View Full Version : What is a Jew
In another thread while helping bmolsson correct some confused thinking the question of Jewish status came up. The question basically became: what is a Jew? Now this is an old and seemingly complex question. One traditional answer is: a Jew is any who is born to a Jewish mother. This of course begs the question: not explaining why the mother is Jewish save to repeat the stated refrain. Many have seen being a Jew as a racial question. The difficulty here, aside from race itself being problematic, is there are so many 'racial' groups that identify as Jewish. There are White European Jews, Brown Arab Jews, Black Ethiopian Jews, Yellow Asian Jews etc. Some label Jewishness as cultural. This again faces the difficulty of there being multiple "Jew" cultures: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Temani are some of the standard divisions though there are other more exotic varieties. Many of the stated views assume the label Jew is a fixed position: once a Jew always a Jew, regardless of the person's joining or aligning with any other category. I believe this is a flawed notion.
It is certainly the case that many discriminated minorities often begin to identify with the rhetoric of their oppressors. I think this is one of the reasons some of the above ideas have parlance even within the self labeled Jewish community. So, what is a Jew? I believe a Jew is someone who identifies with Judaism. It is therefore a religious category. Should a fellow decide to convert to Judaism they are then a Jew. Should a Jew decide to join another faith, say Catholicism the person is then a Catholic and no longer a Jew. From this perspective there is no such thing as a atheist-Jew, or Christian-Jew or Muslim-Jew any more then there could be a Christian-Muslim.
I am interested in others' thoughts.
Don Corleone
06-23-2005, 00:04
I agree with the religious aspect of it (all followers of the covenant of Abraham, regardless of their ancestry would be Jews).
However, you should note that in religious Judaism, there are three major sects: Reform, Conservative & Orthodox (as well as many minor ones, such as Hasidim). I'm not Jewish (but my savior is), but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the more liberal a Jewish branch you convert to, the less likely it will be that you will be accepted by other Jews. If you convert to Reform, many Conservatives and all Orthodox will NOT view you as Jewish. If you convert to Conservative, many Orthodox will NOT. If you convert to Orthodox, you're as Jewish as Mel Brooks.
Goofball
06-23-2005, 00:13
Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?
Byzantine Prince
06-23-2005, 00:16
Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?
It was more of an ethnic cleansing. They created anthropoligic theories that jews were inherently a lower race. The Nazis didn't even like their own church when it came to religious matters. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-23-2005, 00:22
Yeah, the Nazis viewed "Jewish-Christians" as ethnic Jews, though their persecution may have started slightly later and originally with less violence. In the end, there was no difference.
Some of the [Catholic] churches originally only helped "Catholic Jews" but realized that wasn't so hot and started to help all Jews. And this is among the churches that did help.
discovery1
06-23-2005, 00:23
Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?
I think they were killed too. The limit was I think 1/4 'Jewish'* if you wanted to live.
*in quotes b/c I don't think Jews are a race.
Papewaio
06-23-2005, 00:26
So, what is a Jew? I believe a Jew is someone who identifies with Judaism. It is therefore a religious category. Should a fellow decide to convert to Judaism they are then a Jew. Should a Jew decide to join another faith, say Catholicism the person is then a Catholic and no longer a Jew. From this perspective there is no such thing as a atheist-Jew, or Christian-Jew or Muslim-Jew any more then there could be a Christian-Muslim.
I am interested in others' thoughts.
One of my best friends is a Jew as is his parents. His parents expect him to marry a good Jewish girl.
However none of them are religous. They are all Atheists, which is a good thing considering my mate loves Hungry Jacks (Burger King with a different label, same company) Bacon Burgers. However he still sees himself as Jewish as his ethnic group.
Hes sees religion as an intellectual dishonesty and a crutch for the weak. However his best friend (and my brothers who introduced us) is a Buddhist (his father was the head of the Buddhist Society, not a monk obviously just the community organisation). Our other friend is the son of an Anglican minister. Another friend is a non-practicing Catholic (son of Catholic parents, but definitly not religious), another mate is a Sri Lankan Buddhist and a mix of the spectrum for the rest. (Made our D&D group interesting).
Much like a Chinese person outside of China still identifies themselves as Chinese ethnic and whatever country citizenship.
Much like Maori who may be 3/4's Pakeha. You still will be a Maori if that is the way of life you identify with.
