What is a Jew

[Bar Kochba]

what question

[Pindar]

To beg the question is a logical term. It refers to a fallacy. It means to assume the conclusion in a premise. It is an example of circular reasoning.

[Bar Kochba]

i dont understand why is it a circular reasoning.

[Pindar]

If the question is asked: "what is an X" and the reply is "an X is anything that has a mother X". There is an implicit assumption one already knows what an X is which of course undercuts the question. Do you see?

[Bar Kochba]

I SEE BUT THIS IS HOW its supposed to be

[Pindar]

I SEE BUT THIS IS HOW its supposed to be

Says who? I reject the idea that Judaism or identifying Jewish status must be inherently illogical. I think Maimonides would agree with me.

[Bar Kochba]

i cannot belive you are saying moshe ben miamon would agree with you

he was one of the greatest jews to live in the past thousand years have youi ever studied is book mishna torah i think you would have differnt argument the you just said

[Soulforged]

I don't understand your last two sentences. I will say: there is no "once a Christian, always a Christian". Christian standing is tied to belief. If someone is raised Christian but then opts for Islam they are Muslim not Christian. This holds for as long as they profess loyalty to said system. Similarly, if being Jewish is to be a believer in the tenets of Judaism then that belief is an essential aspect of the designation. It's absence would mean the label losses meaning.The basic principles of christianity (and I think that judaism too) is that when you're declared under that faith you're forever X. Christianity gives that solemnity to all it's sacred acts (baptism, confirmation, marriage, sacred order), to the eyes of God you're forever baptized and therefor, forever saved under the christian religion. Of course this has little relevance as to how the society categorizes a certain group, as I said religion is the only possible category in this case, and not how God might see somebody. But considering that the record of the solemn act will be spreaded through the christian community, so one can say that they will consider the ex-christian as an still christian though he has changed faith. Anyway, an unnecessary complication of the debate.

[Bar Kochba]

i still belive that many people are jewish even though they dont keep the torah but there not good jews

although alot of reform are not actually jewish they just think they are because the got a certificate

[Papewaio]

Sounds similar to NPCs... Non Practicing Christians/Catholics.

[Just A Girl]

Al jewish people are surcumzised right.
At birth...
If some 1 tells u there jewish.
Theyve been surcumzised.

So if laws said you cant be surcumzised.
And the people no longer beleve im judeism.
This would be law controlling religion,

Then if a Jewish mother has only sons,
and they "get jiggy" with a christian/atheist "whatever"
the ofspring will not be jewish.

But if a christian gets jiggy witha jewish woman.
there ofspring will be jewish becous of the jewish moter.
Even Though The hereditory jeans of your decendants are only carried by males.

This is a some what Illogical and inconcevable way of defining an ethnic group.

To me A jewish person " A real jewish person"
beleves in the laws of judeism.
They get surcumzied at birth,
And have funny hair.

Anything els is a pale imitation.

Id like to say its like a cat callingits self a Lion.
But i wouldnt go as far as to call them Cats.
as I beleve cats, are a closer relation to Lions. than some jewish people are to religious jew's.

[Soulforged]

although alot of reform are not actually jewish they just think they are because the got a certificate
I think that what Pindar is saying is very simple actually. Belief defines the person, as belief is only a subjective phenomenum, certificates have no relevance. It's that simple, if person X sais he belief in Y, then he must be Z.

[Bar Kochba]

ahh but this is wat you have wrong you can belive in one God and belive he is the God of the jews it is part of the laws of the torah for gentiles to belive in God and the seven noahchide laws

But Min ha Torah (by jewish Bible law) you can only be jewish if you are born from a jewish mother or converted properly

[Just A Girl]

ahh but this is wat you have wrong you can belive in one God and belive he is the God of the jews it is part of the laws of the torah for gentiles to belive in God and the seven noahchide laws

But Min ha Torah (by jewish Bible law) you can only be jewish if you are born from a jewish mother or converted properly


YEAH!
you tell em...

(I didnt know that But Atleast it fits in with what i was saying)

[Pindar]

i cannot belive you are saying moshe ben miamon would agree with you

he was one of the greatest jews to live in the past thousand years have youi ever studied is book mishna torah i think you would have differnt argument the you just said

I am very familiar with Maimonides works. Maimonides was a rationalist. He would not accept an inherently illogical stance as an acceptable or definitive explanation.

