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

[The_Fisher_King]

Whatever positive views a person has of Jesus, Only the one that Jesus is the Son of God identifies you as a Christian.

"If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God." 1 John 4:15

Okay. And does one have to have a particular view on what exactly it means for Jesus (pbuh) to be 'the Son of God', i.e. what exactly that term means?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I just mean that if you want to identify as Christian you have to believe in one god and Jesus and whatnot, if you want to identify as Buddhist you have to accept the whole progression to Nirvana thing, just things like that. By "spend some time" i just mean you have to get to a point where you feel comfortable and secure in your new label, have read some things, have gotten to know some of the facts about the religion, maybe gone to an event or gathering or talked to some people but that's a lot harder for less common religions, done some of the practices in private like prayer or meditation, you know, just break it in a little before showing it off.

But who decides what the essential Christian or Buddhist beliefs are, that one must absolutely hold, to be able to legitimately call oneself a Christian or Buddhist?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Unless it requires a formal initiation or whatever, I'd say just declare it. Take some time to learn about it and such, sure, but it's not a huge deal to me.

But who gets to say whether a particular religion requires, say, a formal initiation?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I guess it balls down to individual definitions. I never agreed to that since religion in and of itself isn't like choosing what we want to take for class in college. I'd assume if we take up a religion whether we decide it's right or go by what other things is right, it should define our lives.



Actually experience and fact. It's similar to Catholicism and Protestantism. At first, Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism in Japan dictated who was to be enlightened and how. Then politics got involved and Soka Gokai International (SGI) disagreed. The priesthood excommunicated many members because of it.

There are a lot of bias opinions from both sides. This one is from the Nichiren Shoshu view. I went to this temple for a couple of years. When I first went, they shoved magazines saying SGI was false and how Nichiren Shonin is the real Buddha of today. (Reincarnation of the original Buddha). You can't be enlightened without the priesthood. You also can't chant at any other meetings such as SGI and Nichiren Shu among others only Shoshu.

Even though they all chant the same thing, Daimoku, like Catholicism, without the "Sacraments" of the temple and priesthood, the mixture of the two is a no-no. A lot of people in the 80s I think got their Gohonzon from the priesthood taken from them because the follower decided to leave the temple. Nichiren Shonin did not say which Gohonzon was right. He even told followers to create their own. So there is a huge political upheaval between the two.

Here is information on Sokai Gokkai International. They also gave me pamphlets against Nichireh Shoshu with their magazine. They have a sensei that most people look up to even across the states. It's a form of idolism because all of our meetings is based on his interpretation of Nichiren's letters and Sutras not our own interpretations as The Buddha taught.

In short, the former Nichiren Shoshu because of the politics, if one is part of SGI or Shu, one can't be follow Shoshu Buddhism. In America it's a bit more relaxed but I can't imagine in Japan and other countries. SGI looks down upon members who are Shoshu adherents. When I told them I was a former Shoshu follower, they gave me pitiful looks as if Shoshu was, well, I can't think of a good phrase, evil. The groups I practice with are friendly just the president/sensei focus bothers me.

Here are some more links.

Leaving SGI to return to Shoshu

(ShoShu) Clarification on attending SGI Activities

I would have been more devoted in the faith if not for the politics involved. As for who can be involved and who can't, it balls down to politics unfortunately. Nichiren Shoshu believers tend to lend towards getting you not to go to SGI. It's highly evangelical. SGI is more sensei oriented and chanting for things rather than what The Buddha actually taught. So, there are some loop holes and that's why people are influence outside or inside the faith because of it.

So if I get together with a big enough group of others who share similar views to me, big enough to mount a challenge to the current dominant/orthodox view, that is what is required for me to be able to claim that I am an adherent of a particular religion (even if those who adhere to the current dominant/orthodox view will say, no, you are not an adherent of religion R, because y'all don't believe x, y, z )?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You can say and claim to belong to pretty much any Religion out there.
Whether the general society or the religious adherents whom you claim you belong to accept you is something entirely different.

Can't argue wit that!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

When they try and live by example the teachings of that religion they are a believer but if a person professes any belief but in practice acts and behaves the opposite they are not a true believer but a believer in name only.

But who decides what 'the teachings of that religion' are? For example, what teachings would I need to follow to be a Baha'i, and why those teachings?

Moreover, who decides who is a 'true believer' and who a 'believer in name only'?

 

[lovesong]

But who decides what the essential Christian or Buddhist beliefs are, that one must absolutely hold, to be able to legitimately call oneself a Christian or Buddhist?

It's as simple as this: you want to join a group you have to play by their rules. It's up for the group to decide, however they want to do that. There's no set rules for how a religion organizes itself, and anyone can say or do whatever they please, but to pass for a member of any group you have to conform to their norms enough that they, and others around the group, accept you as one of them, or else you just look awfully silly and a little fake. That's just the social reality of it.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The essential requirement to become a Baha'i is to accept Baha'u'llah as the Lord of this age... there's an expectation that the believer applies for membership in the local community and usually there's a consultation that takes place where the applicant can inquire about what it means to be a Baha'i...such as our laws and so forth. Usually there are also study classes available for a new believer.

There's a step by step process given online as follows:

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Baha'i

So if I were to accept Baha'u'llah as the Lord of this age, that would give me the right to declare myself a follower of the Baha'i Faith?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think if you conform to the doctrines and requirements of a given faith, you can call yourself an adherent of that faith. If you don't, you should choose another name that expresses your choice of religion.