So Jewish people have a triple definition. Genetics, Culture and Religion. You only have to belong to one of those and identify yourself as a Jew.
My main point is that Jewish people are an ethnic group and/or religion. You don't have to belong to both to be a Jew, nor does not belonging to one of the groups disqualify yourself.
KukriKhan
06-23-2005, 00:37
So Jewish people have a triple definition. Genetics, Culture and Religion. You only have to belong to one of those and identify yourself as a Jew.
That almost sounds (anthropolgically speaking) like a tribe that accepts some outsiders through trials and tests. So Jews are an extended tribe?
Papewaio
06-23-2005, 00:54
Of course, historically speaking to be a citizen you had to belong to the state religion. After a time culture, genetics and religion become the same.
Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity?
Nazism saw Jews as a race religious affiliation didn't matter. This was tied up with the eugenics movements that were in vogue.
bmolsson
06-23-2005, 05:59
Nazism saw Jews as a race religious affiliation didn't matter. This was tied up with the eugenics movements that were in vogue.
Well, they did hate communists as well so I don't think they really based their views on any logic......
bmolsson
06-23-2005, 06:02
In another thread while helping bmolsson correct some confused thinking the question of Jewish status came up.
I believe it was/is the reversed. You deny the fact that jews are born in to their religion. Your fundamentalistic view on faith is not really in connection with the natural world...... ~;)
PanzerJaeger
06-23-2005, 06:04
Ive always thought of Jews in much the same way the Nazis did - an ethnicity all their own, because they are so close nit and seem to be a community all their own. Of course I havent put much thought into it, and I suppose I agree with Pindar that Jews can only really be catagorized on religious grounds.
caesar44
06-23-2005, 06:30
well thank you !!!! in my worst nightmares i did not imagine my self saying that i am thinking like the nazis in any subject !
you should think again
from your name in this forum (panzer) i consider you are a german and it is very sad that you have not learned anything
:duel:
PanzerJaeger
06-23-2005, 06:44
Ahh but if you read my post I have learned something from Pindar and have corrected my views on the subject. ~;)
Don Corleone
06-23-2005, 06:52
Caesar, relax.
The point of the thread is the amibiguity over whether "Jewishness" is an ethnicity, a culture or a religion. Panzer was just weighing in on that. Honestly, I think you'll find you don't have any stronger defenders for Israel or Judaism itself for that matter than PJ.
I still stick by my argument about the covenant of Abraham. I also want to elaborate that includes all Christians, because we are not a 'different' religion, but a messianic branch. Trust me, Paul, let alone Jesus, would correct us Gentiles in a heartbeat if they came back to speak to us.
Papewaio
06-23-2005, 06:57
Christian are the branches and Jews are the roots ...
bmolsson
06-23-2005, 07:26
Christian are the branches and Jews are the roots ...
Eh... And that would make the muslims the soil..... :help: ~D ~D
And the whole tree rotten! ~;)
bmolsson
06-23-2005, 07:33
And the whole tree rotten! ~;)
Oh... Soon everyone will be soil..... ~:)
Hmm...if you want a Jewish theologian's perspective check out To Life! by Harold Kushner. He is a Conservative Rabbi from Boston, in the book he says that Judaism is like, as KukriKhan asked, an extended tribe. An exercise he mentions is to list the twenty greatest Jews past century or two. Who comes to mind, Einstein, ect. Now list the temple they regularly attended, the thing is most didn't. But they were still Jewish. Anyway, good book for those wanting to know more about Judaism.
Franconicus
06-23-2005, 07:42
[QUOTE=Don Corleone]The point of the thread is the amibiguity over whether "Jewishness" is an ethnicity, a culture or a religion. QUOTE]
Right! And the answer is, they are everything and they are none.
Traditionally the religion and the people are just one. The Jewish God and the people are tied together. You cannot leave the club or become new member. So in the beginning ethic and religion were one.
Later non Jewish converted to the religion or Jewish stopped believing in their God. Even though this is something that Jewish fundamentalists never accept this created new categories: ethnis jews and religious jews. And today you have also the seperation of Jews living in Israel and Jews outside. So it is also a difference here.
Nazis did not care too much about the details. They defined Jews as a race (and were inline with Jewish fundamentalists). So they even killed people who did not even know that they were 'Jews', they were just Christian Germans. Some of them were high decorated officers fighting for Germany in WW1.
