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

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.

Quite a lot of religions try and conform to the modern, Abrahamic-derived definition of a religion as being centred around a set of truth claims. I.e. you believe X, Y and Z, you qualify as a member of this religion. Often carries with it, you must have some central scripture and so forth as well.

I don't think this is a particularly healthy definition, as it rather benefits the less positive manifestation of religion as a set of doctrines and dogmas tied to exclusivist claiming of 'the truth'.

I honestly think if you say you're part of a religion and have some reasonable relationship with, are based in it, then it doesn't matter if your beliefs and understanding are somewhat variant or not. It's more about the tradition in which you base yourself, the language you speak, the lens through which you see.

And they fuzz at the edges

At the very most basic level a person can be Christian by repenting from sin and believing in Jesus. But as we see in scripture people were not kicked out for sinning, except in the most extreme cases. And Ultimately the question will be, who does God find acceptable rather than who do people find acceptable. So a persons spiritual walk is with Jesus rather than with men.

Kemosloby said:

At the very most basic level a person can be Christian by repenting from sin and believing in Jesus. But as we see in scripture people were not kicked out for sinning, except in the most extreme cases. And Ultimately the question will be, who does God find acceptable rather than who do people find acceptable. So a persons spiritual walk is with Jesus rather than with men.

Click to expand...

What counts as 'believing in Jesus', in your opinion? Does one have to hold a particular view of Jesus (pbuh)?

I only know four religious well. My own, Catholicism, Nichiren Shoshu, and SGI Buddhism. I can spit ball Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada not so much. Muslims I read there is an act and said prayer that one must do and believe in, and they are Muslim.

In my opinion, in all three, when you actually practice the religion and make it your life style. When it shapes your life and the decisions you make, by definition, it is your religion. You know if you are an adherent of that said religion if you not only believe in it but also practice it in heart as well.

The_Fisher_King said:

What 'counts' (and what doesn't)?

Click to expand...

In my faith, if you don't know your ancestors exist, spirits, and believe in spirits then it's basically psychological belief. Nothing wrong with that just not the same. In Catholicism, you must take the sacraments in order to be part of the Church. In a Catholic point of view, if you do not take the sacraments, you are not in full union with Christ's Body and Christ himself (the Eucharist). If I were wrong, baptized Christians should take the Eucharist.

In Nichiren Shoshu, you must have the Gohonzon given by their temple directly. You can't get it from any other "denomination" because each denomination thinks the others have fake Gohonzons. Gohonzon is a scroll Nichiren (a Buddhist Ten Tai Monk) wrote on it the summary of the Lotus Sutra which, that, is a summary of all The Buddha's teachings.

With the Gohonzon, according to SGI (lay organization which is a spin off of Shoshu), you can receive benefits from good health to material things without it. You are considered an adherent when you own the Gohonzon and chant to it on a daily basis.

The_Fisher_King said:

On what basis can someone else say that someone is not an adherent of said religion?

Click to expand...

It depends. Some religions may say I am not honoring my ancestors "the right way" so in that sense, although my practice have value, it is not the same or "right" as it would be if I were initiated into their religion.

One every fifty Catholics may tell you bluntly you are not part of the Church if you do not believe in the sacraments of Christ. You can go far from the Church but the Church doesn't run from you, type of thing. They also feel if you purposely break the sacraments, say get married without a prenump, then that, depending on case, could be a cause for the Church divorcing you from the Body. Usually that's in serious cases and, a priest told me, usually for priests and authority of the Church not specifically lay man.

You're not an adherant of Shoshu if you do not have a Gohonzon and attend their services. You're not an SGI member if you don't purchase a Gohonzon. However, the latter does not say you are not a Buddha just not part of the organization hence can't vote and have other privileges that go with it.

The_Fisher_King said:

What counts as 'believing in Jesus', in your opinion? Does one have to hold a particular view of Jesus (pbuh)?

Click to expand...

You believe Jesus is the Son of God.

I would say holding the beliefs of that religion sincerely and acting upon them or living by them. I would also say a basic understanding of its history, texts, important figures, and cultural position are important. I think a person also has to spend some time in the religion before moving from "experimenting with X religion" to "being of X religion" so that they can be sure in their choice and get to know it. Declaring yourself an adherent too early or without knowledge or experience could make more experienced adherents turn away from you, make people around you see you as indecisive, a poser or wannabe, or just silly, and can lead to you acting a bit cocky without substance to back it.

lovesong said:

I would say holding the beliefs of that religion sincerely and acting upon them or living by them. I would also say a basic understanding of its history, texts, important figures, and cultural position are important. I think a person also has to spend some time in the religion before moving from "experimenting with X religion" to "being of X religion" so that they can be sure in their choice and get to know it. Declaring yourself an adherent too early or without knowledge or experience could make more experienced adherents turn away from you, make people around you see you as indecisive, a poser or wannabe, or just silly, and can lead to you acting a bit cocky without substance to back it.

Click to expand...

Do you think a religion is defined by beliefs?

Carlita said:

In my opinion, in all three, when you actually practice the religion and make it your life style. When it shapes your life and the decisions you make, by definition, it is your religion. You know if you are an adherent of that said religion if you not only believe in it but also practice it in heart as well.

Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree. But who decides what counts as 'the religion'? I could practice what I think 'the religion' constitutes and it shapes my lifestyle, the decisions I make, etc. But someone else who says they adhere to that religion could come along and say, no, you don't practice 'the religion', etc. Who holds the 'correct' view/has the greater 'right' (if you will) in such instances?

Carlita said:

In my faith, if you don't know your ancestors exist, spirits, and believe in spirits then it's basically psychological belief. Nothing wrong with that just not the same. In Catholicism, you must take the sacraments in order to be part of the Church. In a Catholic point of view, if you do not take the sacraments, you are not in full union with Christ's Body and Christ himself (the Eucharist). If I were wrong, baptized Christians should take the Eucharist.

In Nichiren Shoshu, you must have the Gohonzon given by their temple directly. You can't get it from any other "denomination" because each denomination thinks the others have fake Gohonzons. Gohonzon is a scroll Nichiren (a Buddhist Ten Tai Monk) wrote on it the summary of the Lotus Sutra which, that, is a summary of all The Buddha's teachings.

With the Gohonzon, according to SGI (lay organization which is a spin off of Shoshu), you can receive benefits from good health to material things without it. You are considered an adherent when you own the Gohonzon and chant to it on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

Carlita said:

You're not an adherant of Shoshu if you do not have a Gohonzon and attend their services. You're not an SGI member if you don't purchase a Gohonzon. However, the latter does not say you are not a Buddha just not part of the organization hence can't vote and have other privileges that go with it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing. Are these your opinions, (and/)or the opinions of others (and if so, who)?

Kemosloby said:

You believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So if someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't hold to this belief (instead holding other positive views of Jesus, pbuh), you are saying that they are not a Christian (or cannot, on this basis, make this claim)?

lovesong said:

I would say holding the beliefs of that religion sincerely and acting upon them or living by them. I would also say a basic understanding of its history, texts, important figures, and cultural position are important. I think a person also has to spend some time in the religion before moving from "experimenting with X religion" to "being of X religion" so that they can be sure in their choice and get to know it. Declaring yourself an adherent too early or without knowledge or experience could make more experienced adherents turn away from you, make people around you see you as indecisive, a poser or wannabe, or just silly, and can lead to you acting a bit cocky without substance to back it.

Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to agree with this (although I have no problem with people appearing to chop and change on a regular basis - some people prefer to advertise where they are with their thinking, others not).

But who decides what counts as 'the beliefs of that religion'? Or what it means to 'spend some time in' that religion?

The_Fisher_King said:

Ah, I see. So if someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't hold to this belief (instead holding other positive views of Jesus, pbuh), you are saying that they are not a Christian (or cannot, on this basis, make this claim)?

Click to expand...

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

The_Fisher_King said:

I'd be inclined to agree with this (although I have no problem with people appearing to chop and change on a regular basis - some people prefer to advertise where they are with their thinking, others not).

But who decides what counts as 'the beliefs of that religion'? Or what it means to 'spend some time in' that religion?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

In my view, if a person declares that they are a member of a certain faith, then that is good enough. If a person says their favorite color is red, who am I to disagree? Yes, anyone can say anything, but for those who say something that is different from what the common perception is, so what? It is their own problem/challenge, and once they learn more, they might change the affiliation.

The_Fisher_King said:

I'd be inclined to agree. But who decides what counts as 'the religion'? I could practice what I think 'the religion' constitutes and it shapes my lifestyle, the decisions I make, etc. But someone else who says they adhere to that religion could come along and say, no, you don't practice 'the religion', etc. Who holds the 'correct' view/has the greater 'right' (if you will) in such instances

Click to expand...

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.

The_Fisher_King said:

Thank you for sharing. Are these your opinions, (and/)or the opinions of others (and if so, who)?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The_Fisher_King said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

loverofhumanity said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is not necessarily an objective exercise. You may think you know what a religion teaches, and be wrong/misinterpreting the texts, etc.

syncretic said:

This is not necessarily an objective exercise. You may think you know what a religion teaches, and be wrong/misinterpreting the texts, etc.

Click to expand...

True up until now. In the past the Founder of all Faiths did not leave written instructions of His Successor so it is impossible for the current religions to adjudicate objectively on such matters as there is no central authority to whom to turn to.

However with the Revelation of Baha'u'llah this is not so. All matters that are not recorded in the Book are to be referred to the Universal House of Justice and what they say is of God and infallible or objective.

Here is part of the document of the Will of Abdul-Baha who was appointed by Baha'u'llah the Manifestation of God. And Who appointed in His Will, Shoghi Effendi to be Guardian of the Baha'i Faith and made it clear about the authority of the Universal House of Justice who are the governing Body today.

25. The sacred and youthful branch, the guardian of the Cause of God as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of His Holiness, the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both).

Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God.

("The Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Bahá", p. 11)”

So if the Universal House of Justice sees fit to expel someone or disenroll them because of causing mischief etc or some very legitimate reason, which rarely ever occurs, then that decision is of God and completely objective.