They aren't really <insert preferred religion here>

[standing_alone]

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. )

 

[Quiddity]

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. )

Because <Whatever Abraham religion> has conditions. Although I don't think you'll catch me pointing out (I pray not) someone's failings of those conditions. As a matter of fact my Church shuns such behaivor. Does that stop Catholics from doing it? Not at all.

Agnostics on the other hand are not bound to any conditions. So why would anyone find the need to point it out?

 

[standing_alone]

Because <Whatever Abraham religion> has conditions. Although I don't think you'll catch me pointing out (I pray not) someone's failings of those conditions. As a matter of fact my Church shuns such bahaivor. Does that stop Catholics from doing it? Not at all.

I understand that - and no I've never seen you, nor could imagine you pointing out that. However, what if someone interprets a passage a certain way, or acts on a certain belief in a way you dislike? Why are they not a true member of that religion? Certainly holy books can be subjected to many different interpretations? I don't see why that person, for having a different, maybe unpopular, interpretation, is less a member of that faith.

Agnostics on the other hand are not bound to any conditions. So why would anyone find the need to point it out?

I know. It was a poor example. Just was hoping it could somewhat make my point. But I must be off to work now.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I think it's a matter of not wanting to think that a follower of one's own religion could behave in a certain manner. For example, when confronted with other Pagans who're rude or ignorant, I find myself thinking the phrase you described. It's not a concious thing, and- however hard I try- I still catch myself thinking it.

 

[Quiddity]

I understand that - and no I've never seen you, nor could imagine you pointing out that. However, what if someone interprets a passage a certain way, or acts on a certain belief in a way you dislike? Why are they not a true member of that religion? Certainly holy books can be subjected to many different interpretations? I don't see why that person, for having a different, maybe unpopular, interpretation, is less a member of that faith.

I honestly don't like the phrase "true member". For reasons you've noted. It's a vague description that assumes 1. You know the person very well 2. You know what's going in their head. I just don't personally use it.

But I can objectively say "I don't think he/she is catholic" based on his/her beliefs and actions. Although it's not something I would publicize to others or even them. I would just try to help them. I think this is different from what you speak of.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

I think it's a matter of not wanting to think that a follower of one's own religion could behave in a certain manner. For example, when confronted with other Pagans who're rude or ignorant, I find myself thinking the phrase you described. It's not a concious thing, and- however hard I try- I still catch myself thinking it.

the same goes for me

 

[Booko]

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.)."

Oh, and I thought this was gonna be about the subject of "they say they are religion X, but we say they're not."

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. )

I don't think it's out of line to point out that someone who is doing something awful might not be acting in accordance with the religion he/she purports to follow.

One of the more obvious examples might be of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Are they Muslims? Uh, yeah. Are they *good* Muslims? Not especially. There are loads of teaching in the Qu'ran they don't follow, starting with the Qu'ranic verse: Let there be no compulsion in religion.

I can especially understand why Christians would want to disassociate themselves from some of the weirder things done in the name of their faith.

However, when some crazed televangli$t says something recommending violence and hatred, I think there are more useful ways of dissassociation than "Well, he's not really a Christian."

How about: Yes, well, compare what he says/does with the Gospels and tell me if you think that tracks. Jesus said "by their fruits shall ye know them" and He also warned us to be wary of "wolves in sheep's clothing." yadayada

 

[c0da]

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.

 

[finalfrogo]

I know, it's absurd! Religion is just another aspect of an individual's identity--just like biological sex and ethnicity. If a man commits murder, that doesn't reject his sex! Yes, I understand what Victor said about conditions, but for me religion is a matter of belief, not behavior, mainly because two people can act similarly yet belong to two distinct religions.

The American Heritage dictionary defines a Christian as:

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I simply prefer to think along the lines of the former, although both perspectives are valid.

 

[Booko]

I honestly don't like the phrase "true member". For reasons you've noted. It's a vague description that assumes 1. You know the person very well 2. You know what's going in their head. I just don't personally use it.

No, but Catholics do have a way of keeping out the more outragous from their midst, unlike some of the other denoms. You have an authority that can say who is and who is not a Catholic.

Christians as a whole don't have an authoritative body to say, "Sorry, he might call himself a Christian, but we say he is not." There is no to keep some serial killer from calling himself a Christian and saying that Christ said it was ok.

Pre-schism there was a way to do that, but now it's down to denominations, and there are still non-demoninational Christians anyway.

 

[finalfrogo]

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.

It all comes down to the definition of religion. A "religion" includes belief, values, and morals, but does it include behaviors? Indeed, morals and values may influence behavior, but they are not the behavior itself; a cheater may still believe that cheating is wrong.

 

[finalfrogo]

Additionally, it's much easier to classify people based on belief alone instead of behavior, because behavior can be ambiguous. Who could justly determine what kind of behavior is befitting to the religion? And isn't there a sense of leniency? After all, people make mistakes.