Well, they did hate communists as well so I don't think they really based their views on any logic......
There is a kind of insane logic. Many of the communists in Germany were Jewish.
Well I consider myself an Australian who happens to have a jewish mother. So it ain't a race, its a religion with several distinct ethnic groups with in it.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-23-2005, 08:29
Euhh?
What do you have to say to the many Jews who are not believers anymore? That they are not Jews even if they identify themselves so?
What's the point in picking one arbitrary definition over another? Those labels really matters?
What you point at is NOT a good definition of "Jew", it hints at the ambiguity of it... It's an ambiguity that Israel faces. Going for simplicity over ambiguity Pindar?
Louis,
caesar44
06-23-2005, 08:42
And the whole tree rotten! ~;)
over 10,000 post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am speechless
jews christians muslims hindu's shintu's who cares......
caesar44
06-23-2005, 09:13
now seriously - 1. any man had the right to define himself as he wish
2. there is something you all missed - judaism is not a religion and it is not a nationality and it is not an ethnic group , it is all combined !
jesus belonged to a semitic group , the hebrews , and so many of nowdays jews are if one , let say moses , converts from judaism he is still belonged ethnically to judaism because his ancestors were hebrews who lived in the times of jesus
jews had their own language , their own writing , names , common past etc'
in israel there is no separation between one's religion and nationality and because of that even jews in bangladesh or nigeria are considered as holding the same nationality as the jews in israel (nationality in a sense of "same blood")
judaism is not a missionaric religion just because the want to preserve its "original origin"
in the holly books of the jews is written - " israel although ... is always israel"
:book:
InsaneApache
06-23-2005, 11:42
This what I gleaned from going to a school that was about 25% Jewish.
Jews follow Judaism, a religion.
Hebrews are a race of Semites (Arabs)
Most Jews are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews.
that clear?
~:cheers:
It's an ethnicity with fairly rigid rules as to who is a member. My father is Jewish, but I am not. My grandfather is so Jewish that he can speak Yiddish and recite passages from the Torah. However he is a communist athiest :D
Kaiser of Arabia
06-23-2005, 16:14
And the whole tree rotten! ~;)
Wait, then where's Atheism? Is it that bush! Or that shrub! OR THAT *points at you*?!?! ~:)
This what I gleaned from going to a school that was about 25% Jewish.
Jews follow Judaism, a religion.
Hebrews are a race of Semites (Arabs)
Most Jews are Hebrew, but not all Hebrews are Jews.
that clear?
~:cheers:
Now it is, I thought it was the same thing.
InsaneApache
06-23-2005, 23:24
Now it is, I thought it was the same thing.
A common, but understandable misconception. :bow:
Idomeneas
06-24-2005, 00:25
Interesting thread
Well to me Jews are a racial group or more correctly racial ''wannabe'' group. I cannot see them only as religious group since it seems that no other people convert to judaism. Feel free to corect me but at least i havent known or heard of anyone converting to judaism (stars that changes cults and religions as trends dont count). I dont think that religion defines them but been scattered everywhere on earth and mixed with everyone, its their bond. Every ethinicity-race needs a bond something common. For centuries it was good old genetics. The common genetic characteristics of human body. Since they cannot take this as common ground due to diversity the take another standard that cannot be changed or altered. Religion and common interests. They wanna be a race but lacking the premioum characteristics of one they just changed the standards. I would call that evolution. For better or worse i cannot be the one who will judge.
Well, they did hate communists as well so I don't think they really based their views on any logic......
Actually, Nazi hatred of communists was based on other criteria. Not along racial lines.
I believe it was/is the reversed. You deny the fact that jews are born in to their religion. Your fundamentalistic view on faith is not really in connection with the natural world......
I don't kow what you mean by fundamentalistic.
But, yes I assign religious affiliation according to belief.
Euhh?
What do you have to say to the many Jews who are not believers anymore? That they are not Jews even if they identify themselves so?
I guess this is directed at me.
I would ask them why they identify themselves as Jewish.
What's the point in picking one arbitrary definition over another? Those labels really matters?
What you point at is NOT a good definition of "Jew", it hints at the ambiguity of it... It's an ambiguity that Israel faces. Going for simplicity over ambiguity Pindar?
