They aren't really <insert preferred religion here>

[angellous_evangellous]

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."

Yes. I would say that all writing is tradition if it is a record of the institution. You may have trouble defining the NASDAQ or other instutions as a religion or a church to carry your abuse of the metaphor to its absurd conclusions. Obviously, I was only applying writing as a tradition of a religious group, but I can see it being applied to other groups as well.

 

[lunamoth]

I think religions are supposed to attempt to stop that way of thinking; however, it's only created more differing opinion and ignorance. You can't tell someone that they are not a member of a certian faith, but you can tell them that they are not representing it well. People are always subjective.

I agree Buttons*. See Sunstone's thread: Wisdom is knowledge that unites, rather than divides.

sister luna

 

[Booko]

The commandment of love is not wimpy. I think the most harm is done when we blindly follow and do not question the actions of those in our religions who have 'authority.'

Yes, I agree.

 

[Booko]

Yes. I would say that all writing is tradition if it is a record of the institution. You may have trouble defining the NASDAQ or other instutions as a religion or a church to carry your abuse of the metaphor to its absurd conclusions. Obviously, I was only applying writing as a tradition of a religious group, but I can see it being applied to other groups as well.

I'm still not following how this would apply. Perhaps I'm just getting caught up on semantics. I was thinking "tradition" in, well, the Catholic sense (I did marry into a Catholic family, after all.) And in that sense, I don't see how my religion really has a "tradition."

Hm, now that would be a good question for me to ask the husband, as he was raised Catholic and is not Baha'i. If he comes up with anything interesting, I'll let you know.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm still not following how this would apply. Perhaps I'm just getting caught up on semantics. I was thinking "tradition" in, well, the Catholic sense (I did marry into a Catholic family, after all.) And in that sense, I don't see how my religion really has a "tradition."

Hm, now that would be a good question for me to ask the husband, as he was raised Catholic and is not Baha'i. If he comes up with anything interesting, I'll let you know.

I wonder if the Christian Church viewed itself as having a Tradition in its first 150 years.

lunamoth

 

[Booko]

I wonder if the Christian Church viewed itself as having a Tradition in its first 150 years.

To answer that question would be to wander off the thread again, most likely.

 

[Adstar]

Booko

Ok lets take you through some concepts and see if you agree with them:

A follower of a religion follows and agrees with the teachings of the founder of that religion.

Does that sound like a reasonable statement? Like a good definition of what a memebr of a religion should conform to?

So a buddhist would be a person who follows the teachings of buddha and agrees with his teachings. Sounds reasonable? yes? No?

Likewise a follower of muhammad would agree with what muhammad teaches in the koran right?

And a Christian would follow and agree with the teachings of Jesus in the bible right? yes or no?

Not to quibble, but might it not be better to say they TRY to follow the teachings? It's not like anyone really does this 100% or anything. But you do kinda wonder sometimes about people who don't seem to even make the 10%.

Good point.

Ok lets remove the word follow out of my original questions. But lets keep the agree in there.

So now although people tend to fall short in their following of thier faith Founder's teachings, they should still agree with their faiths founders teachings?

What do you think? Is this a reasonable measure in determining if one is a Christian or muslim or buddhist or however?

It's pretty easy to forget that we all start out at different points. One person's bad behaviour might be quite an improvement over what he was before, while another person's fairly good behaviour hasn't improved from where he started. So, who's the one who's grown closer to God, really?

I don't think it is good to measure a person’s actual performance in doing what their "Teacher" called for. But i think it is essential for one to actually believe what their "Teacher" taught.

If one cannot agree with what their Teacher Taught then how can they justify calling themselves a disciple of that Teacher ?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[James the Persian]

I'm still not following how this would apply. Perhaps I'm just getting caught up on semantics. I was thinking "tradition" in, well, the Catholic sense (I did marry into a Catholic family, after all.) And in that sense, I don't see how my religion really has a "tradition."

Hm, now that would be a good question for me to ask the husband, as he was raised Catholic and is not Baha'i. If he comes up with anything interesting, I'll let you know.

Well, in the Orthodox sense (and I imagine the RCs are exactly the same) you do indeed have a Tradition. It might be all written down (whereas ours isn't) but as it basically means teachings that are passed down, and as for us Scripture is part of Tradition, you certainly do have one by our standards. And yes, lunamoth, the early Church did have a Tradition (in the first 150 years). St. Paul refers to it directly in both its oral and writen forms.

