Secular traditions in your life inspired by religious traditions
I should have included 'pretending to believe in order to be accepted' right at the start. It didn't occur to me until it was pointed out that not all people who are part of religious communities actually believe in god (I'm not including people who openly reject that belief). So yes, it might appear to be inconsistent but it was just an error of omission and doesn't change my position, if anything I think it strengthens it. If not believing didn't matter, those people wouldn't pretend belief.
So we're not all the way to your view because you don't believe, or appear to believe in god, and we've established that belief is important and necessary enough for people to fake it for acceptance, even if you didn't accept the view that it's important simply because of the argument that it's the reason for founding the community in the first place and that's always going to be the major factor in acceptance. It follows then that you will never be accepted like someone who believes because you're not one of 'us', you're one of 'them'.
So we're not all the way to your view because you don't believe, or appear to believe in god, and we've established that belief is important and necessary enough for people to fake it for acceptance, even if you didn't accept the view that it's important simply because of the argument that it's the reason for founding the community in the first place and that's always going to be the major factor in acceptance. It follows then that you will never be accepted like someone who believes because you're not one of 'us', you're one of 'them'.
C.S. Lewis:
“There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”
“There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”
Sorry if I caused the derail. In penance, I'll answer your OP question more exactly.
I do a few things in a more-or-less secular manner that are inspired by religion. One is confession. I'm friendly with a priest that I occasionally go to for confession. I also will sometimes go to the local Catholic Church's confessional. I guess most people don't know this, but you don't need to be a Catholic to go to confession.
I mostly do this for its positive psychological benefits. Confession encourages me to be more objective about my own actions. I have to put my reasons and justifications into words, which has made me realize how weak my excuses sometimes are. It is also useful for me because politics as an industry is dominated by secrecy and misdirection, so it can be good for me as an anchor to have a place where I have to be completely open and honest.
I do a few things in a more-or-less secular manner that are inspired by religion. One is confession. I'm friendly with a priest that I occasionally go to for confession. I also will sometimes go to the local Catholic Church's confessional. I guess most people don't know this, but you don't need to be a Catholic to go to confession.
I mostly do this for its positive psychological benefits. Confession encourages me to be more objective about my own actions. I have to put my reasons and justifications into words, which has made me realize how weak my excuses sometimes are. It is also useful for me because politics as an industry is dominated by secrecy and misdirection, so it can be good for me as an anchor to have a place where I have to be completely open and honest.
This is a fairly good example, in my mind. While there are some parts of the confession I don't like (I worry that the ease of which one can get forgiveness after acting badly is not optimal at discouraging bad behaviour) I think you are very likely correct that there are positive psychological benefits. Indeed, I think as a society we generally don't do enough of a clear and objective introspection into our actions and their consequences.
Outside of the catholic church, there are certainly some places for something approximating a confession. Some substance abuse programs and therapists focus on something like a confessional, for instance. Some people use journaling for similar things. Might be interesting to try something like this in family life: have a once a week conversation where we try and talk about our actions of the week, what we are proud of, what we regret and wish we had done differently, and so forth.
Good, this is useful. So I don't disagree with you that having similarities with other people in your group is important. This can be some activity you have in common (e.g. a hiking club), or it can be some feature of your identity (e.g. LGTB clubs), and so on.
However, I think that premise is incorrect because it is simplistic in an important way.
I think for most groups, especially complex ones like religion, the similarities are best understood not as a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for membership, but rather as a family resemblance concept.
[snip]So I think you go wrong here in focusing on a single primary feature as necessary for membership.
However, I think that premise is incorrect because it is simplistic in an important way.
I think for most groups, especially complex ones like religion, the similarities are best understood not as a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for membership, but rather as a family resemblance concept.
[snip]So I think you go wrong here in focusing on a single primary feature as necessary for membership.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing though when you say 'necessary for membership'. I'd agree that a belief in god isn't a requirement for attending the majority of religious ceremonies (I'm guessing that it's the majority) but I'm arguing that it's going to matter much more from the perspective of acceptance by that group as 'one of us' than just being allowed in.
