Religions Rules

[alan1]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.

So what if someone came along and said you can't be part of X faith because of Y activity? Would you simply agree and let them dictate what faith you choose to follow? What authority do they possess to hold such a position? By the same token your self appointed Faith-tagging is equally empty.

Religion is full of rules.
Don't like them?, find a different religion.
Yeah, it's that simple.

That's not quite what I was saying. All religions are arbitrary constructs so nobody has any authority to proclaim someone else as not "really" being a member of X religion.

If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If I understand it correctly, private association is protected constitutionally. If you organize a KKK chapter in Florence, Texas (now there is a sink hole of folks who don't like each other), then you can tell a member of the Black Panther Party s/he needs to go find another organization to join.

That's why I support the constitutional right of the Boy Scouts to make certain decisions that I believe to be just wrong. And that is why I support any tax-supported entity in refusing to give money to the BSA.

Thus any religion can organize itself and exclude any the power leadership does not like. Repulsive? Sure. But constitutional.

 

[RodISHI]

Concerning Believers Jesus did cover that.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

This cover all who claim to believe. It is more than just a mere religion/cult.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.

Religion is full of rules.
Don't like them?, find a different religion.
Yeah, it's that simple.

That's not quite what I was saying. All religions are arbitrary constructs so nobody has any authority to proclaim someone else as not "really" being a member of X religion.

If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

There is no objective universal barometer for any religion so all accusations are subjective.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.

That's not quite what I was saying. All religions are arbitrary constructs so nobody has any authority to proclaim someone else as not "really" being a member of X religion.

If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

There is no objective universal barometer for any religion so all accusations are subjective.

I suppose that depends on the religion.

Take mine: very easy to tell if they are really member.

If they are a baptized a member they are.

If they have not been baptized, have been excommunicated through a Church council, or petitioned to have their name removed from the records of the Church. They aren't.

Anyone who can check the records or with disciplinary powers have the authority to proclaim whether someone is really a member or not.

So not very difficult at all when there is a clear structure.

 

[JD_2B]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.

Religion is full of rules.
Don't like them?, find a different religion.
Yeah, it's that simple.

That's not quite what I was saying. All religions are arbitrary constructs so nobody has any authority to proclaim someone else as not "really" being a member of X religion.

If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

That is correct-

To be a part of a group, you do have some sacrificing to make- you have to wait your turn to talk, for one thing, you have to respect that someone is sitting in a chair you generally like- Im just giving general examples, here..

Sociologically speaking, in order to really be a part of a group, you do have to follow along with that group's expectations, rights and responsibilities. Its like a social "group" code..

 

[JD_2B]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.


If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

There is no objective universal barometer for any religion so all accusations are subjective.

I suppose that depends on the religion.

Take mine: very easy to tell if they are really member.

If they are a baptized a member they are.

If they have not been baptized, have been excommunicated through a Church council, or petitioned to have their name removed from the records of the Church. They aren't.

Anyone who can check the records or with disciplinary powers have the authority to proclaim whether someone is really a member or not.

So not very difficult at all when there is a clear structure.

The rule of the group is to be baptized. Hence, to be a part of the group, one must follow the rule.
That is how the group membership dynamic works.

Whew. Glad we got that cleared up...

 

[CurveLight]

I'm moving this conversation here because it has diverged from the original topic.


If one violates the rules of the religion, then yes, it is easy to say they aren't part of the religion. If they don't follow the rules of the religion then they aren't really a member. That's the way I see it.

There is no objective universal barometer for any religion so all accusations are subjective.

I suppose that depends on the religion.

Take mine: very easy to tell if they are really member.

If they are a baptized a member they are.

If they have not been baptized, have been excommunicated through a Church council, or petitioned to have their name removed from the records of the Church. They aren't.

Anyone who can check the records or with disciplinary powers have the authority to proclaim whether someone is really a member or not.

So not very difficult at all when there is a clear structure.

My point is that "clear structure" is open to being challenged because religion is a faith and not akin to belonging to another type of group like a country club. I was Baptized in a Mennonite church but before the actual event I protested the rule of the church stating if one is Baptized by a Mennonite pastor then that person is Baptized into the Mennonite church. Based on Paul's critcism to the church in Corinth, I absolutely refused on the grounds one can only be Baptized into Christ, nothing more or less. Some in the church did not recognize my Baptism. Did that mean I wasn't a Christian or a member of the church I attended every week and where I participated in many events?