[Pindar]

The basic principles of christianity (and I think that judaism too) is that when you're declared under that faith you're forever X.

This is not correct. The notion of conversion itself is a willed act and excommunication is its reversal. Standing prior to conversion and after excommunication is to be outside of the community of the faithful, as it were. There is no principle in Christian discourse where a believer who then joins another faith i.e. becomes Muslim is still considered Christian. They are Muslim. The two notions are mutually exclusive.

[Pindar]

I think that what Pindar is saying is very simple actually. Belief defines the person...

In religious terms yes.

[Pindar]

ahh but this is wat you have wrong you can belive in one God and belive he is the God of the jews it is part of the laws of the torah for gentiles to belive in God and the seven noahchide laws

But Min ha Torah (by jewish Bible law) you can only be jewish if you are born from a jewish mother or converted properly


If one recognizes conversion as legitimate then that stands as a counter example to the Jewish mother idea as definitive. It also feeds into my argument that belief is constitutive to labeling religious status.

I don't reacall anyhwere in the Min ha Torah were it explicitly states Jews are only those born of a Jewish mother.

[Soulforged]

This is not correct. The notion of conversion itself is a willed act and excommunication is its reversal. Standing prior to conversion and after excommunication is to be outside of the community of the faithful, as it were. There is no principle in Christian discourse where a believer who then joins another faith i.e. becomes Muslim is still considered Christian. They are Muslim. The two notions are mutually exclusive.But both acts (conversion and excommunication) are not ordinary acts. Specially excommunication wich is only granted in grave situations. In the common cases it seems to me that the christian is still a christian if he has taken a solemn vote (as baptism). I might be using wrong deduction.

[Pindar]

But both acts (conversion and excommunication) are not ordinary acts. Specially excommunication wich is only granted in grave situations. In the common cases it seems to me that the christian is still a christian if he has taken a solemn vote (as baptism). I might be using wrong deduction.

Conversion is a very ordinary act: as in it occurs on a vast scale yearly. Excommunication has been a recognized principle in both Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and various organized Protestant sects as an essential regulatory principle throughout Christian history.

Baptism is commonly recognized as a rite of passage into the Christian faith, but there is no doctrinal position that holds this means one is forever a Christian.* Such a view is antithetical to any branch of Christendom that holds free will and choice as essential components to moral action and salvation.

To be clear: is it your view that an avowed Christian (having been baptized etc.) who then renounces his faith to embrace another, to serve a different mountain as it were: say, becomes a devout Muslim and spends the rest of his days loyal to serving Allah and His prohet Muhammad is actually a Christian?

** Excommunication serving as the perfect counter example.

[Soulforged]

Conversion is a very ordinary act: as in it occurs on a vast scale yearly. Excommunication has been a recognized principle in both Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and various organized Protestant sects as an essential regulatory principle throughout Christian history. Well I'll take your word on the ordinarity of conversion.


Baptism is commonly recognized as a rite of passage into the Christian faith, but there is no doctrinal position that holds this means one is forever a Christian.* Maybe I was in fact a slow learner, but I once learned this: to the eyes of God if you're baptized you cannot be de-baptized, that's why I ask you if there's a problem with that deduction (i.e. being forever baptized under christian faith makes you forever christian).

To be clear: is it your view that an avowed Christian (having been baptized etc.) who then renounces his faith to embrace another, to serve a different mountain as it were: say, becomes a devout Muslim and spends the rest of his days loyal to serving Allah and His prohet Muhammad is actually a Christian?No. I actually take it in the same way as you. But I think that at least nominally the christian community takes baptizeds as eternal christians. Yes I admit that there isn't much reality behind this conclusion.

Excommunication serving as the perfect counter example. But excommunication is an express act of the authorities, in the time within the person is implicity considered as a christian. That could mean, of course, that in conversion there's also an implicit excommunication.

[Pindar]

Soulforged,

It sounds like you agree with my basic stance. I think one could argue that regardless the sectarian stance on baptism or rebaptism that ritual may be seen as a necessary element of being a Christian but not a sufficient condition.