One of the primary reasons for group formation is social identity and I'm arguing that if you don't share the reason for the group's existence, then you don't share that identity and you'll never be 'one of us'. Wrt to families, you could be an in-law and technically you're part of the family, but since you don't share their genetic make-up you'll never be 'blood', you'll never be 'one of us', and when that is extended to ways of thinking, it's becomes much a more significant difference because it's no longer arbitrary. How much it becomes an 'issue' is a different matter and will vary by group though. Religious groups are going to be particularly welcoming to non-theists, for obvious reasons, but until you're a theist, you're not really part of that group.
Two points. First, there are large and glaring exceptions. Entire religions, such as Buddhism, are neutral about the existence of god and in some versions, such as Zen Buddhism, really don't focus on the existence and worship of a god at all. Other religions that are more focused on a god, such as Christianity and Judaism, have such a wide variety of conceptions of the nature of this god that in some versions it is barely distinguishable from atheism. This is enough on its own to defeat your point.
I'm really a bit surprised you aren't taking this more seriously. One of the points you push the most in discussions with religious people is to question how they can be so certain their own religion or their own conception of God is the right one where there are so many different religions and ways of understanding god. I would think that an appreciation for the variety of religions would include knowledge of the non-theistic religions.
I'm really a bit surprised you aren't taking this more seriously. One of the points you push the most in discussions with religious people is to question how they can be so certain their own religion or their own conception of God is the right one where there are so many different religions and ways of understanding god. I would think that an appreciation for the variety of religions would include knowledge of the non-theistic religions.
Second, and really, this is my most central disagreement with you, we look at religion very differently. I think you look at the surface of religion, what people say about what they're doing. That is, if you ask Christians why they are Christians, a lot of them will say that it is because they believe in God and to worship him. This is an unsatisfying answer to me. Especially since I don't think there actually is a God to worship, I want to know why they believe in God and feel like they should worship him.
It is more in answer to this latter question that scholarly research has focused. What role does religion play in society such that it is so common? So, for instance, Marx said that religion was a way for the upper classes to appease the lower classes to prevent too much social strife. Others have said that it is a way to signal group membership and so helps with social cooperation. Anyway, there are many proposals, and I'm not sure which are correct. But, they mostly treat the belief in god as a means to achieving those ends.
So when I think about the primary reasons for religion, I'm focusing more on the actual functions it serves in society, not the reasons people think they have for being a member.
It is more in answer to this latter question that scholarly research has focused. What role does religion play in society such that it is so common? So, for instance, Marx said that religion was a way for the upper classes to appease the lower classes to prevent too much social strife. Others have said that it is a way to signal group membership and so helps with social cooperation. Anyway, there are many proposals, and I'm not sure which are correct. But, they mostly treat the belief in god as a means to achieving those ends.
So when I think about the primary reasons for religion, I'm focusing more on the actual functions it serves in society, not the reasons people think they have for being a member.
The crucial idea here is that for many of these people acting as if you believe in god is not really a matter of saying that you believe in god, but of living as if you do, which means things like participating in religious activities and adhering to a moral code. This is why so many Christians will say that so-and-so isn't a real Christian even though he claims to be. Alternatively, this is why people like C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, arguably the most important pop theology book of the last century:
I think this is the attitude that many religious people, even conservative religious people, have towards me. They honestly don't seem to care that much. They, as it were, leave my lack of belief in god's hands, as regrettable, but ultimately not that important to our ability to be friends and members of the same community.
Of course, it may not matter to you, I hope it doesn't otherwise the only outcomes of this exchange are that I'm wrong, or that I'll lessen the pleasure you take from these activities and I don't really want either to eb true.
Why don't you want to be wrong.
I hope that there's more coming than this after the effort I put into my last two replies to you.
Strange question though. I suppose I don't have a good reason to want to be wrong. I have a friend who's quite risk-blind and has taken to caving, a dangerous sport that I know something about, from experience... he takes his kids with him sometimes but he's had no formal training and he's very inexperienced. I think this puts him and his children at risk of a serious accident, potentially fatal, and on this one I want to be wrong.
On my view of what it takes to really be accepted by the 'in-group' there aren't such serious downsides to being right. Are you now going to ask me why I want to be right?
Strange question though. I suppose I don't have a good reason to want to be wrong. I have a friend who's quite risk-blind and has taken to caving, a dangerous sport that I know something about, from experience... he takes his kids with him sometimes but he's had no formal training and he's very inexperienced. I think this puts him and his children at risk of a serious accident, potentially fatal, and on this one I want to be wrong.
