They aren't really <insert preferred religion here>

[Booko]

I would change "conditions" to "traditions." We can identify traditions pretty much objectively and determine whether or not someone claims to be <Whatever Abraham religion> stands outside of the traditions of <Whatever Abraham religion>.

No, AE, that wouldn't work for the Baha'i Faith. We don't work on tradition, we work on what's in writing.

(No, that's not knocking tradition, it's just that being youngish we are lucky to have stuff written down.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Additionally, it's much easier to classify people based on belief alone instead of behavior, because behavior can be ambiguous.

Not when the religion prescribes behavior.

Who could justly determine what kind of behavior is befitting to the religion?

Whomever makes the myth and gains a following. Whomever has the power - whether taken by force or granted by the people.

And isn't there a sense of leniency? After all, people make mistakes.

Depends on what the group tolerates.

 

[finalfrogo]

In my religion, that's what the House of Justice and sometimes the National Spiritual Assemblies do.

So if somebody acts erroneously, what does the House of Justice or National Spiritual Assemblies do?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, AE, that wouldn't work for the Baha'i Faith. We don't work on tradition, we work on what's in writing.

Writing is a tradition - it's a record of the tradition.

 

[Quiddity]

I'd hope so.

The RCC does have the authority to excommunicate someone, though, making them effectivly "not Catholic" any more, yes?

In short, yes.

 

[Quiddity]

I would change "conditions" to "traditions." We can identify traditions pretty much objectively and determine whether or not someone claims to be <Whatever Abraham religion> stands outside of the traditions of <Whatever Abraham religion>.

I'm not following.

 

[Bishka]

I think Standing Alone makes a good point. They may be, for example, a bad Christian, but their beliefs make them a Christian none the less.

What he said. They are still a blank whatever, but they aren't following the prescribed rules, traditions, etc. Also what feathers said.

 

[finalfrogo]

Not when the religion prescribes behavior.
Depends on what the group tolerates.

Even when religion prescribes behavior, errenous incidents must be taken into context. One may steal for a good cause. People are bound to interpret the context differently, that's what I meant when I said, "behavior can be abiguous," while belief is solid.

Whomever makes the myth and gains a following. Whomever has the power - whether taken by force or granted by the people.

So somebody can just kick you out of your own religion?

Depends on what the group tolerates.

Toleration may be diverse within a group. Furthermore, degrees of toleration would most likely be decided upon by the authorities as well, not actual scriptures.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Even when religion prescribes behavior, errenous incidents must be taken into context. One may steal for a good cause. People are bound to interpret the context differently, that's what I meant when I said, "behavior can be abiguous."

At the whim of those in power, of course.

So somebody can just kick you out of your own religion?

If it can happen to Christ, it can happen to any of us.

Toleration may be diverse within a group. Furthermore, degrees of toleration would most likely be decided upon by the authorities as well, not actual scriptures.

Yes.

 

[Booko]

Whomever makes the myth and gains a following. Whomever has the power - whether taken by force or granted by the people.

Or granted in print as written by the founder of the religion. At least, that's how mine works.

Some schmo might claim to be the new authority, but if it doesn't fit what the Writings say, it ain't so.

Which is probably why we've made it this long w/o sectarian divisions.

 

[bunny1ohio]

I notice lots of religious people(Abrahamic faiths, usually) make the claim whenever someone is a "bad" representative of their faith state "They are not a true <Christian, Muslim, etc.)." It seems the second someone that is of their religion does something considered bad, they simply toss them aside, stating they are not with us, and thinking that makes everything okay. However, I think that point is pure bulls***. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I were to do that whenever there was an agnostic I didn't like. "Well, s/he's not a true agnostic." It's just stupid, in my opinion. What constitutes a true <member of whatever freakin' religion you feel like>? If this person believes in the religion (whichever one it may be), why are they not a true <whatever religon>? Certainly that person is a member of that religion or a believer in that religion. Why toss them aside like that or discredit their beliefs? Because you don't like it? Can people not interpret and practice your religion in different ways? Why do you need to discredit these people? Are you afraid people will think you are like them? Why do people do this? And are they really right to do so?

(Sorry this post is kind of unorganized. I hope you all somewhat get my point. I threw this together with about twenty minutes before work. )

HE SHOOTS HE SCORES!!

 

[Booko]

Writing is a tradition - it's a record of the tradition.

