether anyone cares about theology at all.

I avoid calling people by a label I haven't heard them use to describe themselves, and outright refuse to deny someone a label they claim, regardless of circumstances.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

It's definitely there to a certain extent. Reconstructionists (across the branches of Paganism) seem solely interested in doing something because the ancients did it that way. I'm working my way through a book called Hellenic Polytheism: Household Worship which seems to confuse the word 'historical' with 'Hellenic'. As an example, if you use a printed image of a god to represent deity in your altar/shrine space in lieu of statuary or other 3D representation then the book says that is "not Hellenic" because the Greeks never did that. Even if you're worshipping a Greek god in a Greek ritual format, apparently it's not Hellenic.

I'm not surprised since the book was written by a Hellenic reconstructionist organisation and was aimed primarily at a Greeks audience. That said, the book is fascinating and a riveting read!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, there's a ton of that in certain groups and individuals under the Hindu umbrella. It's very frustrating and disheartening, and that's just the arguments over eating meat alone. :/

At this point I just ignore it. No one has a right to define me.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Of course there are definitions people have to fit into to be considered something.
Or so I would say if definitions were set in stone.

But there is a point to make that definitions do exist, expandable as they are.
The thing I disagree with in purism is when "real (whatever belief structure) believe this" is used.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

Those questions do not make much sense to me personally.

Religion as I understand it is drammatically personal by the perspective of what makes it authentic. And by another perspective, it is also drammatically collective, in that its whole reason for existing is easing social and moral interactions.

Religion can neither afford to truly exclude other people on a whim of pseudo-elitism or tribalism nor fail to adapt to the undeniably personal characteristics of its practice. Not without failing its own basic goals.

How efficiently and effortlessly people understand and benefit from each other within and without specific denominations and movements will of course vary, and that is reason enough for the continued existence of such divisions. But ultimately a "proper" religion must learn to respect both the individual and the collective or else give up on being a religion at all.

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

I have a hunch that you will know better than I do, Quint.

I do not think of myself as a purist or even friendly to purism, but there is some evidence that others might disagree.

 

[Tumah]

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?

A fairly strong one, although not without room for movement as the plethora of sects within Orthodox Judaism bears witness to.

What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

With some minor exceptions, there must be adherence to the Code of Jewish Law that is associated with that community, whether that is the the Shulchan Aruch for Sephard, Rema for Ashkenaz, or Maimonides for some Yemenite.

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

From a purely technical standpoint, I have no real feelings about it. its the only way to be considered an authentic adherent. Take it or leave it.
But from a philosophical standpoint, I see merit in having a common core that links our practices together to form us into a cohesive unit. We're not just individuals trying to make it in our religion, we're a cohesive whole, an army fighting for the same goal in our respective units.

 

[Riverwolf]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

Purism in Heathenry often takes on quite disturbing trends. There are folks who feel you have to be of "Germanic blood" (which doesn't actually exist, but try telling them that) in order to qualify.

For myself, honestly I don't think any one thing is required to qualify, but rather the presence of a significant degree of Northern European traditions in everyday life, together with the self-identification of "Heathen". ...if that makes sense.

Honestly, purism is, at its best, kinda silly. Especially in the context of something SO decentralized as Heathenry, and wider polytheism in general. I think it can have its role in certain contexts, but I'm not really interested in it.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

I respect people who believe in purism. But it's a concept that my mind repels a priori , because as Kant and other philosophers said, it is so beautiful to think with your own mind, without being influenced by anyone's opinion.
So it is great to read any religious concept with criticism, and accept it only if your mind accepts it.
I've chosen a Christian heresy only because it matched my vision of God and Jesus.

 

[Laika]

Whilst "purism" is necessary, it can also be very destructive. most of the time, "purists" are anally retentive and have nothing better to do that argue with each other as a form of life-trolling. it makes them feel important. this typically is to do with the correct symbolism rather than practice. However, each religious tradition has key aspects it cannot do without and there is necessarily a certian discipline in sticking to them based on an identity and a community of shared values. I'm ok with purism so long as they "live and let live" and understand not everyone is going to get it.

 

[Thana]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

Hey, if you want to call yourself a Christian then by my standards you're a Christian no matter what you believe.
If you want my respect however you have to believe at the very least that Jesus was more than just 'a cool guy that did stuff I agree with but was just a man'

I think everyone has their individual conditions, whether they admit it or not. But I consider purism idealistic, sounds nice but ultimately unattainable and just causes trouble and hurt.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

There will always be a degree of purism in founded religions. When a "prophet" or guru creates a new religion, they are saying "you've got it all wrong" and hence they have to tell people what constitutes getting it right. You can't have such a religion without a declaration of faith or a creed. How could some-one say they were a Muslim if they didn't believe that Muhammad was a prophet?

I find what some people consider purism in paganism a more complex matter.

