How do you become a member of a religion?

[Alfie]

I understand the steps you take as a child, if you are born into the religion. But I don't understand what the process is that you would take if you came from a non-believing background and then decide you want to be a member of a certain religion. It's not like I can suddenly say "Hey, I'm Catholic!", or wake up one morning and decide "I will become Muslim."

What are the steps needed before you can label yourself of one belief system or another?

Which brings me to my next point... What about when the religion isn't a religion as such, such as Buddhism? Do you just have to believe that Buddha existed then you are Buddhist?

And finally, if people do have any experiences in Buddhism then could you please share them with me if you feel comfortable? I went to a Buddhist temple on Saturday, and just found myself extremely relaxed and comfortable there, it seems from what little I know that it seems to include many things that I believe in already, and it seems like a very inclusive belief system. I just want to know as much as I can about it.

[Sylvia727]

I'm sure it varies from religion to religion, denomination to denomination, and parish to parish.

I've had several family members convert to Catholicism, so I can tell the procedure for my parish. Other denominations are probably similiar, but YMMV. Anyway, when my mom was 16 she just walked into the church and wandered around until she found a priest, and asked him. He set her up with Sunday school classes. She went to mass every week, and afterwards met with the priest to discuss Catholic doctrine and review her 'homework' from the week before. After about six months, the priest was satisfied that she understood and believed everything she needed, so she was baptized and confirmed. (Baptism is the washing away of original sin, confirmation is you as an adult reaffirming that you do believe in God). After that, she was considered Catholic.

My 40-year-old uncle followed a similiar procedure, except that he had been baptized in another denomination so he was only confirmed. His twelve-year-old daughter didn't have to do anything in particular, I don't thnk. She was already baptized in the other denomination. She came to mass with her father and went to Sunday school classes afterwards. When she was fourteen she went into confirmation class with her peers, but she had already been a Catholic before that. Probably the rules are more relaxed for children.

I know of several non-denominational churches in my area where you really can't be a member of their religion because they don't preach one. The congregation attends mass, and the pastor baptizes infants and performs marriages, but it's all very generic.

[AFPheonix]

It really does depend on the religion. I'm not really sure about official Buddhism, but I can tell you it's unlike other organized religions in that it is an athiest religion. "Buddha" is actually a word that refers to people who have achieved awakening. Siddharta Guatama is generally referred to as capital-B Buddha as he was the first to achieve it.
I also know there are several strains of Buddhism, just as there are multiple yoga pathways in Hinduism.
Probably your best bet would be to hook in with someone at the temple to learn more and see if it's for you. I'm not sure if it's a cut and dried think like protestant Christianity where you ask Jesus into your heart or something like that, or if there's any rituals to start off your journey to awakening.

[Alfie]

I read up some more about Buddhism, I really want to know as much as I can in depth before I classify myself as anything. According to one site I read (and I don't know how much truth there is to this) you can just become Buddhist by accepting something (I can't remember what it was right now, but the point is that you just have to accept an idea and you are Buddhist). I think it's amazing also that the site said that you don't even need to tell anyone you are Buddhist, because it's not really any of their business. It is unlike any belief system that I have heard about.

I also love that in the FAQ section, it asked if people who believe in Buddhism should teach their children the belief, and it pretty much said no. It said to just encourage them to have good character and just hope for the best. They are supposed to find their own way to the belief system if that's what they want to do.

I really don't like the forcefulness of the religions I have come across, and I think they are a bit out-there to believe.

I was discussing all this with my boyfriend, and I explained to him that at least in Buddhism it is accepted that you may not agree with all of the teachings. Which made me think that I can't really believe in Christianity/Catholism/Islam/etc because I just don't believe the main concepts. He summed it up as "Umm... I want to be a Christian... But I sort of don't believe in Jesus." It is a pretty big issue in the scheme of things.

