It wasn’t about the word, it was about you looking at her life and making a judgment on whether or not she acted the way you would think a person of the religion she represents herself to believe and/ or practice.
“In looking at her life…” doesn’t mean anything much different than “Judging by her life”
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]It wasn’t about the word, it was about you looking at her life and making a judgment on whether or not she acted the way you would think a person of the religion she represents herself to believe and/ or practice.
“In looking at her life…” doesn’t mean anything much different than “Judging by her life”
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.[/quote]
Where in any of my posts do I indicate that I’m Christian? If you think Christians are anyone who say they are, then aren’t you jumping the gun here by ascribing a religion to me when I have announced none in public? I think you’re making assumptions that are not stated.
As for sorting people into religious categories (i.e Christians), don’t you think it makes sense to have a few basic definitions or critera? Otherwise, what’s the point of such words as Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. My fuzzy vague criteria for each religious categorization may be different than yours, but so what? Is yours necessarily better than mine?
In the same way, I can write “Judging by her life, I think she’s a liberal/conservative/environmentalist/alcoholic/…”. I have my definitions of what is a liberal, a conservative, an environmentalist, etc. If she fits within my definition, then that’s what I’ll classify her in my mind. If someone says that he’s not an alcoholic, but then spends most of his income on booze, drinks alcohol morning to night, misses work, abuses family, has cirrhosis of the liver, then I’d catergorize that person as an alcoholic and discard his words at face value. The same goes for religious affiliation.
I think the basic criteria with religious beliefs is simply belief. And I’m sorry if I assumed you were one, but you sounded like one.
Sure, belief is important in any religion but don’t you think an important element of belief is the substance of that belief? Imagine you meet someone who says he is Christian. Upon further conversation, you realize the person has never heard of Jesus but his idea of Christianity is to dress up like Santa Claus and kneel down before a beautifully decorated tree while offering sacrifices (gifts) to the tree every Dec 25th. Not only that, he’s really sincere in his belief. Would you still take his words at face value and accept that he is Christian? Or that he’s simply one donut short of a dozen?
Being judgmental? Do you have a preconceived notion of what Christians sound like? Is there a common sounding Christian? Perhaps your box of Christianity is even smaller than mine.
There are certain commonly accepted formal definitions for Christians, Buddhists, etc. As “Screaming Jesus” said, most Christians accept the Nicene Creed. (And while he correctly listed Anglicans as being accepting of some kinds of skepticism, I believe that the Nicene Creed is still recited as part of Anglican church services). The exact nature of the Holy Trinity is one of the great theological debates, though. Shelves and shelves of university and theological college/seminary libraries are filled with books on it.
As for Buddhists, at least from a traditional, canonical perspective, the formal mark of being a Buddhist is that one has undergone the ceremony of taking refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. As part of this, one undertakes not to take refuge in worldly deities. From this perspective, therefore, it is not possible to be both a Buddhist and a Christian.
I don’t want to get anybody’s back up by posting this and I’m aware that many people value the right to call themselves whatever they choose. But I do think there’s a lot of value in these formal religious definitions from the point of view of religious practitioners themselves, as I also believe that there is great value in choosing and following an authentic, canonical religious tradition.
“Perhaps your box of Christianity is even smaller than mine.”
I have never once claimed to know that someone who claimed that they were of any religion was not of that religion.
[quote=“sjcma”][quote=“SuchAFob”]I agree with Chris.
And I also think that according to the very religion you are judging the people that you say aren’t christians by their actions by, you are not allowed to judge people. So if you are going to believe in the bible enough to say “Judging by her life, she practises neither religion. I don’t think of her as either a Christian or a Buddhist.” then you should believe in the bible well enough to know it isn’t your place to say this…[/quote]
SAF, perhaps you object to the word “Judging” that I used. Maybe if I had writtine “In looking at her life…”, it would be more palatable.
I look at this issue more from a point of categorization than judgment. Anyone can call themselves anything, I don’t really care. But it doesn’t mean that I have to accept their proclamations as true. I can claim to be the real Dalai Lama, but I don’t think anyone will take me at my word. My friend claims to be both a Catholic and a Buddhist, but I wouldn’t classify her as either. It doesn’t mean I think she’s a bad person in any way, shape, or form, but rather I think she likes the idea of being a Catholic Buddhist more so than accepting the tenets of either religion.[/quote]
Which is exactly what it is. Thanks for clarifying the issue for these kind folks.
Yes, Joesax, the Anglicans / Episcopalians do officially accept / recite every Sunday the Nicene Creed. Priests have to also affirm the 39 Articles, whether they believe in them or not. As a practical matter, they are divided into a liberal faction (like Spong), an Anglo-Catholic wing, and an evangelical wing (think C.S. Lewis).