 

[Quiddity]

No, but Catholics do have a way of keeping out the more outragous from their midst, unlike some of the other denoms. You have an authority that can say who is and who is not a Catholic.

Christians as a whole don't have an authoritative body to say, "Sorry, he might call himself a Christian, but we say he is not." There is no to keep some serial killer from calling himself a Christian and saying that Christ said it was ok.

Pre-schism there was a way to do that, but now it's down to denominations, and there are still non-demoninational Christians anyway.

It's an objective observation based on action. It is important to note that not being catholic does not necessarily equal "your going to hell". The Church does not have the authority to give tickets to heaven or hell. But she can and does warn if someone deviates. Which I personally appreaciate. Isn't that what family does?
I'd expect my wife to do the same if I started to go on the deep end of some sort of evil.

 

[Booko]

It all comes down to the definition of religion. A "religion" includes belief, values, and morals, but does it include behaviors? Indeed, morals and values may influence behavior, but they are not the behavior itself; a cheater may still believe that cheating is wrong.

Why would a religion not include behaviours?

 

[c0da]

It all comes down to the definition of religion. A "religion" includes belief, values, and morals, but does it include behaviors? Indeed, morals and values may influence behavior, but they are not the behavior itself; a cheater may still believe that cheating is wrong.

I don't think it includes behaviour, like you said it can help you behave morally, but it doesn't include the behaviour itself.

Example.
A guy acts horrible, he cheats, steals, lies hurts, but he believes all the things a Christian does - but he is already accepted that his behaviour will land him in hell.

I think he would still be a Christian, just a bad one.

 

[Abram]

I think this very fact is what pushes many people away from Christianity (or other religion). Lets say I run around here pushing (debating) Christianity and then one thread later you see my post in a sex thread explaining how I like to *whatever*. What kind of Christian is that? you ask. This point of view is very understandable and fair and that is why as a Christian (or other religion) you need to behave as one.

There are so many levels of any faith though. A new Christian (other religion) may be still working out problems and over time will become better. Its why we're asked never to judge.

CS lewis wrote this:
Put it this way. Imagine three men who go to war. One has the ordinary natural fear of danger that any man has and he subdues it by moral effort and becomes a brave man. Let us suppose that the other two have, as a result of things in their sub-consciousness, exaggerated, irrational fears, which no amount of moral effort can do anything about. Now suppose that a psychoanalyst comes along and cures these two: that is, he puts them both back in the position of the first man. Well it is just then that the psychoanalytical problem is over and the moral problem begins. Because, now that they are cured, these two men might take quite different lines. The first might say, "Thank goodness I've got rid of all those doodahs. Now at last I can do what I always wanted to do -my duty to the cause of freedom." But the other might say, "Well, I'm very glad that I now feel moderately cool under fire, but, of course, that doesn't alter the fact that I'm still jolly well determined to look after Number One and let the other chap do the dangerous job whenever I can. Indeed one of the good things about feeling less frightened is that I can now look after myself much more efficiently and can be much cleverer at hiding the fact from the others." Now this difference is a purely moral one and psychoanalysis cannot do anything about it. However much you improve the man's raw material, you have still got something else:the real, free choice of the man, on the material presented to him, either to put his own advantage first or to put it last And this free choice is the only thing that morality is concerned with.

 

[Booko]

Additionally, it's much easier to classify people based on belief alone instead of behavior, because behavior can be ambiguous. Who could justly determine what kind of behavior is befitting to the religion? And isn't there a sense of leniency? After all, people make mistakes.

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

And yeah, there's a huge sense of leniency. You have to be pretty public to have the institutions kick in. I haven't met a religion that is nuts enough to think humans are perfect all the time or that doesn't have some teaching on forgiveness.

Who can justly determine what kind of behaviour is befitting to the religion? Uh...when it's in black and white from the Founder himself, that does take you a long way to determining what kind of behaviour is and is not ok.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because <Whatever Abraham religion> has conditions. Although I don't think you'll catch me pointing out (I pray not) someone's failings of those conditions. As a matter of fact my Church shuns such behaivor. Does that stop Catholics from doing it? Not at all.

Agnostics on the other hand are not bound to any conditions. So why would anyone find the need to point it out?

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>.

 

[Booko]

It's an objective observation based on action. It is important to note that not being catholic does not necessarily equal "your going to hell". The Church does not have the authority to give tickets to heaven or hell. But she can and does warn if someone deviates. Which I personally appreaciate. Isn't that what family does?
I'd expect my wife to do the same if I started to go on the deep end of some sort of evil.

I'd hope so.

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

 

[finalfrogo]

Why would a religion not include behaviours?

Because religions influence behavior. It doesn't consist of the behaviors themselves.