But I will just keep researching etc, and see where it leads me. I have been Christened and confirmed as a Lutheran, so if I decide to become Buddhist, does that mean that I have to somehow renounce the faith? Or is it just that it's no longer a valid part of my life? I assume it's the latter.

[Boozy]

According to one site I read (and I don't know how much truth there is to this) you can just become Buddhist by accepting something (I can't remember what it was right now, but the point is that you just have to accept an idea and you are Buddhist).

I think you may be referring to the Purelands school of Mahayana, which says that if you say the name Amitabha (a Buddha) and accept it, you will achieve nirvana. The concept of accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour is believed to have emerged from this concept. However, the gist of Purelands Buddhism is that we are already in nirvana and we just don't see it.....although its a bit more complicated than that. If you're interested in more information, you can certainly PM me.

Don't worry about classifying yourself as Buddhist unless you plan on becoming a monk. Its pointless and against the spirit of Buddhism. You can call yourself whatever you want, but it changes nothing.

Buddhism is a difficult philosophy to understand, and it has to be. You can't dumb it down for easy consumption, because that would defeat its purpose. In order to achieve spiritual results, you need to put in some hard work. Most of what you come to understand will come as a result of reflection and meditation.

With that said, there are lots of great books on the subject. For beginners, I recommend books by Alan Watts or the Dalai Lama. Alan Watts has a podcast that is absolutely wonderful, also for beginners. You can jump in anywhere; no need to start at the beginning.

Also - how wonderful that you have a temple so close to you! Ask the monks if you have questions. You will find they are more than willing to help you.

I'll dig through my bookshelves and notes to see if I can find anything else to recommend. PM me if you'd like.

[lordlundar]

The funny thing is that to become a member of a religion, you don't necessarily have to have the belief in said religion, just do the motions for it.

It's really my main beef with organized religions. To me, being a part of the religion means you have the belief of that religion. Anything else is window dressing. The organized religions feel the opposite, that if you do the motions, the belief comes in time. To me, that is simply brainwashing.

To become a card carrying member? do the motions, shout "praise <insert religious figure>" and make people think you support said religion. To have the belief though, is a personal journey and to not try to force it.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Alfie!! Firstly - how's home?? All good??

Now - your post here...

There are a couple of things brought up to be looked at seperately.

Firstly - if you're looking at Buddhism, yes - just go through the motions, ask the questions, do the meditations - no need to do anything 'formal' for it. At the least because there is no requirement for it - as per the basics of that particular religion. It's as you said - it's no-one else's business.

As for the Lutheran bit.. that's different. They do have prescribed rules etc - because (according to them) God has set down a set of rules etc that need to be followed - it's written down in a book and administered by ordained people. You would 'lose' your lutheranism if you became a buddhist (because, according to them you need to believe that JC was your saviour and there is only 1 God whom you have to have faith in - Buddhists don't - which is why they're called 'buddhist' - go figure!)

Your BF's comment basically translates to "I want to follow JC, even though I don't believe in JC"... it doesn't make sense. BUT... JC said things that were in many ways the same as Buddha (and many others out there). IMHO - the bible says a stack of things, but the only relevant things are the thing that JC actually said himself. The rest is a waste of time. But if you want to be a (for example) Catholic, then you have to proscribe to the Catholic 'laws' - you can't be a catholic without being one and following those laws (which means - if you're gay - you dont' get to be catholic - the 2 are not compatible.. that's just the nature of their rules).


As for any other religions... go look! (I'm the owner/mod of Southern Gums Circle - a group for pagans - shamans, druids, witches, wiccans, etc etc - including a few Buddhists as well...).


BE Happy

Slyt

[Seshat]

If you don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then you aren't Christian. It's as simple as that. The definition of Christian pretty much boils down to 'believes Jesus was the Son of God'.

However, you can still follow Jesus' rules for living. Whether he was Son of God or not, he provided some really smart rules.

IMHO - the bible says a stack of things, but the only relevant things are the thing that JC actually said himself. The rest is a waste of time.

Are you trying to insult Jews, Muslims, and those Christians with an interest in Jesus' background and the acts and opinions of the early Christians? Or does it come naturally?

The Old Testament is a heavily edited and rearranged version of the Jewish Scriptures. It's missing many books, and the books it does have are out of context and out of order. The Scriptures consist of a set of rules, a set of histories, and a set of supplementary books - in the Old Testament, the ones that are preserved are mashed together in a semi-ordered jumble.

Given that, it's obvious why the Old Testament doesn't make much sense. To truly understand it, get a copy of the Scriptures.

The Old Testament - or more correctly, the Scriptures - are far more important to the Jews than the words of just one more prophet. Which is how they see Jesus. Oh, he was important! But he's still a prophet, not the Messiah.

The Muslims are People of the Book. And they value the Scriptures, the Gospels, and the supporting works - the Acts and the letters and Revelations - that make up the rest of the New Testament.

Perhaps you meant that Jesus' own words are the only part of the Bible relevant to something - it could be useful to tell us what they're relevant to.

[Sylvia727]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Slyt, but I think this is what you're getting at here.

When Jesus came down, he established a New Covenant. To be a Christian, you have to follow him and his Covenant. Everything that came before JC was part of the Old Covenant and not necessary to be Christian. So while a Christian might and is usually encouraged to read the rest of the Bible, they are merely taking the advice of some wise men, not following the God-given truth.

---

Seshat, where would I get a copy of the Scriptures? Is it just like getting a copy of the Bible at a bookstore? Do I need to ask for a certain version?

[Slytovhand]

Ah - yeah, thanks Sylvia, that is pretty much what I was getting at.

Seshat.. the comment was purely meant from a christian point of view only (as that was the discussion at hand) - I am aware that the OT is pretty much the Torah, and that JC is considered another prophet in the eyes of Islam. It might be 'of interest', but is not necessary or required to be a Christian.

Besides.. there are also 'other' versions of the Bible, and also other 'gospels' (Thomas comes to mind) which is quite different to the others... which is 'right'? Given the politicking that happened when the Bible was being put together, and its history during the penning of it anyways....

I think that if you are a christian, you stick to what JC himself said -and not what humans have decided to interpret or add (or change in later years). I am therefore of the opinion that what the rest of the NT has to say that did not come direct from JC isn't that relevant either. Why?? Because I don't recall anywhere (not that I've done a lot of reading...) JC saying "Go out and write a big book about this that details all that I'm telling you. This shall be the Word of God that all and sundry should take as your bible...". Quite the opposite - I do believe that anything he said was 'you have to find God within yourself - you can't get it from someone else - and no amount of reading or blind faith is going to give it to you'. But then, I think what JC was trying to impart is more.. mystical and spiritual (ie - not just faith, prayer and belief.. but active connection).


Anybody read Messengers by Julia Ingram et al? I like what is being said in that...

(oh - and to answer your opening question, Seshat, yes - it does come naturally )

[Seshat]

Seshat, where would I get a copy of the Scriptures? Is it just like getting a copy of the Bible at a bookstore? Do I need to ask for a certain version?

I'm not Jewish, I just had some Jewish friends for a while and discussed comparitive religion with them. (I can say much the same about other religions, too. Comparitive religion is a hobby of mine.)

I honestly don't know where, or if, you can simply go to a bookstore and buy a Torah. But I found some online sites which may help you learn what you want to know:
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
http://www.shamash.org/
http://jdstone.org/truth/pages/torah.html

[Slytovhand]

Hey Seshat.

I've been thinking (as I do) and I think I will withdraw some of what I said - the bit you pointed out. It was a good call on your behalf!

I will say, though, just what I thought about...

Context.