I would agree with the general tenor of this thread in that whilst I can see that it is perfectly valid to say that person X's actions/beliefs make him a poor representative of his faith, it is quite presumptuous to say that they are not of faith Y at all. That would entail my being able to read minds. We are all bad followers of our faiths to one degree or another, the trick is to recognise this, pick ourselves up and try again.

James

 

[Booko]

Ok lets remove the word follow out of my original questions. But lets keep the agree in there.

So now although people tend to fall short in their following of thier faith Founder's teachings, they should still agree with their faiths founders teachings?

What do you think? Is this a reasonable measure in determining if one is a Christian or muslim or buddhist or however?

Even that has its pitfalls, Adstar. Who (or what?) gets to decide which of the *interpretations* of the Founder's teachings is the one a person has to agree with?

And exactly what is a core belief in a religion that someone must agree with? In most religions, there's some wiggle room there, except with the very extremes.

I don't think it is good to measure a person’s actual performance in doing what their "Teacher" called for. But i think it is essential for one to actually believe what their "Teacher" taught.

No, I don't think that's a good measure either. For one thing, we don't know where some individual started out in life. I figure it's one thing if someone who was raised in a very dysfunctional family breaks some commandments, because it's not like they were taught right, but what excuse do *I* have? None I can think of.

If one cannot agree with what their Teacher Taught then how can they justify calling themselves a disciple of that Teacher ?

Generally speaking, yes, but there are times where there is room for interpretation. And also, being human, we do misunderstand things sometimes. Shouldn't we give people a little room to learn more about what their Teacher Taught before we condemn them as "not really a member of religion X"? And shouldn't we entertain the idea that we might possibly be misunderstanding something ourselves?

Isn't enough to just ask someone a question like, "If you believe Q, then how does that work with this passage?"

Doing that will "defend the faith" without getting overly judgemental about individuals, wouldn't it? I trust people to manage to figure out things for themselves pretty well if they're presented with enough information.

As an individual, I believe I have the responsibility to judge *for myself* what is in accordance with a religion's belief to see if it's something I should believe (i.e. "test the spirits to see if they are from God"). But that doesn't mean that I then get to go around and toss my judgement out as if it means anything. I'm not in charge of anything, and I've been wrong about things before (and will be again).

In an earlier post I mentioned the idea that maybe institutions had such a responsibility, but that wasn't addressing the OP. If you want to start a thread on that subject, that's fine.

 

[Booko]

Well, in the Orthodox sense (and I imagine the RCs are exactly the same) you do indeed have a Tradition. It might be all written down (whereas ours isn't) but as it basically means teachings that are passed down, and as for us Scripture is part of Tradition, you certainly do have one by our standards.

Hm, this might make a good thread on its own.

I would agree with the general tenor of this thread in that whilst I can see that it is perfectly valid to say that person X's actions/beliefs make him a poor representative of his faith, it is quite presumptuous to say that they are not of faith Y at all. That would entail my being able to read minds. We are all bad followers of our faiths to one degree or another, the trick is to recognise this, pick ourselves up and try again.

:clap

James[/quote]

 

[Adstar]

Even that has its pitfalls, Adstar. Who (or what?) gets to decide which of the *interpretations* of the Founder's teachings is the one a person has to agree with?

And exactly what is a core belief in a religion that someone must agree with? In most religions, there's some wiggle room there, except with the very extremes.


No, I don't think that's a good measure either. For one thing, we don't know where some individual started out in life. I figure it's one thing if someone who was raised in a very dysfunctional family breaks some commandments, because it's not like they were taught right, but what excuse do *I* have? None I can think of.


Generally speaking, yes, but there are times where there is room for interpretation. And also, being human, we do misunderstand things sometimes. Shouldn't we give people a little room to learn more about what their Teacher Taught before we condemn them as "not really a member of religion X"? And shouldn't we entertain the idea that we might possibly be misunderstanding something ourselves?

Isn't enough to just ask someone a question like, "If you believe Q, then how does that work with this passage?"

Doing that will "defend the faith" without getting overly judgemental about individuals, wouldn't it? I trust people to manage to figure out things for themselves pretty well if they're presented with enough information.