[Soulforged]

It sounds like you agree with my basic stance. I think one could argue that regardless the sectarian stance on baptism or rebaptism that ritual may be seen as a necessary element of being a Christian but not a sufficient condition.I understand, and I agree with you.

[Bar Kochba]

i thought this was a conversation about jews

anyway once your cercimsized you cant undo it

[Strike For The South]

anyway once your cercimsized you cant undo it

WHAT? Chuck Norris

[Bar Kochba]

WHAT? Chuck Norris

lol

[Just A Girl]

You can UN Do surcumsizion??

Do u keep the skin in a box of ice for 20 years Then Hope it streches to the new size when you come to stich it back on?

[Skomatth]

Some circumcised people are not Jews so I don't see how you could use that as the defining mark of Jewishness.

[Bar Kochba]

twas but a joke when someone said you cannot be unbamptized i just said this sorry if i wasnt to specific

[bmolsson]

I think that Pindar is wrong. Faith is not something scientifically recongnized and can therefore not be used in a logical reasoning on defining religion. It's impossible to prove somebody's faith or lack thereof, hence the faith itself is scientifically irrelevant for one's stance in a religion or not.

This means that you are a jew when you are born from a Jewish mother or are converted by a conservative Rabbi (Lubavitch definition). The faith is irrelevant since it's not possible to prove.

[Roark]

*brain explodes*

[Pindar]

I think that Pindar is wrong. Faith is not something scientifically recongnized and can therefore not be used in a logical reasoning on defining religion. It's impossible to prove somebody's faith or lack thereof, hence the faith itself is scientifically irrelevant for one's stance in a religion or not.

This means that you are a jew when you are born from a Jewish mother or are converted by a conservative Rabbi (Lubavitch definition). The faith is irrelevant since it's not possible to prove.

It's OK if you think I'm wrong, but you should make an effort to characterize the position properly. My position centers around belief. This can be demonstrated "proven" by asking: "do you belief in X?" If the person says yes, that's all you really need.

As previously noted: being born of a Jewish mother is logically incoherent and recognizing conversion supports my view in so far as it is voluntary.

Note: Scientific "recognition" and logic are distinct. Science as a discernable method is a subset of logic.

[Papewaio]

Is science really a subset of logic or something that can be more easily examined by it when compared with other human endeavours.

For instance does logic have any issues with probability, particle-wave duality or any other phenomena?

I thought that logic was more akin to being a stone on which the tools of science is sharpened or that of an anvil on which the tools are beaten out.

[Pindar]

Is science really a subset of logic (?)

Yes, science as a method operates off of an inductive logic. It is part of the Rational Tradition.


For instance does logic have any issues with probability, particle-wave duality or any other phenomena?

I thought that logic was more akin to being a stone on which the tools of science is sharpened or that of an anvil on which the tools are beaten out.

Logic is formal. This means it is concerned with the structure and relation between premises and conclusions. That relation, when properly tied, is called validity. Logic is not conerned with the content of that relation. The content could be probabillity or Martian Disco it wouldn't matter.

[Kanamori]

This can be demonstrated "proven" by asking: "do you belief in X?" If the person says yes, that's all you really need.

And so, what things are peculiarily Jewish beliefs? Even more importantly, where does the validity for calling these beliefs 'Jewish' come from? Viz., which of the texts truly describe Judaism? Can Judaism change? Obviously, it has quite a lot. Most importantly to this discussion, worship changed. When the Temple was destroyed, the style of worship had to change. In Judaism, there has always been an emphasis on tradition and practices. One can believe they are practicing Judaism without actually practicing it, and one can practice Judaism without believing they are practicing it. There are clearly 'Holy' actions, such as eating Kosher and observing the Sabbath, which do not require belief yet they are still Holy. Although belief is often associated with holy activity, it is not necessary for it. Saying that belief is necessary for Jewishness is too restrictive; essentially, your statement is correct but it is not the smallest factor that makes up Jewishness. Worship, or perhaps it would be better understood as simply the adjective of some religion i.e. its essence, is not necessarily tied to belief.

[Pindar]

Hello, This old thread has been resurrected I see.


And so, what things are peculiarily Jewish beliefs?

