This node title is a near-quote from nine9's 22 May 2001 daylog. The actual quote is "Hinduism doesn't allow me to be who I am," referring to the fact that while he seems to like some of the philosophy, the rules that go with the philosophy directly contradict his lifestyle.

With no offense meant to nine9, I think this is a problem lots of people have with religion in modern society -- they'd like to take bits and pieces that they like out of whatever belief system they choose, and you can't do that.

Western society today tends to focus on the individual, with supreme emphasis on individual liberties. That's all well and good in civil society, particularly in systems where religion/"the church" is de facto or de jure separate from the state, as there is no civil benefit (hopefully) to membership in a certain sect, and decisions about what is hopefully the most basic part of your being don't necessarily have to be influenced by worldly implications. This breaks down, though, when someone approaches religion from the outside, with the idea of making a religion match him/her, rather than attempting to fit to it.

I've never had the experience of "shopping for a religion" per se, so I'm not an expert on what a person doing that might be thinking. Certainly such a person should look for a belief system whose central theme he/she can follow, whether that be moderation, redemption, grace, or whatever. But when rules come with that central theme, they're usually there for a reason, whether it be directly moral or historical. If he/she can't agree with those rules, then that religion is not for him/her. (This is not a reason to avoid intelligent thought about the religion; to the contrary, you should think long and hard about what you're getting into, and why each part of the system of belief is there -- you might learn something. Theologians have been doing this for centuries.)

But you're never going to find a religion that perfectly fits you and allows you to do whatever you want, if you approach it with a totally inflexible mind.

...unless you invent one, that is.

---

Cletus the Foetus's argument seems to be based on applying the same restrictions to Jesus Christ as I do to ordinary humans, and he quotes my initial response to his WU. If you want to get legalistic about it, I suppose I could phrase it as an exception to be made for deities (or whatever significant religious figure you wish to consider capable of creating a "new" faith), but I'll keep it simple.

I don't mentally put the same restrictions on the Son of God's actions in redefining religion that I do on ordinary humans' actions.

As for "What would make Jesus the Son of God?": it's a matter of faith. Either you believe it or you don't. If you don't accept that significant religious figures by "nature" (divine birth/command from God/revelation/whatever) have the moral right to go mucking about with basic religious tenets as a direct result of that nature, then ctf's argument is pretty compelling. I just don't extend the restrictions in my argument to that kind of individual.

I dislike polemics in nodes. Everything is not a BBS, and I don't like writing specifically in reply to something else; it feels too GTKY. But there's one significant counter-example to the statement that "if [a would-be adherent] can't agree with [the rules and practices associated with a creed], then that religion is not for him/her" – even if those rules are only associated with the creed for "historical" (as contrasted with "moral," or philosophical) reasons. It's a counter-example very near to many people's hearts, but sadly not always their brains:

1: Jesus was a Jew who promoted the worship of the Hebrew God, Jehovah.

2: Jesus made it clear that the old laws of Jehovah were "not for" him or his followers. He turned the law away from the adulteress (John 8:1-11), made statements against the Pharisees which effectively dissolved the dietary stipulations of kosher as outlined in Leviticus 11 (Matthew 15:11), had a total disregard for the Sabbath (Luke 13:14-17), and generally saw fit to replace the Ten Commandments, negative prohibitions all, with a single, positive exhortation to love (Mark 12:28-31; iambic points out that there are actually two commandments, but they are both to love God and mankind).

The best summary of Jesus's teachings come from a fellow noder: as WickerNipple says elsewhere, "One of the most important aspects of Jesus' teaching is his desire to abolish previous notions of purity laws and instigate a form of internal purity that surpasses the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy."

It might be argued that Jesus, as God or the Son of God, had a special right to critique Judaism which mortals don't have; but if Jesus was anything, he was at least a human being, and therefore we have an example of a human being critically revising a religion that he feels is "not for him." We could even grant that Jesus had a special dispensation from God, as his Son or as a prophet, to find a new way – but the question then becomes, can we ever really establish that nine9, or anyone for that matter, doesn't?

The idea of "cognitive restrictions" is meaningless. If you're a Christian today, it's because two thousand years ago, someone listened to Jesus's message. Someone listened when a man said, "I'm the son of God." Before he said that, you would have no reason to treat him as anything other than a normal guy, with the same "cognitive restrictions" as the rest of us "ordinary" humans – regardless of what you estimate him to be after you've decided to believe what he says. — That is to say, you can only accept that Jesus is the messiah after you accept that he, a Jew, had a right to say as much, whether it was true or not.

If you're a Christian, then your faith is based on certain kinds of claims about religion and the nature of God (including his incarnation). If you turn around and say that it is immoral for someone to make those sorts of claims, to alter existing religion in this way by coming up with new ideas about God and humanity's relationship to the sacred, you are saying that the conditions under which your own faith was developed and propogated were immoral.

Jesus claimed to be honouring the prophets and said that he did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17), but in effect, he completely overturned the practice of applying the law – for example, no more of the capital punishment that is called for in Leviticus – because he radically reinterpreted the essence of the creed of Judaism, revealing God to be (or turning God into) a god of forgiveness, rather than a God of judgment.