On my view of what it takes to really be accepted by the 'in-group' there aren't such serious downsides to being right. Are you now going to ask me why I want to be right?
Another way to think about what I'm saying is that in any group there is something that creates group cohesion, something that creates a shared bond.
Take this example from this article: What is a group?
If you don't share that 'critical element', you will never be 'defined' as fully part of that group, your identity will never match theirs.
Take this example from this article: What is a group?
Hundreds of fish swimming together are called a school. A pack of foraging baboons is a troupe. A half dozen crows on a telephone line is a murder. A gam is a group of whales. But what is a collection of human beings called? A group. …. [C]ollections of people may seem unique, but each possesses that one critical element that defines a group: connections linking the individual members…. [M]embers are linked together in a web of interpersonal relationships. Thus, a group is defined as two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships. Donelson R. Forsyth (2006: 2-3) [emphasis in original]
Wrt to families, you could be an in-law and technically you're part of the family, but since you don't share their genetic make-up you'll never be 'blood', you'll never be 'one of us', and when that is extended to ways of thinking, it's becomes much a more significant difference because it's no longer arbitrary. How much it becomes an 'issue' is a different matter and will vary by group though.
Religious groups are going to be particularly welcoming to non-theists, for obvious reasons, but until you're a theist, you're not really part of that group.
Another way to think about what I'm saying is that in any group there is something that creates group cohesion, something that creates a shared bond.
Take this example from this article: What is a group?
If you don't share that 'critical element', you will never be 'defined' as fully part of that group, your identity will never match theirs.
Take this example from this article: What is a group?
If you don't share that 'critical element', you will never be 'defined' as fully part of that group, your identity will never match theirs.
Originally Posted by article
As researchers turned to the systematic exploration of group life, different foci for attention emerged. Some social psychologists, for example, looked at the ways in which, for example, working in the presence of others tend to raise performance (Allport 1924). Others looked at different aspects of group process. Kurt Lewin (1948), for example, found that nearly all groups were based on interdependence among their members – and this applied whether the group was large or small, formally structured or loose, or focused on this activity or that. In a famous piece Lewin wrote, ‘it is not similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fate’ (op. cit.: 165). In other words, groups come about in a psychological sense because people realize they are ‘in the same boat’ (Brown 1988: 28). However, even more significant than this for group process, Lewin argued, is some interdependence in the goals of group members. To get something done it is often necessary to cooperate with others.
Interdependence has, thus, come to play a significant role in the way that many writers define group (e.g., Cartwright and Zander 1968), Others have stressed how people categorize themselves as members of something (Turner 1987) or share identity (Brown 1988) (see Exhibit 1). Others might look to communication and face-to-face encounters (Homans 1950), purpose (Mills 1967), structure and so on. As a starting point though, I have found Forsyth’s (2006) definition the most helpful:
Interdependence has, thus, come to play a significant role in the way that many writers define group (e.g., Cartwright and Zander 1968), Others have stressed how people categorize themselves as members of something (Turner 1987) or share identity (Brown 1988) (see Exhibit 1). Others might look to communication and face-to-face encounters (Homans 1950), purpose (Mills 1967), structure and so on. As a starting point though, I have found Forsyth’s (2006) definition the most helpful:
Hundreds of fish swimming together are called a school. A pack of foraging baboons is a troupe. A half dozen crows on a telephone line is a murder. A gam is a group of whales. But what is a collection of human beings called? A group. …. [C]ollections of people may seem unique, but each possesses that one critical element that defines a group: connections linking the individual members…. [M]embers are linked together in a web of interpersonal relationships. Thus, a group is defined as two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships. Donelson R. Forsyth (2006: 2-3) [emphasis in original]
In other words, according to this article, groups are defined by exactly the opposite thing you're trying to say they are. You're trying to say that they're defined by some set of characteristics (beliefs, blood) and they're saying that groups are defined by social interactions.
Why do you want to be right? What are the downsides to you being completely wrong about religion and religious people?
I hope that there's more coming than this after the effort I put into my last two replies to you.