I too use the book on household worship from Labrys and I too raised my eyebrows at the idea that you couldn't use a 2D image. I raised it at hellenismos.us and no-one there agreed. Actually we don't know that the Greeks thought that: the Romans didn't.

As for the so called racism of some Heathens, it makes sense if you understand their viewpoint. If, like some, you believe that the gods (or at least the Æsir) are deified ancestors, then why worship some-one else's ancestors? And why would they be interested in you anyway?

 

[Politesse]

There will always be a degree of purism in founded religions. When a "prophet" or guru creates a new religion, they are saying "you've got it all wrong" and hence they have to tell people what constitutes getting it right. You can't have such a religion without a declaration of faith or a creed.

Then why did so many prophets refrain from creating any creeds? Jesus and Buddha wrote no creeds. I can't think of any ancient Jewish prophet who did. It's usually a later phenomenon.

As for the so called racism of some Heathens, it makes sense if you understand their viewpoint. If, like some, you believe that the gods (or at least the Æsir) are deified ancestors, then why worship some-one else's ancestors? And why would they be interested in you anyway?

Because race and ancestry are not the same thing. How could you possibly know whether you have a god on your family tree just by your skin color, or where your parents told you your family is from, a notoriously unreliable source of information? If someone is being called by an ancestor god, that god presumably considers them a descendant regardless of their supposed race. Even if they aren't literally descendants, are you claiming that the ancient Greeks or Germans or whoever never heard of adoption? Because you are arguing against known history if so.

 

[Erebus]

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?

Taking Paganism as a whole, it tends to embrace an enormous variety of approaches and beliefs. Subsets of Paganism vary wildly. Some are highly purist, many aren't.

What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

If somebody feels that "Pagan" accurately describes them, I'm generally willing to take their word for it. I couldn't give a list of exceptions to that rule of thumb, as I prefer to look at it in a case by case manner. For example, if somebody solely worshiped Yahweh, regularly attended church, considered Jesus to be the messiah and considered all other gods to be either false or demonic... I wouldn't consider that person Pagan even if they claimed to be. At the same time though, I probably wouldn't be the one to say "no, you aren't a true Pagan." I'd just smile, nod and leave them to it.

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

Honestly, I'm fairly neutral towards it. I don't see much point in getting involved in arguing over who's a true/legitimate adherent of a given religion. I do understand that some people need to categorize things though. I just leave them to it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

I think there is a traditional benefit by which preservation plays a key role in keeping a religion as close to the original as possible and is understandable as to why keeping tradition as pure as possible keeps it's identity and solvency as a particular practice or faith.

However, how does one even go about determining the motivations and structure of a givin religions original architects who created and instituted things hundreds and thousands of years ago?

Time, landscape, and progression has a way of eating away at all religions affecting it's original purity and original founding. While it may be worth the effort to keep a traditions purity, at the same time you also need to acknowledge purity is subject to progression and change accordingly as with anything else.

 

[tjgillies]

My religion says that we must all be united in what we believe. Denominations are prohibited. There have been a few groups to splinter away but they literally only have a handful of followers now-a-days. 99.99% of us are in the mainline branch. So in that sense everyone in my religion is a purist.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Then why did so many prophets refrain from creating any creeds? Jesus and Buddha wrote no creeds. I can't think of any ancient Jewish prophet who did. It's usually a later phenomenon.

I did also say "declaration of faith". The Jewish prophets made it very clear what you had to do and think, as did Buddha. As for Jesus, he was a Jewish prophet, not a Christian.

Because race and ancestry are not the same thing. How could you possibly know whether you have a god on your family tree just by your skin color, or where your parents told you your family is from, a notoriously unreliable source of information?

It all depends on where you are. Most people in the USA can't tell what their ancestry is, but European families can stay put for centuries.
http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/features/what-makes-british
I might point out that I'm not a subscriber to this approach. The Hellenic gods are not my ancestors and, as an ancient Greek said, "people are called Hellenes because they share in our education rather than in our birth." (Isocrates, Panegyricus)

 

[Muffled]

In the context of discussing religions, purism represents the notion that there are certain characteristics an adherent of a particular religion must have in order to be an authentic follower of that tradition. Countless arguments are had in religious communities over who is and isn't an authentic or legitimate member of their traditions. Major disagreements in what the tradition is supposed to be spur the creation of new sects within religions, and at times new religions entirely.

To what extent does your religious tradition have a purist mindset?
What features simply must be present for you to consider someone an authentic adherent of your religion?

On a broader level, what is your impression of purist philosophy in general? Is purism an attribute you value or admire? Is it something you dislike or condemn?

I believe it is absolute.

I believe one must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe that implies that the person repents sin.

I believe it is necessary so it has value.

I believe I like it the way I perceive it but not the way it is sometimes practiced by including other things.