noodlebee

I have two roommates. One is a practicing Muslim who prays five times a day, does not drink alcohol or take other drugs, etc. The other is a non-practicing Christian but I did not know he was Christian until my Muslim roommate said "he is a non-practicing Christian." They are best friends, which is why my Muslim roommate knew this.

Usually, when someone says "I am [some religion]", do you assume he/she is practicing or non-practicing? I previously believed that if you say a sentence like this, you must be practicing. But now, I don't know too sure.

The reason I previously held this belief was because I assumed if you say "I am [some religion]", it means that you identify with that religion, understood the philosophy behind it, and followed (or tried your best) the rules and guidelines the religion asks. I felt "non-practicing" is just similar to saying "I have no religion" because you are not following the religion or actively improving your life in the way that religion asks you to. So what is the difference between non-practicing and no religion? How vague is this? Is it possible for an outsider of the religion to understand?

There was also another question someone asked. This person doesn't know my roommates, but it is somewhat a related topic. His original question was "What defines Christianity and Christian?" I want to take this to a broader scope and say "What defines a person to be a follower of a religion?"

So far, my personal belief is that if a person is trying his/her best to understand and believe that religion, that person can be called a follower like "Christian", "Buddhist", "Hindu". Maybe he/she is just beginning so he/she does not understand as much as someone who followed the same religion for a long time, but the definition is related to how much the mind is willing to accept, question, understand and put into practice.