Strange question though. I suppose I don't have a good reason to want to be wrong. I have a friend who's quite risk-blind and has taken to caving, a dangerous sport that I know something about, from experience... he takes his kids with him sometimes but he's had no formal training and he's very inexperienced. I think this puts him and his children at risk of a serious accident, potentially fatal, and on this one I want to be wrong.
On my view of what it takes to really be accepted by the 'in-group' there aren't such serious downsides to being right. Are you now going to ask me why I want to be right?
Strange question though. I suppose I don't have a good reason to want to be wrong. I have a friend who's quite risk-blind and has taken to caving, a dangerous sport that I know something about, from experience... he takes his kids with him sometimes but he's had no formal training and he's very inexperienced. I think this puts him and his children at risk of a serious accident, potentially fatal, and on this one I want to be wrong.
On my view of what it takes to really be accepted by the 'in-group' there aren't such serious downsides to being right. Are you now going to ask me why I want to be right?
The reason I asked my question however was that I'm not sure what the downside is to you being wrong, for belief in a deity not required to be considered a part of a religious community. Like I'm not sure what the final point in that post is given that it looks like a false dichotomy in any case but I wonder what your motivation for not wanting to be wrong is.
Thanks for the explanation about Family resemblance concepts, very interesting.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing though when you say 'necessary for membership'. I'd agree that a belief in god isn't a requirement for attending the majority of religious ceremonies (I'm guessing that it's the majority) but I'm arguing that it's going to matter much more from the perspective of acceptance by that group as 'one of us' than just being allowed in.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing though when you say 'necessary for membership'. I'd agree that a belief in god isn't a requirement for attending the majority of religious ceremonies (I'm guessing that it's the majority) but I'm arguing that it's going to matter much more from the perspective of acceptance by that group as 'one of us' than just being allowed in.
One of the primary reasons for group formation is social identity and I'm arguing that if you don't share the reason for the group's existence, then you don't share that identity and you'll never be 'one of us'. Wrt to families, you could be an in-law and technically you're part of the family, but since you don't share their genetic make-up you'll never be 'blood', you'll never be 'one of us', and when that is extended to ways of thinking, it's becomes much a more significant difference because it's no longer arbitrary. How much it becomes an 'issue' is a different matter and will vary by group though. Religious groups are going to be particularly welcoming to non-theists, for obvious reasons, but until you're a theist, you're not really part of that group.
Second, you're just begging the question when you say that "until you're a theist, you're not really part of that group." That is specifically the claim we're arguing about. If your assertion is true, then being a theist is a necessary condition for being a member of that religion. I'm claiming that it is not. I'm proposing a different way to understand group membership in religion (or at least some religions). I'm claiming that membership is not the result of meeting a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, but rather that it is the result of reaching some critical mass out of a collection of characteristic features of members of that religion--of which acceptance of that religion's dogma is one, albeit an important one. So you can't use this as a premise in arguing against me.
It does and they don't figure in the second premise, they're included in the first premise. If you attend a Buddhist ceremony and you're not a Buddhist, you'll never be 'one of us'. I'm simply applying that idea to religious organisations too but I think that it applies in all group situations.
Also, of course this is addressed to the second premise. The whole point of bringing up Buddhism here is that it is a counterexample to your claim that in religious community the existence and worship of a god is generally their core reason for existence. Buddhism is a religious community (I'm assuming). The worship of a god is not the core reason for its existence. Thus, your claim is false.
I think this is where we are talking at cross purposes. The functions of the group are not relevant to the issue of whether or not you are fully accepted by the other members of that group because you share with them their primary identity (and that will be whatever the reason for the group's existence is). I'm sure you're familiar with the 'out-group', 'in-group' categorization. When you're with a religious group, which do you consider yourself, and how are you determining that?
Let me give an example to make this clearer. My best friend, let's call him Thucydides, is Jewish. He was raised as a secular Jew and never went to synagogue. However, as an adult Thucydides started going about nine years ago and is now a long-time member, with a close friendship with a couple of the rabbis, and some prominence (he'll be on the board soon), as is his wife. They both keep the laws of kosher, have regular shabbat meals, and so on. In practical terms, I see no sense in which he shouldn't be regarded as a full member of that synagogue or of that religion. He certainly regards himself as such, and the other members of his synagogue seem to as well.