Religious identity is a tricky thing. Protestants often assume that it is primarily a matter of belief. Other traditions emphasize behavior, group identity, ideals / aspirations, or specific lineages and vows that one acquires. Who’s to say? There’s a lot of argument about that–for instance among the aforementioned Anglicans, whose leaders are divided on the gay issue (and what this means for the authority of scripture and church tradition).
There’s a great comic book called “Testament”, by Douglas Rushkoff (otherwise known for his books on media criticism and Judaism). Its premise is that the stories of the Bible are living realities–archetypes–which we experience today. We become “slaves in Egypt” by giving our consciousness over to mass media, for example, and we “sacrifice children to Moloch” by sending them to war. It’s an interesting perspective, kind of midrashic. Anyway, I mention it because it suggests another way of relating to religious tradition.
I agree with sjcma’s statements on here. To say that we accept a person as belonging to a religious group just because they say they do is laughable. I like his Santa Claus-worship example. 
I started this thread because it seems like a lot of otherwise scientifically minded, secular people still claim to adhere to Christian faith. Oftentimes, such people don’t believe in much of the Bible or have even bothered to read it. The “post Christian” world is a fickle thing.
Only having sex to make babies … no, fooling around …
[quote=“SuchAFob”]
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.[/quote]
and its also why they were fed to the lions at the coliseum.
yes. they were pulled out of the 1st century church a couple blocks down the road and marched straight through the gates of the colliseum. convenient urban design
[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“SuchAFob”]
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.[/quote]
and its also why they were fed to the lions at the coliseum.[/quote]
Bullshit. The persecution of the Christians had nothing to do with them being “judgmental”. The Romans were tolerant of all ancient religions, but had always been wary of upstart evangelical cults, of which there were many. Christianity was one of dozens of cults which came under the official persecution of the Roman Empire. The threat of Christianity was not related to its obsession with sin, which was normal for Judaic cults, but because of its alarming rate of growth and Christians’ absolute refusal to worship Roman and Greek gods, to pay tribute to pagan temples, or to allow Christians to marry pagans. Jews were the exact same way, but were not nearly as evangelical as the Christians. The days of Jews abducting Greeks and forcibly converting them to Judaism ended with Herod the Great. The Romans and their Greek middlemen treated Christianity the same way the Chinese government is treating the Falun Gong: as a dangerous cult which threatens the state.
[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“SuchAFob”]
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.[/quote]
and its also why they were fed to the lions at the coliseum.[/quote]
Thanks. Now I have coffee all over my desk! 
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]I started this thread because it seems like a lot of otherwise scientifically minded, secular people still claim to adhere to Christian faith. Oftentimes, such people don’t believe in much of the Bible or have even bothered to read it. The “post Christian” world is a fickle thing.[/quote]I don’t know about “oftentimes”. Could be. I’d guess that many people don’t know a great deal about Christian theology. But at one time, I read some well thought-out work by a number of Christian theologians, which was compatible with modern scientific perspectives. If you’re really interested, I’ll try to dig some names and references out.
Funny, the people I know who do know a great deal tend to be Atheists. I, for one, studied religion in school. The more I learned, the more atheistic I became.
…Not that I had far to go after 4 years of Hebrew school.
[quote=“SuchAFob”][quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“SuchAFob”]
Once again, this entire “Your religion must fit into my box” ideology is why many people look so harshly as Christians for being so judgmental.[/quote]
and its also why they were fed to the lions at the coliseum.[/quote]
Thanks. Now I have coffee all over my desk! [/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my understanding that the Romans were tolerant of all religions except Christianity exactly because the premise of Christianity was that there was only one God.
It doesn’t seem to be a particularly reliable source, nor are their any further references, however it does represent the same view I have:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500350&lastnode_id=0
Do you have any reliable sources that contradict this?
I wasn’t stating you were wrong. I was stating that it was funny. 
However, what I have read has lead me to believe that the entire history of Christians being martyred at the coliseum has been highly exaggerated by Christian scholars and historians as a way of demonizing the polytheistic Roman and Greeks. The Christians went as far as to try to make the coliseums seem a sacred religious place by stating that the sand is red with the blood of martyrs and thus had healing powers.
But I could be wrong. It’s been a couple years since I have bothered to read anything about history (my least favourite subject.)
[quote=“SuchAFob”]I wasn’t stating you were wrong. I was stating that it was funny.
However, what I have read has lead me to believe that the entire history of Christians being martyred at the coliseum has been highly exaggerated by Christian scholars and historians as a way of demonizing the polytheistic Roman and Greeks. The Christians went as far as to try to make the coliseums seem a sacred religious place by stating that the sand is red with the blood of martyrs and thus had healing powers.
But I could be wrong. It’s been a couple years since I have bothered to read anything about history (my least favourite subject.)[/quote]
Sorry I took it the wrong way 
Well it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was highly exaggerated.
I hate history but love religious studies. So my understanding of certain things throughout history always tend to be a little slanted.