And who decides what the doctrines and requirements of that faith are?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Anyone can declare themselves a member of pretty much any religion - it's not like they'd be violating trademarks or anything.

Likewise, anyone can call anyone else not a member of any religion.

When everyone agrees that someone is a *whatever*, acceptance by the group is possible.

Of course, this is completely separate from the question of which beliefs are correct.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It may not appropriate unless you define religion extremely losely as ideology, but I am effectively a Communist because I accept the philosophical system or worldview its built on (dialectical materialism) even if I may not agree with all the politics. In terms of identity, I feel I "belong" to that belief group based on shared history, attitudes, values etc.

It also has some very pronounced personality and emotional patterns that come with it as part of self-improvement and reinventing oneself so I can "think" and "feel" in a similar way to marxists that I'm reading and you get an intuition of what they mean. You can often tell who is a member of the "faith" based on these habits and patterns. A "non-believer" is identifiable based on either lacking or the immature development of these sort of triats. It has very practical consequences on how you behave and so you can spot it.

The oddity is that I can use the same ideas and then apply it to something new, only to find out there was an eqivilent used in an earlier time by other Marxists when I research it. So there is a sort of "mirroring" effect which makes you feel as if I belong as well.

That said, I'm not a "true believer" and any hard line Communist could tell pretty quickly. The way you think, feel, behave are all interconnected so you just "feel" it as much as you think it.

Okay, so you believe you have the right to call yourself a Communist, based on certain criteria you have decided are sufficient for someone to be able to call themselves a Communist? Even if there are other people who call themselves Communists who might say, no, you're not a (real) Communist, because you don't believe x, y, z? And indeed you yourself believe you can identify who a 'non-believer' is, on the basis of your criteria, even if they perhaps identify as a Communist, based on their criteria?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if I were to accept Baha'u'llah as the Lord of this age, that would give me the right to declare myself a follower of the Baha'i Faith?

You already have that right: go ahead and call yourself Baha'i; nobody will fine you or lock you up.

The other Baha'i might not like it much, but you were never entitled to be looked upon favourably by them anyhow.

 

[Tumah]

And who decides what the doctrines and requirements of that faith are?

The leaders of the faith, the majority of the people following the faith, or general consensus.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I don't think that such a person should call themselves by the name of that faith or at least they should add "cultural" to to differentiate it from the normative.
I mean look, a name is mean to be descriptive. Catholicism already has a meaning. Why confuse people by calling yourself a Catholic when you don't adhere to anything Catholic? How is that Catholicism?

On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough. But how does this play out with group labels that do not just denote one's faith but also act as ethnonyms? e.g. 'Jews', 'Druze', 'Sikhs'

 

[The_Fisher_King]

For Buddhism, it is the Four Dharma Seals. (The Three Marks of Existence + the teachings on Nibbana/Nirvana.) If you don't hold to the Four Seals, you are not following Buddha's Dharma.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/fourseals.htm

Says who? The above website?

 

[Tumah]

On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough. But how does this play out with group labels that do not just denote one's faith but also act as ethnonyms? e.g. 'Jews', 'Druze', 'Sikhs'

"Ethnic Jews". "Ethnic Druze". "Ethnic Sikhs".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alternatively, a person can claim to be a certain religion online. But if their posts contradict the norms of belief, then other posters of that certain religion may publicly disagree with your online self-identification.

Heck - that can happen even if their posts are in line with the norms of their beliefs.

On the internet, there's no shortage of people who are happy to call the adherents of some other denomination of their religion not a part of their religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Ethnic Jews". "Ethnic Druze". "Ethnic Sikhs".

If you need to differentiate, why not do it the other way (e.g. "religious Jew")?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I'd venture to say that you could be an adherent of any sort of religion without approval from anyone else. There is one main caveat, however, in that most religions have differing points of view and remain incompatible. You can borrow from anything, imho, but you are not following Islam if you are syncretizing it with something else since it explicitly forbids this sort of thing and any sort of pagan or non-Quaran sourced views. Judaism and Christianity have various prohibitions against graven images, speaking with spirits, and other occult type things. You can't be ceremonial magician and a Christian in the truest sense, because you are contradicting the Bible by dabbling in the occult. So while people have various opinions of these things, realize that when you mix certain things together you are violating the basic tenets of the religion. You're doing more of a self-made pick-a-mix than following any faith. If I were a follower of said religions, I would probably find issue with you calling what you do by the name of my faith -- not that I have one.

If none of this bothers you then proceed, but don't expect to find members of that faith to embrace your unique interpretation of their beliefs. Do what you do, but don't pass yourself off as a member of that group. I think that is just a part of being respectful.

But who decides what is forbidden/beyond the pale and what not? Who has that right?

Moreover, if I call myself an adherent of religion R, in all sincerity, i.e. I am not just 'passing myself off as a member of that group', even if I am in a distinct minority in calling myself such and by calling myself such, other adherents of religion R think I am being disrespectful towards them, what about my rights? What about respect for me?

 

[Tumah]

If you need to differentiate, why not do it the other way (e.g. "religious Jew")?

I would say because Jew is derived from Judaism, which is a religion. Other than that I don't see a strong reason why it can't be the other way. So long as the identification is true and clear.