Now, he is also an atheist--and no squishy stuff either, he is a thorough-going physicalist who thinks that everything reduces to physics. Judaism is a religion I assume. It is a theistic religion I assume. My claim is that Thucydides is a member of the Jewish religion. That he is part of the "in-group." He also regards himself as such. The other members of his synagogue, insofar as they think about these kinds of things, also generally regard him as such (obviously there could be exceptions). He doesn't pretend to believe in god (I know for instance that he has had conversations with one of the rabbis about his atheism--his rabbi said that Jews are not commanded to believe in god, but to follow the law.). So my question to you is: why is he not a religious Jew?
I think the part of this post that's relevant to what I'm arguing is the bolded. Why would someone say this about another member of their group when there are so many other reasons that they get together? Why does it matter to them that much? I would say that it's because being Christian is the central reason for being a member of a Christian organisation, so it's going to matter to that 'identity' and to the people that need that identity, that the other group members share it. Sometimes even claiming to be that thing isn't enough to be part of the in-group.
<snip>
<snip>
You seem to treat "Christian" as including in its meaning that you believe in God. It is that claim that I'm contesting. This means that I don't necessarily disagree with you that "being Christian is the central reason for being a member of a Christian organisation." Rather, what we disagree about what it means to be a Christian. I don't think it means (at least, not as a necessary condition), that you believe in God. As far as I can tell, you do.
If I say "I'm a jew" this doesn't imply anything at all about my belief about God. There is a larger cultural phenomenon of being a jew and many jews are atheists and so forth. However, if I say "I'm a Christian", I think most people will assume you believe in the Christian God. Sure, maybe you don't want to make it a necessary condition of the definition, but belief in the Christian God is at the very least strongly associated with the identity of being a Christian.
In particular while there are certainly denominations where this is not true, if you publicly declare that you don't believe in Christian God but still participate in Christian cultural traditions, I think there are going to be a lot of people that don't accept as being a "true" Christian. It is certainly the case that there are many people who don't really believe in the God but still follow through with the cultural practices (see the clergy project for interesting examples). If they want to call themselves Christians well I don't much mind. But if they declare as much, they may find that others will mind.
In particular while there are certainly denominations where this is not true, if you publicly declare that you don't believe in Christian God but still participate in Christian cultural traditions, I think there are going to be a lot of people that don't accept as being a "true" Christian. It is certainly the case that there are many people who don't really believe in the God but still follow through with the cultural practices (see the clergy project for interesting examples). If they want to call themselves Christians well I don't much mind. But if they declare as much, they may find that others will mind.
I haven't been following this especially close, but I have a friend who attends a Mormon church because he likes their perspective and their way of life, but he doesn't believe in God. He likes the people there, but I think Mormons in particular are big on getting new people baptized, so he said it's been a struggle, but it's interesting enough that he enjoys it.
The way you've worded this, despite several attempts to correct your misconception of my argument, suggests that we might as well leave this anyway, you're still barking up the wrong tree.
For the main part in this exchange, I've been arguing premise one and still consider it correct, but I might amend premise two based on what you've said.
OK, so I've learned something new here and this is interesting because it raises the issue of whether or not most Christians understand what Christian really means and how important it is to their social identity that being part of a Christian group means that they are with other liked minded Christians, that they share what they mistakenly believe is the critical element, a belief in the Christian description of god.
I reject the definition of Christian that supports your position though, the definition that states that 'Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents' makes one a Christian because I object to Christianity having laid claim to behaviour that might be considered 'moral' (as in good). If simply doing nice things that the Bible instructs we should do makes one a Christian then I'm as Christian as you but I'm not, I'm simply a moral person. So yes, I do think that to be defined as Christian you should have a belief in the Christian god.
That aside though, if you use the generous definition of simply acting being a 'true' Christian, then yes, perhaps you share the critical element in principle, but still might be part of the in-group because they don't know what the word Christian really means. If you're part of a better educated, more well informed group of Christians then yes, I see no reason now why you wouldn't be fully accepted.
To go back to premise one;
He is a religious Jew and will enjoy acceptance by the in-group if he shares the critical element of the group, which, going by this description, would be following Jewish law. If Jews are not commanded to believe in god and some don't, then that isn't the critical element.
Now, if I joined that Synagogue, but refused to live by Jewish law even if I shared every other interest of the organisation and attended all the gatherings, would I, or could I ever be part of the in-group?