As an individual, I believe I have the responsibility to judge *for myself* what is in accordance with a religion's belief to see if it's something I should believe (i.e. "test the spirits to see if they are from God"). But that doesn't mean that I then get to go around and toss my judgement out as if it means anything. I'm not in charge of anything, and I've been wrong about things before (and will be again).

In an earlier post I mentioned the idea that maybe institutions had such a responsibility, but that wasn't addressing the OP. If you want to start a thread on that subject, that's fine.

So from your post i sence that you agree with the general thrust of my post. that to be a follower of a teacher one must agree with the teachings of that teacher.

But you also suggest that we cannot enforce our interpritation of the founders teachings upon others. I agree with this.

But if we trully believe in the interpretation then if we care for other will we not share out concerns about their interpretations? Not in the Spirit if condemnation but in the Spirit of wanting to help the other? Should one be judged as being condemning and judgemental when all they are doing is sharing their thoughts out of concern for the other?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Mykola]

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.)."

Perhaps it is just because that 'bad' people do not follow the teaching of the respective religions? Do you accept this as an option? Yes, "they ("lots of religious people") are just stupid" is available too, but please look carefully at "the religion has its guidelines that those people do not follow".

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.

It can be the case.
The problem that I see here is that you are generalizing, and this makes the question very obscure.

However, I think that point is pure bulls***.

Convincing argument!

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."

I'd die laughing, seriously. It would be ridiculous, because (BECAUSE is very useful word when you put forward some assertion) for agnostic to say such a thing will be... let me quote you:

It's just stupid, in my opinion.

Yeah, it would be stupid, and not only in your opinion.
If you hear any agnostic saying that you can boldly assert that he/she is not a faithful agnostic

What constitutes a true <member of whatever freakin' religion you feel like>?

Finally, you are talking shop.

If this person believes in the religion (whichever one it may be), why are they not a true <whatever religon>?

"Believes in the religion"? It is incomprehensible for me, let me to skip this.

Why toss them aside like that or discredit their beliefs?

I replied this above.

Because you don't like it?

Nope.

(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.)

It is better to organize the post before posting it, you know But yours is very organized - at least, it's mostly comprehensible.

Hope my answer helps.

 

[standing_alone]

Hope my answer helps.

It doesn't.

 

[Booko]

So from your post i sence that you agree with the general thrust of my post. that to be a follower of a teacher one must agree with the teachings of that teacher.

Generally speaking, yes.

But if we trully believe in the interpretation then if we care for other will we not share out concerns about their interpretations? Not in the Spirit if condemnation but in the Spirit of wanting to help the other? Should one be judged as being condemning and judgemental when all they are doing is sharing their thoughts out of concern for the other?

No, I don't think so. Goodness knows, I've had Christians post things to me that were definitely in the spirit of concern for my soul. They maybe don't know that I was raised a Christian in an environment that required you to actually know a little something about what Christ taught, so they don't know that I've probably heard the same explanation a zillion times before. So I wouldn't be at all annoyed at that. They're just doing their spiritual duty, which is commendable, afaic.

It does happen sometimes, as I'm sure you know, that if the last 10 people approached you with arrogance on a subject, it's very possible you might (wrongly) assume the 11th is coming from there too.

Which is probably why all religions teach the importance of patience.

 

[Mykola]

It doesn't.

What is unclear?

 

[St0ne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It's fallacy, doesn't matter if you think it's right or not the argument gets us nowhere.

 

[standing_alone]

What is unclear?

You didn't really respond to my post (excepting your snide remarks), except for this here:

"the religion has its guidelines that those people do not follow".

Also, I think you completely misunderstood my point. What my post was discussing was when certain religious people say others can't be members of their faith because they dislike a certain action they make even though those people clearly are members of their religion. I wasn't just out to call people stupid. You know what, I made that point more clearly in another post, how about I just post it again for you (since it appears you didn't read the rest of the thread)?

What prompted me to make this thread was a Christian member's post in a different thread (I won't name names) stating that the certain, what I'll call them, "conversion techniques" made by certain Christians made them not "real" or "true" Christians - but I didn't see how that could be. For if someone believes in Christ and does their best to follow Christ's teachings and tries to convert people to their faith, how does that make them not a "true" or "real" Christian?