Louis,
I don't think qualifying being a Jew as following Judaism is arbitrary.
It seems to me that the other possibles: Jew = race or Jew = culture cannot pass muster. An Ethiopian Jew and a Russian Jew are not the same race. Further, the culture of an Ethiopian Jew and a Russian Jew are not the same.
Papewaio
06-24-2005, 00:38
People do convert to Judaism, just not in large numbers.
Interesting thread
Thank you.
Well to me Jews are a racial group or more correctly racial ''wannabe'' group. I cannot see them only as religious group since it seems that no other people convert to judaism. Feel free to corect me but at least i havent known or heard of anyone converting to judaism
I know several going both ways: converting to Judaism and Jews converting to other faiths.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
06-24-2005, 05:56
yeah, I know people who have converted to Judaism.
I also know Jews who cannot stand converts unless said converts turn out to be hardcore Jews.
bmolsson
06-25-2005, 02:53
I don't kow what you mean by fundamentalistic.
But, yes I assign religious affiliation according to belief.
You answered it yourself.
Your claim that belonging to a religion is determined by the faith is wrong and fundamentalistic. Religion is determined on your origin, family, education and social surroundings rather than your faith.
You answered it yourself.
Your claim that belonging to a religion is determined by the faith is wrong and fundamentalistic.
You seem to equate faith with belief, regardless, why is this "fundamentalistic"?
What does this "fundamentalistic" mean?
Religion is determined on your origin, family, education and social surroundings rather than your faith.
By this definition you cannot explain conversion. Further, I don't think many people who consider themselves religious would agree their belief isn't the central factor to their devotional life.
bmolsson
06-26-2005, 04:23
You seem to equate faith with belief, regardless, why is this "fundamentalistic"?
What does this "fundamentalistic" mean?
From Wikipedia;
"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.
You refuse to see anything else than the faith as the base in a religion. Your view is therefore fundamentalistic IMHO.
By this definition you cannot explain conversion. Further, I don't think many people who consider themselves religious would agree their belief isn't the central factor to their devotional life.
Yes, I can. Conversion is made when you need or wish to enter the movement you convert in to. Same thing as getting a citizenship in another country. The people that fail to see the religion they participate in as anything else than a faith are at high risk to become extremists and terrorists. We have seen example of this more than once.
From Wikipedia;
"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.
You refuse to see anything else than the faith as the base in a religion. Your view is therefore fundamentalistic IMHO.
Note the definition of Fundamentalism: a movement.
Fundamentalism is a sectarian position. It does not refer to religion in general or a religion in general.
I don't see belief as the base of a religion. I do see belief as central to the devotee's joining or aligning themselves with a religion.
Yes, I can. Conversion is made when you need or wish to enter the movement you convert in to. Same thing as getting a citizenship in another country. The people that fail to see the religion they participate in as anything else than a faith are at high risk to become extremists and terrorists. We have seen example of this more than once.
"Need to" and "wish" are subject specific and connote desire. In a religious milieu these feelings suggest a will to join which it is not unreasonable to associate with belief. You made my point.
bmolsson
06-27-2005, 12:43
Note the definition of Fundamentalism: a movement.
You are a movement, Pindar.... ~D ~:grouphug:
I don't see belief as the base of a religion. I do see belief as central to the devotee's joining or aligning themselves with a religion.
You are locked in your own perception of religion and are inable to see reality. Your own faith is set as the reference for your stand in this question. You are a fundamentalist. A very nice fundamentalist though, I might add.... ~:grouphug:
"Need to" and "wish" are subject specific and connote desire. In a religious milieu these feelings suggest a will to join which it is not unreasonable to associate with belief. You made my point.
I converted to Islam to be able to marry my wife. If you see that as a faith, you have made a point. Actually I know close to a hundred converts between different religions, none of them have the faith you are looking for. Reality is not as you believe it is..... :bow:
You are a movement, Pindar.... ~D ~:grouphug:
Sometimes
Posted by Pindar
I don't see belief as the base of a religion. I do see belief as central to the devotee's joining or aligning themselves with a religion.
You are locked in your own perception of religion and are inable to see reality. Your own faith is set as the reference for your stand in this question. You are a fundamentalist. A very nice fundamentalist though, I might add.... ~:grouphug:
So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?
You used fundamentalist incorrectly.
I'm not nice.
I converted to Islam to be able to marry my wife. If you see that as a faith, you have made a point. Actually I know close to a hundred converts between different religions, none of them have the faith you are looking for. Reality is not as you believe it is..... :bow:
So there are over a hundred people that joined some religion because of a personal agenda and you consider this a reflection on the religion rather than on the people. You also consider these people religious. Amazing.
Through the course of our discussions I have found you as foreign as the word can suggest. I can't recall any, even Marxists with whom I have less in common.
It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).
This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.
There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.
* There were cases of gentiles converting to Judaism, but they were never considered Jewish but were called proselytes.
Don Corleone
06-27-2005, 22:50
Well, yeah, but in those days, most people in Western Europe practiced infanticide on newborns perceived to be inferior. I don't think it's fair to hold a people to the historical baggage of their ancestors, namely that the Jews were racially segregated, unless they're carrying those practices into today. By virtue of the fact I could convert to Judaism & be recognized as a Jew, that does not apply in today's world.
Actually, as an American, this might not be such a bad thing. Yeah, we have slavery and the Native American genocides to contend with, but that pales in comparison to the things the Europeans have done over the centuries. And, as you Europeans are so quick to point out, Americans are Americans, there is no link back to our ancestors' countries... so no blame either!
Steppe Merc
06-27-2005, 22:55
Europeans have had more chances to screw up. ~;)
Seriously, Americans has been around for 300 or so years, so it makes sense for Europeans to have done more bad things over the years, since they've had more years to do so.
Don Corleone
06-27-2005, 22:57
I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years. ~;)
I know I could be perfectly wrong in my position and I for one do try to be as inoffensive as I can towards the Semitic people.
But the fact remains; there are two kinds of Jews (according to the Jewish community) the Jews by birth and the Jews by choice. These two groups are separate and distinct. Sadly the latter is many times looked down upon, mainly because the Jews by birth question the motives for converting.
According to the wise men of Judaism the proselytes or converts are a choice people of God. They embraced the truth without being compelled to.
There shouldn’t be a difference between the two but reality speaks of other practises.
Idomeneas
06-28-2005, 00:08
I'm just saying, that since as they claim, we are a race unto ourselves, I personally don't have to own up to human sacrifice, cannibalsim and a host of other civilized events they've participated in over the years. ~;)
Your family fell from the sky to america?
[font=Verdana]It is my opinion based on the things I have read that the term Jew has always been race related. In ancient Israel you had the 12 tribes where Jews (yehudi) were members of the tribe of Judah. Later the term broadened and it meant those who lived in the Kingdom of Judah, not considering tribe affiliation (but still, sons of Jacob).
Regarding OT vernacular: in English a distinction is made between Hebrew and Jew. Hebrew is the designation for the 12 respective tribes of Israel and their descendents. Jew is applied to the direct descendants of Judah.
The general designate Jew was also applied to loyal subjects of the Kingdom of Judah, as you noted, or followers of the Covenant after the destruction of the Kingdom of Ephraim.
This was a race issue because the Jews where not allowed to marry non-Jews. Their religion was also only for Jews*. The sect that Jesus and his apostles organised in the 1st century AD was strictly for Jews and the apostles were forbidden to preach to the gentiles. It was Peter who later changed this when he had his vision about the forbidden food on a blanket.
This is not correct. There were three designates for proselytes:
Rev a proselyte of the gate
Myrkv a mercenary and
Qdu rg a proselyte of righteousness.
Proselytes of the gate ( Ex. 12:15; Lev. 25:45, 47) sometimes referred to as bwvt rg a "proselyte inhabitant", were gentiles who were allowed to live among the Jews who had accepted to live by the standards of the law.
A mercenary was a hired servant ( Exodus 12:44, 45) who could live amongst the Jews for a certain time period but with constraints i.e. not eating together etc.
Proselytes of righteousness (Deut. 16:20) were gentiles who fully converted to Judaism. They were considered "sons of the covenant" and considered the same as an Israelite enjoying all religious and civil liberties.
Proselyte is Greek derived. It first appears in Philo as I recall. It does not connote any negative connotation.
There are some references to proselytes in the NT: ( Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43) One includes the Christ rebuking Pharisees for converting people to the wrong understanding:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Matt. 23:15
For our purposes it clearly indicates conversion attempts to Judaism.