One might look to the singular deference to the Tanakh, Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash as well as larger notions such as Monotheism, the Abrahamic Covenant and the coming of a future Messiah.


Even more importantly, where does the validity for calling these beliefs 'Jewish' come from?

Judaism is considered a revealed religion. Moses' writing of the Torah is considered the direct word of God as well as the later Nevi'im (the prophets) and Ketuvim (writings) which compose the Tanakh. The same applies to the Abrahamic Covenant.


Viz., which of the texts truly describe Judaism?

The Torah is typically considered foundational as this contains the law.


Can Judaism change?

Yes.


One can believe they are practicing Judaism without actually practicing it, and one can practice Judaism without believing they are practicing it.

What does this second clause mean? Are you suggesting that were one to enter a synagogue, don a kippah and then sit with the appropriate gender during a service then that observance qualifies the agent as a Jew? Were Benedict XVI to do these things then the Pope would be a Jew?

What do you want to argue a Jew is?

[Sjakihata]

Jew, a believer in judaism.

[Bar Kochba]

a jew is someone by birthright but one can become jewish through conversion

[Kanamori]

One can believe they are practicing Judaism without actually practicing it, and one can practice Judaism without believing they are practicing it.

What does this second clause mean?

It means exactly what it says; one can practice Judaism w/o believing they are practicing it. If the practice requires belief, then that aspect also requires belief in order for it to be Jewish. If it does not require belief, then that aspect can be called Jewish w/o belief. For example, to observe the Sabbath does not necessarily require that the practicioner believe they are doing something holy. This is also the case with Kosher food. To illuminate how real this could be, in case there is any doubt, consider the example of many reform, conservative, and reconstructionist Jews. If I am not mistaken, it is not uncommon for some to not believe in the holiness of their tradition, yet they practice it. They are still Jews.


Are you suggesting that were one to enter a synagogue, don a kippah and then sit with the appropriate gender during a service then that observance qualifies the agent as a Jew? Were Benedict XVI to do these things then the Pope would be a Jew?

I am not suggesting this, as I have never mentioned anything about any popes.:P However, his actions could certainly be called Jewish. I am not prepared to discuss either the intricacies of the TaNaK and Talmud or the intricacies of exactly what practices one must do in order to be Jewish, as I have not had 8+ years of Hebrew Studies.


What do you want to argue a Jew is?

A practitioner of Judaism is a Jew. To practice Judaism does not necessarily require belief. This must also be extended to those who are of blood relation to the original keepers of the Ark.

[Pindar]

Jew, a believer in judaism.

That's my position.

[Pindar]

a jew is someone by birthright but one can become jewish through conversion

If conversion is possible then birthright is not a definitive stance. Further, to argue for a birthright sounds like arguing for a physiological standard. Is that what you are doing?

[Pindar]

A practitioner of Judaism is a Jew. To practice Judaism does not necessarily require belief. This must also be extended to those who are of blood relation to the original keepers of the Ark.

and


I am not suggesting this, as I have never mentioned anything about any popes.:P However, his actions could certainly be called Jewish. I am not prepared to discuss either the intricacies of the TaNaK and Talmud or the intricacies of exactly what practices one must do in order to be Jewish, as I have not had 8+ years of Hebrew Studies.

The top statement entails what follows. If a practitioner of Judaism is a Jew and by practitioner one means observing Jewish ritual or other custom then the Pope donning a kippah would make him a Jew. Bush would also be Jew for the same reason. I would also be Jewish.

The blood relation comment is also interesting. The first question is why? Why does an action "keeping the Ark" by some mean their ancestors forever possess some physiological identity as seen in the blood? Assuming this could actually be identified and one of the ancestors were a Buddhist monk living in the Himalayas then that fellow would be a Jew even though he claimed no interest, affinity for or any other tie to Judaism?

[Sjakihata]

That's my position.

Sorry, didnt mean to steal your stance. Hopefully we can share it. Didnt bother to read this entire thread.

[Pindar]

Sorry, didnt mean to steal your stance. Hopefully we can share it. Didnt bother to read this entire thread.

Sound thinking is never theft. You can read the first post of the thread to get my basic stance.