There is no such thing as approaching religion "from the outside" or "from the inside." "I'm on the 'inside,' I'm not supposed to judge;" "I'm on the 'outside,' I'm not qualified to judge." These are excuses for renouncing critical engagement with religion and spirituality. Religion is a constantly-renewed relationship between oneself and God (however He, She, It, We, or I am conceived), mediated through two elements: beliefs and practices. The practices – rituals, rules, and morality – follow from the beliefs. Insofar as practices are only contingently or historically associated with a religion, those practices do not follow from the creed – in which case, it is worth asking whether they are actually part of the religion at all, rather than being something else (aesthetics, cult control, cultural patina, agitprop). By adopting certain beliefs, one necessarily makes them one's own somehow – each adherent will have a different interpretation, assessment, and valuation of the creed than any other adherent. This will necessarily lead to a different understanding of the practices and the motivations behind them.

Does this reinterpretation lead to the formation of an absolutely new religion which has nothing to do with the old one? But aren't Protestantism, Catholicism, and Greek Orthodoxy all basically Christianity? Was Jesus himself not a Jew? Christianity isn't Judaism, and Islam isn't Christianity, but at what point, exactly, are we obligated, conceptually, to identify a new sect as a separate religion? Many of the saints recognized by the Catholic Church were theologians who disagreed with one another on matters of interpreting creed to yield consistent ethical, moral, legal, political, medical, therapeutic, and confessional practices; does that mean these saints aren't all Christian? At a radical level, since adherents never act on a creed but on their interpretation of the creed, every individual represents a "sect" – could we even go so far as to say that each individual has (or even is) his or her own religion?

Isn't that something for the adherent to decide for herself or himself?

---

I am not a Christian, and don't own a Bible; maybe I'm talking out my ass here. I am indebted to iambic for the textual references I have been able to include, and welcome any corrections or further references of significance.

And to those who maintain the special privilege of "faith" in the matter of Jesus's special privilege to reform religion, I will offer up the words of the philosopher Benedictus Spinoza:

I am utterly astonished that men can bring thmselves to make reason, the greatest of all gifts and a light divine, subservient to letters that are dead, and may have been corrupted by human malice; that it should be considered no crime to denigrate the mind, the true handwriting of God's word, declaring it to be corrupt, blind and lost, whereas it is considered a heinous crime to entertain such thoughts of the letter, a mere shadow of God's word. They think it pious to put no trust in reason and their own judgment, impious to doubt the trustworthiness of those who have transmitted to us the Sacred Books. This is not piety, but mere folly.

– Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, chapter 15

As Cletus pointed out to me, Islam doesn't have the cheat of "Jesus = God" to get out of the trap laid above, which leaves this question unresolved. Does Islam, as a religion allow me to be who I am, or does it place restrictions on me, effectively limiting my freedom to express myself?

The same question has been asked about nearly every mature paradigm for thought since the beginning of time, and I would have to say that there is definitely some truth to the answer that it DOES restrict freedom of expression. The important point that often gets neglected in these questions, is that it is supposed to. We have incredible potential to do both good, and evil, and presumably we wish to be unshackled to choose a better course by virtue of our freedom, rather than to degenerate. Well, religion's main gift to mankind, is just that. It frees us from society, from culture, from tradition and superstition, and allows us to choose those things that are truly best for us.

And it does this in a way that most modern western thinkers will find shocking, it doesn't put physical restraints on the person, changes the nature of the person so that physical restraints are unnecessary.

Do I have the right to adopt my own religion, to choose and neglect as I see fit? Of course I do, but in doing so I am no longer a Muslim, and I have thus lost my identification as a Muslim, and also my integrity. Even if I feel compelled to make a change in my faith, I should remember that I like as not don't understand it well enough to judge, from ANY standpoint.

The issue is whether the progressive engagement with the religion is bringing me inner peace and clarity, and strength. I have questions, and if the answers I hear from Islam ring true, then it is my duty to remain Muslim.

Where then does this leave my freedom? Intact. What about the Religion? Intact also. To use Christianity as an example, Jesus did indeed re-interpret the Jewish faith's approach to religious life. But he was a Prophet, and that is what they are *supposed* to do. No one had to follow his teachings at the time unless they chose to, it was only afterwards that conversions became compulsory.

Even if we leave him out of it, to a lesser extent the Jewish authorities have been re-interpreting the words of Moses and Abraham for millenia, and have a broad sprectrum of approaches to problems in daily life, in perceptions of the divine, and of course to the religious texts given by lots of different and differing Rabbis.

Christians have the diverse array of saints, and to some extent the differing opinions of the churches to parallel this, and while they may despise each other, they *do* see each other as Christians.

For Muslims the system is much easier, and much looser, we have no centralised or organised clergy, and the only thing a person needs to interpret the Quran is his or her own mind, and the wisdom to have read it and understood it. In a very real sense it is a bit like e2, those who know, contribute, and everything is checked, cross checked, and if you like it after that fact, then you follow it, if not you don't.

Islam also has the concepts of fiqh, and of aql, and ibadah. Or, in English, Intelligence, Reason, and Obedience. When something is directly written about and unequivocal, then you obey (Quran). When something is disputable with precedents, then you Reason, (Hadith) and take the best of those opinions available. When it is a new situation, then you use your own Intelligence and bring the Islamic spirit of openess, and inquiry into it. This last in invaluable for everyday life, and brings the personal element into Islam, giving you the chance to define what a Muslim is from day to day, from place to place.

I honestly don't think then, that religion prevents you from being you are. Sects might, cults almost always do, but as we have seen above the mature broadbased religions are marked by a certain flexibility while defining the relationships of their followers in the light of their holy messages.