In your religion, that would be so. Even in Islam, it's so.

But unless you're going to declare all writing to be a tradition (like the latest NASDAQ closes?) then it doesn't work for mine.

And I'd have a hard time stretching the meaning of "tradition" to mean "all forms of writing."

 

[Booko]

The RCC does have the authority to excommunicate someone, though, making them effectivly "not Catholic" any more, yes?

In short, yes.

The Universal House of Justice has that authority in mine.

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you all somewhat get my point. I threw this together with about twenty minutes before work. )

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do get it. If I had a dollar for every time that I, as a Latter-day Saint, have been told that I'm not a "real" Christian because I don't worship the "real" Jesus or understand the "real" nature of God, I could retire today.

 

[Quiddity]

The Universal House of Justice has that authority in mine.

Do you think this is doing what Standing Alone is saying?

 

[Booko]

So if somebody acts erroneously, what does the House of Justice or National Spiritual Assemblies do?

Most things go to the Local Spiritual Assembly first, but they don't have the authority to do anything -- they just decide if it needs to be bumped upstairs. Before that, they'll find the facts and see if it's even an issue, and if so give you some advice on writings to study, which you're free to take or not.

National Spiritual Assemblies can remove your Administrative Rights. This means 3 things:

1. You can't vote in Baha'i elections.
2. You can't give money to the Fund.
3. You can't attend Baha'i-only functions, which is pretty much the 19-Day Feast and elections. You can attend anything else, which is the majority of Baha'i functions anyway.

You have to do something public and obvious to get your Administrative Rights removed. The most common thing is to get married without parental permission (we're required to get that permission in order to marry - doesn't matter how old you are). Other things I've seen are getting convicted for tax evasion and running for partisan office.

But long before you get to this point, there's the other non-authoritative arm of the faith that asks to meet with you to see if they can say some prayers with you and study the Writings, so maybe you'll decide whatever you're doing is not such a hot idea all on your own. It's no high pressure job, but the Writings do say what the say, and some of them are difficult to make out differently.

I mean, people do stuff unwittingly, and that's not going to get you into trouble. Shortly after Dizzy Gillespie became a Baha'i he started to run for President. So he met with someone who just gently brought his attention to the text that says we're not supposed to be involved in partisan politics. Diz said "oops" withdrew his name, and it was no big deal.

To get completely expelled from the Faith (be declared a Covenant Breaker, as they're called), you'd have to deny that the Universal House of Justice has any authority at all. That's quite a stretch, given the writings are clear on the line of authority that comes down from Baha'u'llah himself, and how elections are supposed to work.

People have tried, though. While there are, what, 6-7 million of us compared to maybe 100 and shrinking in some little group, I don't know how you'd call that a "sect." That's like saying that the Branch Davidians were a "sect" of Christianity. :sarcastic

 

[Booko]

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do get it. If I had a dollar for every time that I, as a Latter-day Saint, have been told that I'm not a "real" Christian because I don't worship the "real" Jesus or understand the "real" nature of God, I could retire today.

You know, Katzpur, I was thinking of y'all when I first read the title of this thread...

 

[Booko]

Do you think this is doing what Standing Alone is saying?

Well, it's not what I understood her to mean.

I thought she was addressing individuals saying "you're not religion X." I'm an individual, and I don't do that. It's above my pay grade.

We have a saying common amongst Baha'is, that problems happen when Institutions start acting like individuals, and individuals act like Institutions.

Baha'is have institutions, the RCC has institututions, LDS has institutions, and yeah, I don't see a problem with them trying to keep things together so they don't become so watered down they become meaningless. Obviously it's not good to go down the road to oppression either, so balance is everything.

As always, ymmv.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, it's not what I understood her to mean.

I thought she was addressing individuals saying "you're not religion X." I'm an individual, and I don't do that. It's above my pay grade.

We have a saying common amongst Baha'is, that problems happen when Institutions start acting like individuals, and individuals act like Institutions.

Baha'is have institutions, the RCC has institututions, LDS has institutions, and yeah, I don't see a problem with them trying to keep things together so they don't become so watered down they become meaningless. Obviously it's not good to go down the road to oppression either, so balance is everything.

As always, ymmv.

Oh boy, how I agree... ....Gracias.

 

[Booko]

Oh boy, how I agree... ....Gracias.

De nada!