[Bar Kochba]

im sorry i was just stating the opionion of orthodox jews

[Pindar]

i was just stating the opionion of orthodox jews

I see. I think that is a common stance. My raising of the initial question, so long ago, was to investigate whether views like that are justified and to see what others thought.

[Bar Kochba]

well according to judasim you have to follow the majority of the rabbis and the majority(btw this only concerns orthodox because the orthodox consider the reform as heretics or amher atzim ignorant people so the can not be considerd the majority) so if that is what the majority says thats how jews follow

[Pindar]

well according to judasim you have to follow the majority of the rabbis and the majority(btw this only concerns orthodox because the orthodox consider the reform as heretics or amher atzim ignorant people so the can not be considerd the majority) so if that is what the majority says thats how jews follow

Quite, but regardless of any agreed stance, the question actually revolves around whether that stance can be justified. The traditional "a Jew is any who come from a Jewish mother" begs the question. Physiological appeals are also problematic.

[Bar Kochba]

i dont know if this has been said already but you dont have to be jewish to believ in G-d it is even a commandment for gentiles the sheva mitzvas beni noach- seven noichide laws so you can have the jewish mentality without being jewish by beliveing in the jewish G-d

[Ianofsmeg16]

I like the Jews, who can't? The only thing I feel for them is respect, c'mon after what they as a people have been through, you can't help but repsect their faith in god and their religious beliefs :bow:

[Bar Kochba]

I like the Jews, who can't?


dont get me started:furious3:

[Kanamori]

A practitioner of Judaism is a Jew. To practice Judaism does not necessarily require belief. This must also be extended to those who are of blood relation to the original keepers of the Ark.

and


I am not suggesting this, as I have never mentioned anything about any popes.:P However, his actions could certainly be called Jewish. I am not prepared to discuss either the intricacies of the TaNaK and Talmud or the intricacies of exactly what practices one must do in order to be Jewish, as I have not had 8+ years of Hebrew Studies.

The top statement entails what follows. If a practitioner of Judaism is a Jew and by practitioner one means observing Jewish ritual or other custom then the Pope donning a kippah would make him a Jew. Bush would also be Jew for the same reason. I would also be Jewish.

The blood relation comment is also interesting. The first question is why? Why does an action "keeping the Ark" by some mean their ancestors forever possess some physiological identity as seen in the blood? Assuming this could actually be identified and one of the ancestors were a Buddhist monk living in the Himalayas then that fellow would be a Jew even though he claimed no interest, affinity for or any other tie to Judaism?

Unfortunately, I had misunderstood the nature of Moses' covenant; there is nothing in the wording, upon reinspection, that justifies a conclusion that it holds to the ancestors, and the same is with Abraham's covenant. And so, in order to convert to Judaism, since one cannot be born into it, one must believe. After, conversion though, practicing the religion does not necessarily require belief.

[Pindar]

Unfortunately, I had misunderstood the nature of Moses' covenant; there is nothing in the wording, upon reinspection, that justifies a conclusion that it holds to the ancestors, and the same is with Abraham's covenant. And so, in order to convert to Judaism, since one cannot be born into it, one must believe. After, conversion though, practicing the religion does not necessarily require belief.

So you agree belief is necessary for any initial Jewish status, but belief is not necessary for continued Jewish status? Is that your view?

[Kanamori]

Yes, after one has converted. I would think then that less than 30% of Israel could be properly labeled as being Jewish.

[Pindar]

Yes, after one has converted. I would think then that less than 30% of Israel could be properly labeled as being Jewish.

Why is belief necessary for initial identification but not thereafter? Do you apply this standard to all faiths or only Jewry?

[Bar Kochba]

this is how it works with jews not sure about other faiths

there have been many jews in history who have wanted to denie they are jewish but still according to jews no matter what they think they are still jewish

[edyzmedieval]

"I'm going to be the next Hitler!!!"
"How?"
"I'm going to kill every Jew and a clown!!!"
"Why the clown?"
"See? Nobody cares about the Jews!!"

~D :laugh4:

Sorry, but couldn't resist posting this here.

[Pindar]

there have been many jews in history who have wanted to denie they are jewish but still according to jews no matter what they think they are still jewish

Why should anyone agree with that assertion?

[Kanamori]

Why is belief necessary for initial identification but not thereafter? Do you apply this standard to all faiths or only Jewry?

Halakha law requires that converter understand what it means to be religiously-observant Jew. So, belief is necessary for conversion. I also reject the notion that Jewishness is based on race, after re-examinaning Moses' covenant that I had misunderstood, and since Abraham's only counts Israelits as the people of God, not necessarily the Jewish people of God, and because many of them haven't recieved covenants similar to those of the early Jews. This standard only applies to religion of this discussion, because I am not familiar enough with the others to make a claim of that sort. Because Jewish practices, such as following Kosher eating habits, do not require faith, faith is not required to label someone a Jew.

[Pindar]

Halakha law requires that converter understand what it means to be religiously-observant Jew... Because Jewish practices, such as following Kosher eating habits, do not require faith, faith is not required to label someone a Jew.

I don't understand your position. Faith is necessary to become Jewish, but not to be labeled Jewish?

[Bar Kochba]

i just read a book recently called "who is a jew" forgot the person who wrote it but he explains according to halacha what is a jew and not to become a jew through convorsion you have to have faith but to be a jew by birth you dont have to have faith. we still consider seculer people who are jewish from birth jewish thats how it works in the jewish orthodox world.

[Pindar]

i just read a book recently called "who is a jew" forgot the person who wrote it but he explains according to halacha what is a jew and not to become a jew through convorsion you have to have faith but to be a jew by birth you dont have to have faith. we still consider seculer people who are jewish from birth jewish thats how it works in the jewish orthodox world.


That view is logically strained: it begs the question which has been discussed.

[Bar Kochba]

i dont understand what you are saying this is the rule amongst the orthodox its the tradition this is how it has been kept i know you've quoted Rambam (miamonides) before but although rambam was logical these are the rules according to Rambam aswell

[Pindar]

i dont understand what you are saying this is the rule amongst the orthodox its the tradition this is how it has been kept i know you've quoted Rambam (miamonides) before but although rambam was logical these are the rules according to Rambam aswell


The question isn't concerned with a traditional answer or tradition per say, but what would be the rational criteria for holding a particular stance. Stances that involve identification independent of the will suffer from incoherence.

[Kanamori]

So you agree belief is necessary for any initial Jewish status, but belief is not necessary for continued Jewish status? Is that your view?


Why is belief necessary for initial identification but not thereafter? Do you apply this standard to all faiths or only Jewry?



I don't understand your position. Faith is necessary to become Jewish, but not to be labeled Jewish?

This is only because Jewish law requires it. Judaism is not strictly a religion marked by faith, it is also a set of traditions that do not require faith. My problem in this thread has always been that if you make the sole requirement faith, then you inaccurately describe many of the traditions that go along with Judaism. Practicing Kosher eating habits does not have to be followed with faith in order for the eating habits to be Kosher. My definition is an attempt to reconcile these differences; practicing a religion is marked both by faith and by action alone, regardless of motivation often. My problem has also been that faith does not make someone a true follower of the religion. If I think, for the life of me (and in madness), that I am a green alien, it does not follow that I am a green alien. Believing alone does not mark the essence of either things, and religion is not solely marked by faith. Saying, "I believe in the Christian God," does not make somebody a Christian. For one thing, many people disagree what is entailed by God. What is also very problematic though is trying to set down what exactly any member of a religion is. What beliefs are necessary? What practices are necessary? I doubt you will get anyone to agree on these exact terms, and thus we have an irreconcilable debate, because it is such a subjective matter.


Stances that involve identification independent of the will suffer from incoherence.

And so do those definitions that are entirely dependent on the will. This is why I say practitioners and not believers. For there are times when practicing requires belief and there are times that practicing does not require believing. Further, and more importantly, there are times that belief does not result in actually practicing.

[Pindar]

This is only because Jewish law requires it. Judaism is not strictly a religion marked by faith, it is also a set of traditions that do not require faith. My problem in this thread has always been that if you make the sole requirement faith, then you inaccurately describe many of the traditions that go along with Judaism. Practicing Kosher eating habits does not have to be followed with faith in order for the eating habits to be Kosher.

If belief is necessary for identification it doesn't follow that identification is sustained absent belief.

Someone who participates in a religious practice X without any belief in the meaning or force of the X may be doing so out of a deference to tradition or politeness, but neither are sufficient for religious status.


My definition is an attempt to reconcile these differences; practicing a religion is marked both by faith and by action alone, regardless of motivation often.

Practicing a religion does involve action by definition, but the question is about base religious identification not devotional propriety. Consider the following three models:

1) A self-identifying Christian who does nothing 'Christian'. Some may say the fellow is a hypocrite. Others may say he is not a Christian because of the incongruity, but the fellow may still insist he believes Jesus is the Christ even though he is weak to follow. The statement of belief irrespective of practice would convince many the identification is appropriate.

2) Someone who does not claim to belief in religion X or follow the practices of X: why should he be considered an X? Identifying the person as an X seems problematic.

3) A person does not claim to believe in religion X but practices aspects of religion X. If the practice alone is sufficient for identification then the Pope and President Bush would both be Jewish as both have participated in Jewish practices. This is of course problematic.


My problem has also been that faith does not make someone a true follower of the religion.

Whether one is a true follower is a question of orthodoxy which is separate from the base identification. The heretic and the orthodox are both part of the same rubric.


If I think, for the life of me (and in madness), that I am a green alien, it does not follow that I am a green alien.

A green alien is a statement about biology. Being a Methodist, Buddhist, Jew or Republican is not. The latter are all related to a belief standard.


Believing alone does not mark the essence of either things, and religion is not solely marked by faith. Saying, "I believe in the Christian God," does not make somebody a Christian.

We disagree. If someone tells me they believe Jesus is the Christ then I believe them and consider them Christian. If someone tells me they believe: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet" I accept them as Muslim.


What is also very problematic though is trying to set down what exactly any member of a religion is.

Not really. Christianity is doctrinally distinct and holds to a different metaphysic than Buddhism. These differences can be noted in the texts they hold as canonical as well as in the teachings of their recognized leaders. Now if someone held both standards as true then they would fall into a yet third category: "Unitarian" for example.

[Kanamori]

If belief is necessary for identification it doesn't follow that identification is sustained absent belief.

It is necessary to aquire it, not to have it. Covenants apply after belief is gone. The rules of conduct do not apply to nonJews, in Judaism. As said earlier, one can be righteous by following the Noahide laws without being a Jew. Once you agree to follow the laws, as you are supposed to when converting, you submit to them, and God does not withdraw them because you no longer believe. He treats you like a Jew, not a gentile, thus Jewish.


1) A self-identifying Christian who does nothing 'Christian'. Some may say the fellow is a hypocrite. Others may say he is not a Christian because of the incongruity, but the fellow may still insist he believes Jesus is the Christ even though he is weak to follow. The statement of belief irrespective of practice would convince many the identification is appropriate.


Believing in Jesus' sacrifice is in fact a Christian action.


2) Someone who does not claim to belief in religion X or follow the practices of X: why should he be considered an X? Identifying the person as an X seems problematic.

It is hardly problematic. Converting to Judaism is a contract with God. Once a Jew, always a Jew. One does not simply have the power to end a contract with God because they no longer believe in him.



A green alien is a statement about biology. Being a Methodist, Buddhist, Jew or Republican is not. The latter are all related to a belief standard.

It is a matter of biology, but that is inconsequential. However, the essence of both is not defined by self-identification. If one says, "I am Christian," but hold no beliefs that are Christian, they are clearly not Christian.


We disagree. If someone tells me they believe Jesus is the Christ then I believe them and consider them Christian. If someone tells me they believe: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet" I accept them as Muslim.

If neither of them believe they are Christian or Muslim, what then? Holding those beliefs is practicing. It is commiting a positive actions, making a claim and holding it. As far as I know, those religions do not require their members to consider themselves followers in order for them to be followers. That it is not common for a follower to not make positive assent does not matter, because you make this claim as a logical stepping stone when their self-recognition is not guaranteed.

So, in reality, you're saying that the sectarian differences are of no matter? After all, they are all Christian, nothing beyond those basic elements can be considered Christian if they are not required for Christian identification. What is more problematic to this is the obvious difference there is of the interpretation of the Trinity...