How do you become a member of a religion?

[AFPheonix]

What I meant by the creation of the OT was the reason to put the old oral tradition down on paper.
Bible historians don't really think that the 12 tribes really originated from 12 brothers. The think 12 separate people groups who were too small to survive on their own teamed up into one nation. Some ruler at some point to consolidate his power brought together all of their oral traditions into one cohesive story. I suspect that's why the first chapter of genesis especially is so disjointed and why there is really more than one creation story there. (Young Earth Creationists don't seem to read their favorite chapter that closely, apparently).

[Slytovhand]

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?

Actually - none of those versions specifically excludes that other gods exist... only that you don't worship them, or worship them as primary. This does fall in quite nicely with the original (ha??) writing in the Hebrew (although it was probably aramaic anyway.. and probably something else before that.....). I did a semester of Biblical Hebrew at uni, and one of the things that stuck in my mind is how the first lines of the Bible/OT/Torah went... The term used for "God" is a feminine plural word (IIRC) - so in actuality, "The Goddesses created from the void" or something similar.

You'll notice throughout the whole of the Torah that the term for God is changed (and, of course, as I type this, my brain goes on a blank...).

And it was the Torah I was thinking of as far as the actual words being kept the same, so it only left for interpretation, not the OT.


Oh - btw - I have no faith (yeah - ok, I'll for the pun there) that the later versions of the Bible are very different to the originals. I was once told (so feel free to prove or disprove) that the line 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' (or however it goes) is a bad mistranslation, and the word translated as 'witch' would be far better translated as 'poisoner' - either literal or metaphorical (as in, gossip-monger).

That's really the problem with 'revealed' religions - it creates a definite and specific 'thing' to believe and follow, so if people don't, you get to point out the errors of their ways. With natural religions, with no such defining, you can argue, but it really does come down to individual interpretations - no 'right' or 'wrong'.


APF - any ideas on the time of that? And those creation tales are pretty similar amongst many cultures across the planet, and the whole Moses bit... it's even in The Epic of Gilgamesh, and Native American traditions.


Getting back to the OP - what to do when one finds a belief system they are happy with, but not totally? What if they come to something that doesn't sit right with them? Or they actively disagree with it? For example, the number Catholics of out there who are gay, yet Catholocism won't accept them? (personally - I'd go that if they're gay, they can't be Catholic... and just deal with it... go be one of the other more tolerant ones. If the religion is 'right' in what it preaches, you don't just change it because it's inconvenient. The word of God is the word of God... end of story)


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Crap, I can't remember. I took History of Religion of the Middle East back in 2001 or 2002. That was just a snippet that stuck with me.

[Sylvia727]

For example, the number Catholics of out there who are gay, yet Catholocism won't accept them? (personally - I'd go that if they're gay, they can't be Catholic... and just deal with it... go be one of the other more tolerant ones. If the religion is 'right' in what it preaches, you don't just change it because it's inconvenient. The word of God is the word of God... end of story)

If they're truly Catholic? If they truly believe in the Catholic faith? Then they either believe that homosexual thoughts are a temptation away from the right and the true, or they hate themselves. If they don't believe that homosexuality is a perversion from the devil, then they're not Catholic. If they don't believe in the Catholic faith, then they're not Catholic.

That being said, I think most people are 'true' followers. Or to put it another way, I think most people believe 90% or 95% or 99% of their religion's dogma, but that's not enough to make them 'true' believers. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. That being said, if I found a church that lined up with 95% of what I believed, I would call myself a ____ too. 95% is pretty damn spiffy.

[Seshat]

Actually - none of those versions specifically excludes that other gods exist... only that you don't worship them, or worship them as primary.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant that two versions prohibit you from worshipping other gods at all, the third prohibits you from worshipping them as the primary diety.

[Slytovhand]

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant that two versions prohibit you from worshipping other gods at all, the third prohibits you from worshipping them as the primary diety.

No - my sorry - my bad.

Just a difference in interpreting the word 'permits', tis all.

Sylvia - quick thought. If, for example, someone is a follower of a particular faith, but has some significant issues, and decides to go their separate ways. Eg - Martin Luther did some pretty radical stuff.

Is he still within the 95%? or is it significantly less??

I know that seems pedantic, but I spose the point would be, eg, If I chose to believe that JC had some really great stuff to say, but I don't go in for the whole history of the OT, and I don't go in for the rest of the stuff in the NT that happens after the resurrection, am I still a christian? That, I think, is what Alfie in the OP was getting at.


Slyt

[Sylvia727]

Sylvia - quick thought. If, for example, someone is a follower of a particular faith, but has some significant issues, and decides to go their separate ways. Eg - Martin Luther did some pretty radical stuff.

Is he still within the 95%? or is it significantly less??

That's just my personal hypothesis. It has not been fully tested or explored. But I know a number of people whose personal dogmas do not completely line up with their professed faith. I don't know where I would draw the line. I usually take people's words for what they say they are, but when a self-professed Catholic tells me there's nothing wrong with mortal sins X, Y and Z, I have to wonder why they think they're Catholic.

I know a couple of bishops and I believe the Vatican have said that it is not possible to be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time. There was a scandal in a nearby city a few years ago, I believe the '04 elections, when someone printed bumper stickers that said "I'm Catholic and I'm pro-choice" and the local bishop said he would excommunicate anyone who was pro-choice. So it is possible to believe something too far outside of the bounds and get kicked out for it.

(I'm just illustrating a point. Let's not turn this into an abortion debate or a church vs. state debate, we have those on other threads.)

[Slytovhand]

OMG - Abortion...????? (sorry - just kidding..)

I'm thinking from Alfie's OP... is there any point in saying something like "I want to be Catholic, but believe in abortion/homosexuality/ other taboo..."? Or, in her case, "I like the Buddhism ideas, but find it hard to follow all 8 Noble Truths and 4 Paths (or is it the other way around??). Is she still Buddhist?". For this particular example (Buddhism), I don't see there being a problem, but for Xtainity??

Slyt