Whenever I see a member of a certain religion (I'll stick with Christianity as an example, since that happens to be the religion I see do this the most) say something like, "They are not true Christians." I see it more as a way to:

1. Discredit these certain Christians (or whatever other religion)
2. Distance themselves from these certain Christians (or whatever religion)
3. Not have to take responsibility for such uses (or maybe, misuses) of Christianity (or whatever religion)

I see this finger-pointing and "not true Christian (or whatever religion)" name-calling more as a way to not have to deal with those who take the faith to "dangerous" extremes, since it's much easier to just claim that those "dangerous" individuals are not a member of the faith, rather than dealing with the root of the problem, which is often different sects of the religion or the "holy" books themselves. At least, that's how I view this.

 

[Mykola]

What prompted me to make this thread was a Christian member's post in a different thread (I won't name names) stating that the certain, what I'll call them, "conversion techniques" made by certain Christians made them not "real" or "true" Christians - but I didn't see how that could be.

I'll try to show you.

For example, if one uses some neuro-linguistic programming techniques, some deceit to bring people to Christ, the one does not act like a Christian.
The very important point is that "real" in "real Christian" is redundant. One is either Christian or not, period. Those who follow the teaching of Christ put forward in the Bible, are Christians ("the ones belonging to Christ"), the others, by definition - not.

For if someone believes in Christ and does their best to follow Christ's teachings and tries to convert people to their faith, how does that make them not a "true" or "real" Christian?

If one tries to do his/her best, he/she would never (the probability being very low, at least) deserve being called not true Christian.
Again, we Christians have rules how to handle the situations when brother or sister sins. That doesn't include calling her or him not true Christian...

Whenever I see a member of a certain religion (I'll stick with Christianity as an example,

Yes, sticking to some example is almost always better than generalization. But...

since that happens to be the religion I see do this the most)

But for some reason the term "Christian" has acquired much broader sense than it was in the beginning of the Church, so you'd better go to more details.

say something like, "They are not true Christians." I see it more as a way to:

It is very important to see clearly who's talking, mind it!

1. Discredit these certain Christians

Even these certain Christians - perhaps yes, maybe no. It depends.

2. Distance themselves from these certain Christians

It can be so...

3. Not have to take responsibility for such uses (or maybe, misuses) of Christianity

Yes!
Let me show your an example. My mother wanted to go to the Orthodox church to stick a candle before St.Nicholas icon to help me to get better sooner. She did really think that since it was accepted Orthodox action to handle the problem, it was a Christian way to do that - but I had to tell her that that candlesticking had nothing to do with the teaching of Christ. Then she asked me: "But they are Christians too, aren't they?"
What could I say in response, Standing_Alone? Could I possibly give any support the idea of the people who do not follow the teaching of Christ (by adding some their own rituals to it, at least) - being called Christians?
There is nothing to do with a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. It is about criteria - some meet them, some doesn't. The strict criteria often help to tell a self-professed Christian from a Christian ("real, true" are redundant here, remember? )

I see this finger-pointing and "not true Christian (or whatever religion)" name-calling more as a way to not have to deal with those who take the faith to "dangerous" extremes,

Yes. I don't want to be baselessly blamed for the actions of e.g. abortion clinics bombers...

Or, for example, are you acquainted with the Russian word "pogrom" [poh-'ghrohm]?
It denotes "massacre" but the connotation is more narrow! An Orthodox crowd, carrying icons, banners etc would go to destroy Jewish gettoes and massacre its inhabitants - that 'entertainment' was very popular in the end of XIX/beginning of XX century in Russian Empire.

Can I possibly keep silent when a Jewish friend of mine blames Christians for pogroms?

since it's much easier to just claim that those "dangerous" individuals are not a member of the faith,

Not applicable. Because for Christians "easier" is not a guideline.

rather than dealing with the root of the problem,

The root, my friend, in this case, is very often that some peole declare themselves as being Christians while not being Christians at all.

which is often different sects of the religion or the "holy" books themselves. At least, that's how I view this.

Your right to view this however you want is inalienable But read my words carefully and try to see my point.
Still hope that it could help

 

[standing_alone]

Still hope that it could help

Yes, that is much better. Thank you.

I'll try to respond tomorrow, since I should probably be getting to bed soon.

 

[Mykola]

Yes, that is much better. Thank you.

I'll try to respond tomorrow, since I should probably be getting to bed soon.

Good night!
(At a first glance at your post it occured to me that it was strange to go to bed at 10.20 in the morning - which is my local time. Stereotypes can be useful, but not always! )