Without that context, the whole of christianity becomes another religion or cult just started by someone somewhere (not to put down JC in any ways, but also remembering that 'religions' get started all the time, and various 'miracles' are performed to 'prove' what is being said).


On the other hand....

I do still stand by the idea that... most of the problems that have been associated or come about from the various christian religions can 99.9% be attributed to not just taking what JC said. IIRC, the Bible has only very few actual sentences which are the utterings of JC himself - the rest comes from someone or somewhere else. EG - the WBC mentioned on this site say that "God Hates Fags" - and they pull this from the Bible - chapter and verse - and so technically have a leg to stand on... but it's not something JC would condone. Similarly, there is no way that he would condone any form of violence towards anyone.. yet throughout the ages (including today) this still happens 'in his name'.

The bits after JC and what he said I would also say don't really 'mean' as much... because it is humans interpreting stuff - not actually God or JC himself telling or instructing. As for the miracles - as above - miracles happen all the time (I note Raps' thread on this... what's a miracle, and what's not..??).

Also IIRC, JC didn't really say a lot. He used stacks of parables, metaphors etc, and didn't do a lot of explaining of them. I suspect that was completely intentional - you either get it - or you don't. The rest isn't really going to help. And that's all he wanted to leave people with - not rules and regulations...


Hence, what I meant with 'the rest is irrelevant if you want to be a christian'. Informative, interesting, and perhaps necessary to understand - but in comparison, and in order to be christian, not right up there.


BE Happy

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

To understand where Jesus was coming from, you do have to understand the religious context he was coming from, and to do that, you need to understand the OT.

I think perhaps what you are objecting to the most is the Pauline interpretation of Christianity.
Paul was one of the main progenitors to Christianity. Hell, he pretty much made up the religion as he went, as did the rest of the Apostles. The gentlemen who wrote the Gospels also added in their oars to make Jesus' words steer towards their preconceptions. To that end, I would recommend looking into The Jesus Seminar. It's a project to find out as much as possible about the historic Jesus and to strip away the layers of politics that have been added on over the centuries to what he was really trying to say.

You are correct that the Council of Nicea really shaped the direction of the Early Church by choosing what message it would put out. The Gnostics lost out because they just weren't as powerful as the sect that we are most familiar with today.
But then, a lot of the early OT was done the same way by David to consolidate power. I really do think understanding the historical context behind the reasons for why things were written and organized gives us better insight to the religion as a whole.

[Slytovhand]

Bingo...

Any 'interpretations' would be closer to my point - interpretations, commentaries, analyses, etc. I think the same about authors and artists (not to say that authors aren't artists...). It helps to understand (or not), but you've still got to go the the original and get what you get out of it..What happens if what you get out of it is different to all the commentaries and interpretations? (well - in religion - it means you go start a war..). Do you change yourself? Or what??? JC seemed to have wanted to leave things open to interpetation for every individual..(but then - that's my interpretation).


Thanks for the heads up on the OT... I was under the impression that what was written - being the word of God - was kept completely intact, so that only interpretation and debate about what it meant was left... it would be blasphemous to change what was actually written...


(side note.. when I read your paragraph, I immediately thoughg "Pauline Hansen???" )


Slyt

[Seshat]

What happens if what you get out of it is different to all the commentaries and interpretations? (well - in religion - it means you go start a war..).

Or a schism. If you're Martin Luther, you nail a proclamation to a door.

Martin Luther

Thanks for the heads up on the OT... I was under the impression that what was written - being the word of God - was kept completely intact

Oh, not at all.

A summary of bible history

I went to a side-by-side bible site I'd used before, but they've taken it down. However, hit any public library and compare any two different versions of the bible. You'll find that even when they agree in general, there are enough differences to be confusing.

Ah. Here we go. The Ten Commandments, in three different versions.

Ten Commandments - three variations

Right at the start we get a semantic difference. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" versus "Worship no god but me". The first version permits other, lesser gods, the second version permits no other gods.

Interesting, don't you think?