Let me be very clear: my claim is that you can be a Christian without believing in god. I'm not a Christian, nor do I claim to be one. The fact that I regularly attend Christian services is not enough to make me one, nor is it enough to make me fully part of that organization. I'm not talking about myself here. I'm talking about atheists who identify as Christians.
You seem to treat "Christian" as including in its meaning that you believe in God. It is that claim that I'm contesting. This means that I don't necessarily disagree with you that "being Christian is the central reason for being a member of a Christian organisation." Rather, what we disagree about what it means to be a Christian. I don't think it means (at least, not as a necessary condition), that you believe in God. As far as I can tell, you do.
You seem to treat "Christian" as including in its meaning that you believe in God. It is that claim that I'm contesting. This means that I don't necessarily disagree with you that "being Christian is the central reason for being a member of a Christian organisation." Rather, what we disagree about what it means to be a Christian. I don't think it means (at least, not as a necessary condition), that you believe in God. As far as I can tell, you do.
I reject the definition of Christian that supports your position though, the definition that states that 'Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents' makes one a Christian because I object to Christianity having laid claim to behaviour that might be considered 'moral' (as in good). If simply doing nice things that the Bible instructs we should do makes one a Christian then I'm as Christian as you but I'm not, I'm simply a moral person. So yes, I do think that to be defined as Christian you should have a belief in the Christian god.
That aside though, if you use the generous definition of simply acting being a 'true' Christian, then yes, perhaps you share the critical element in principle, but still might be part of the in-group because they don't know what the word Christian really means. If you're part of a better educated, more well informed group of Christians then yes, I see no reason now why you wouldn't be fully accepted.
Let me give an example to make this clearer. My best friend, let's call him Thucydides, is Jewish. He was raised as a secular Jew and never went to synagogue. However, as an adult Thucydides started going about nine years ago and is now a long-time member, with a close friendship with a couple of the rabbis, and some prominence (he'll be on the board soon), as is his wife. They both keep the laws of kosher, have regular shabbat meals, and so on. In practical terms, I see no sense in which he shouldn't be regarded as a full member of that synagogue or of that religion. He certainly regards himself as such, and the other members of his synagogue seem to as well.
Now, he is also an atheist--and no squishy stuff either, he is a thorough-going physicalist who thinks that everything reduces to physics. Judaism is a religion I assume. It is a theistic religion I assume. My claim is that Thucydides is a member of the Jewish religion. That he is part of the "in-group." He also regards himself as such. The other members of his synagogue, insofar as they think about these kinds of things, also generally regard him as such (obviously there could be exceptions). He doesn't pretend to believe in god (I know for instance that he has had conversations with one of the rabbis about his atheism--his rabbi said that Jews are not commanded to believe in god, but to follow the law.). So my question to you is: why is he not a religious Jew?
Now, he is also an atheist--and no squishy stuff either, he is a thorough-going physicalist who thinks that everything reduces to physics. Judaism is a religion I assume. It is a theistic religion I assume. My claim is that Thucydides is a member of the Jewish religion. That he is part of the "in-group." He also regards himself as such. The other members of his synagogue, insofar as they think about these kinds of things, also generally regard him as such (obviously there could be exceptions). He doesn't pretend to believe in god (I know for instance that he has had conversations with one of the rabbis about his atheism--his rabbi said that Jews are not commanded to believe in god, but to follow the law.). So my question to you is: why is he not a religious Jew?
He is a religious Jew and will enjoy acceptance by the in-group if he shares the critical element of the group, which, going by this description, would be following Jewish law. If Jews are not commanded to believe in god and some don't, then that isn't the critical element.
Now, if I joined that Synagogue, but refused to live by Jewish law even if I shared every other interest of the organisation and attended all the gatherings, would I, or could I ever be part of the in-group?
I practice Lent. Sometimes. Is that what this thread is about?
Christmas. My favourite time of the year.
Oops, missed a slightly critical word out of one of my paragraphs:
That aside though, if you use the generous definition of simply acting being a 'true' Christian, then yes, perhaps you share the critical element in principle, but still might NOT be part of the in-group because they don't know what the word Christian really means. If you're part of a better educated, more well informed group of Christians then yes, I see no reason now why you wouldn't be fully accepted.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE