What defines an ideal?

[AltF4]

What defines an ideal? The written "rules", or the actions of the followers of the ideal.

The question is essentially this: I ask you "What is communism"? Or "What is Christianity"?

Do you define these groups by what they *say* they are? Or what the members of these groups do?

It seems to me that it varies from group to group. Communism is most often defined by the people who did terrible actions in its name, and not by what Marx actually wrote.

But inversely, Christianity is (at least from where I sit. Perhaps this impression is not indicative of the world at large) defined by the things written in scripture rather than by the terrible things people do in its name.

Why might this be?


A related question
"Who is a *enter religious group here*" Someone who believes that religion is true, or someone who follows the tenants of it?

What I'm getting at are the Muslim leaders claiming that Islam is a religious of peace, therefore the middle eastern terrorists are not Muslim, but only claim to be.

I however am an Atheist, who coincidentally is a really nice person in real life and winds up following the majority of the Abrahamic laws. (Most of them are common sense)

So who is the Muslim? The terrorist or the Atheist?

Spoiler

I consider myself to be more Christian than most Christians.

 

[Eight Sage]

"What defines an ideal?"

I think an ideal is defined by both, rules and their followers. Sometimes ideals come from nowhere, only followers who agree on something is enough to sustain the ideal. But I think most "important" ideals have something written (I mean rules of course).

"Do you define these groups by what they *say* they are? Or what the members of these groups do?"

Well, you can have different opinions about this... is obvious that if you follow an ideal, you have to DO more than say. So, if I have to define these groups I should look for what they do, but I can't judge if I don't know what they say they are (only I can state if it's good or not basing on my morals).

"Who is a *enter religious group here*" Someone who believes that religion is true, or someone who follows the tenants of it?"

You can have people who claim being something, but If you don't believe your own beliefs then why care? AltF4 you said that you consider yourself to be more Christian than most Christians, but if you're an Atheist then you can't compare with them. Sure there are Christians who sometimes act wrong, but you shouldn't mix the believer with the religion.

So, you're nicer than some Christians, that's the correct statement

 

[AltF4]

If someone were to say "a good christian girl". What does the adjective "christian" mean in that context? It holds a set of qualities that christians are 'supposed' to have. What I mean is that I find myself to have more of those qualities than most so-called christians. So if you define whether or not you're christian in those terms , then I would be christian.

On the *very* opposite end, was Hitler a christian? He was raised a roman catholic, baptized, the works. But then went and did some rather mean things that we would consider "un-christian", to understate it.

You see the difference I'm trying to portray?

(Oh, and with some brief research, I found that it turns out Hitler may have secretly despised christianity but kept it hidden. For the purposes of this, just pretend he didn't. It's a pretty good example.)

 

[Digital Watches]

Definition is strange on a set of beliefs. After all, people are human, and thus will make mistakes. Clearly we can't set an objective threshold of dissonance with the laws or beliefs set down by any particular belief system, but part of the problem comes in defining beliefs in the first place. For example, an Atheist ostensibly belongs to no religion and thus ascribes, uniformly, to no particular beliefs at all. We define an Atheist therefore by our common characteristic: Lack of belief in a higher power.

I submit that given the complexity, interpretability, and state of being quite at odds with human nature, many belief systems are impossible to follow strictly to the letter for the entirety of one's life. My own issues with such doctrines are another matter entirely, but the fact of the matter is that we don't go around revoking someone's Christian status every time they lie or have sex outside of marriage, as evidenced by the fact that almost everyone does it and Christianity remains the largest religion on the planet.

Therefore, by the definition we have set down, one's status as a follower of an ideal is merely defined by their belief in it. It's how the semantics play out, when you think about it. You don't call someone who eats pork or shellfish on occasion not Jewish, but you call someone who doesn't eat shellfish or pork, but doesn't believe in the religion or a god an Atheist.

What people's actions DO do, however, is change the face and reputation of the ideal. While the Qur'an hasn't changed much since it was written (due to the strict insistence upon keeping it in its original Arabic), the actions of Islam's followers (well, some of them) certainly have, and therefore the perception of the ideal by both outsiders and some members of said ideal has changed. When a new sect appears, or a new interpretation is developed (Either gradually or with celerity), the ideal itself can shift through interpretation. Likewise, when the ethics of the world shift and metamorphose with time, the perception of a set of ethics which has changed less dramatically or in a different direction if at all (as is increasingly becoming the case with Christianity) is inevitably shifted as well.

But either way, adherence to an ideal is irrelevant to belief in it, and belief seems, semantically, to be how we define allegiance to said ideals. A Christian could very well be a serial murderer (I'm sure many have been) and believe full well that he'll be punished in some kind of hell. Likewise, an Atheist can err towards following all of the Christian commandments, either by coincidence or conceding directly that some or all of them are worth following, and yet his disbelief in the Christian god and the Christian ideal makes him, semantically, not a Christian. Perhaps Christians would say he'd "make a good Christian."

 

[AltF4]

I agree that religious categorization itself is to blame for so many problems we have today. There is no necessity for organized religion. If you have a belief in god(s) then do so. Virtually nobody's *actual* beliefs match up perfectly with the written dogma of a particular sect.

It's exactly why I refuse to call myself a republican or a democrat. Nor anything else in between either. I have a set of viewpoints that doesn't coincide with any political party, and I don't want to be associated with the collective stereotypes that come with any one group. Banding into factions only serves to separate and alienate people from one another.

 

[Digital Watches]

Agreed, but it's a clear tendency for somewhat like-minded people to organize and also a tendency that people manipulate this tendency in order to influence the opinions of the less intelligent (or simply less influential) members of said like-minded group more towards their own. Creating enemies is a great way to keep people from growing disillusioned from the group.

I'd be a huge fan of getting rid of this kind of manipulative and polarizing organization, but as long as people are stupid and impressionable (a majority always will be), these tendencies aren't stopping soon.

 

[Delphiki]

You should never label yourself unless one of two things is true. One, you strive to achieve the idea (and come at least somewhat close to it), or two, you fit the idea very closely.

The definition of the ideal is, by definition of 'ideal' not in interpretation. It is the most surreal possibility one can achieve - perfection of the doctrine. Jesus (the character in the text) is the ideal Christian. The rest of those who claim to be Christians just pick out what they like and throw the remainder of the idea to the wolves.

Note: I think it is one of the worst habits of people to call themselves what they wish they were, not what they really are.

 

[Digital Watches]

You should never label yourself unless one of two things is true. One, you strive to achieve the idea (and come at least somewhat close to it), or two, you fit the idea very closely.

The definition of the ideal is, by definition of 'ideal' not in interpretation. It is the most surreal possibility one can achieve - perfection of the doctrine. Jesus (the character in the text) is the ideal Christian. The rest of those who claim to be Christians just pick out what they like and throw the remainder of the idea to the wolves.

Note: I think it is one of the worst habits of people to call themselves what they wish they were, not what they really are.

Yeah, but "Christian" is not defined as "exactly like jesus."

It's defined as "Want to be exactly like jesus, or at least believe that they should."