There was also a problem with part Jews, something that the New Testament repeatedly illustrates. The Samaritans, originally a mix of Jewish descent and Babylonian decent, wanted to be recognised as Jewish but were despised by the Jews.
Whether Samaritans were mixed or not is unclear. The Jewish, Samaritan and Assyrian records contradict each other. What is clear is they had a separate temple on Mt. Girizim and rejected the Oral tradition while retaining the Torah. The general Jewish view seems to have been they were idolaters.
Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?
Don Corleone
06-28-2005, 00:26
Your family fell from the sky to america?
To hear Europeans tell it, apparently so. You've never seen so much outrage as when an American claims ancestral commonality. ~D
I had a thread on here one time about it. And even here, a majority of the Europeans, though not an overwhelming one, said they really don't care for it when visiting Americans claim kinship and wished they'd just start counting their family's days from the day they arrived in America.
Dont' forget, we wound up here because we got kicked out of all the good places, or because we were religious kooks out to set up our cult in the woods. ~D
bmolsson
06-28-2005, 04:15
So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?
You used fundamentalist incorrectly.
Yes and No.
I'm not nice.
If you say so Tiger.... ~:grouphug:
So there are over a hundred people that joined some religion because of a personal agenda and you consider this a reflection on the religion rather than on the people. You also consider these people religious. Amazing.
Through the course of our discussions I have found you as foreign as the word can suggest. I can't recall any, even Marxists with whom I have less in common.
I am sure that you know at least one more objective person in your life. ~:grouphug:
What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.
I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.
I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).
Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.
There is a maturation process that has to elapse before people understand the deeper meanings and the way things work. I suspect that even life-long members have problems with the core principles and would become the Pharisees and Sadducees of the New Testament era*.
I have talked to a couple of the "fallen" LDS members even on this board and they speak of other people that is exalting themselves and sit on their high horses thinking they are better than others, like the Jews by birth looks down on the Jews by choice. They frown upon the new proselytes or converts that might not have a shirt and tie when they come to the chapel to partake of the sacraments or other small quirks they might have.
To one who beholds this from the outside this is a little confusing.
There is definitely a difference in the practice of a religion and its intentions described in rules, creeds and articles.
That is probably why they are chastised so much by prophets and religious leaders. Even Jesus himself had a go at the Jews of his time.
*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?
Regarding Modern Jewry: do you consider an Ethiopian Jew the same race as a Russian Jew?
The word race is such a negative word but for the lack of a word that describes a people that keep strict adherence to maintaining blood relation by not intermingle with other peoples, I chose that word when I posted.
Having said that, the twelve sons of Jacob must have married women of the gentile nations and I know some were Canaanites and some of the other people in the Palestinian area.
Didn’t Joseph marry an Egyptian?
I have also read, without remembering the exact details, that Jacob and his sons came to Egypt with a lot of men(grandsons) and that at least 55 of them were described as without wives. That is if all the women described, married one of their cousins.
This means they must have taken either Egyptian wives or wives from other African nations possibly even Ethiopian women.
Didn’t Moses of the tribe of Levi marry an Ethiopian princess?
Is not the tribe of Ephraim considered fair in skin and hair? Did Joseph have other wives?
It was after the exodus when they started to restrict the intermingling with other peoples. At that time the people of Israel – the 12 tribes could very likely have a diversity of ethnic looks and attributes.
Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Solomon that broke the tradition by taking wives from diverse nations and introduced again fresh blood into the Jewish people?
After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).
The Jews of Ethiopia and the Jews of Russia could be of different tribes with different ethnic attributes. Or they could be of the same tribe i.e. Judah but have different ancestral fathers/mothers.
King of Atlantis
06-28-2005, 15:42
What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.
Actually believing in a religion is the whole point of being a member. In my church there are plenty of religous people. Sure there are people who rarly come to church and probably lake faith, but the religious people are certainly a majority.
Posted by Pindar
So if I ask someone if they're religious and they say: "yes, I am a member of X" and I follow up with a question about why they joined that faith, to which they reply: "Because I believe it" Your position would be I created this and I am unable to see reality?
You used fundamentalist incorrectly.
Yes and No.
What you mean with religious has nothing to do with belonging to a religion. Sure there are religious people in all religions, but they have very little to do with the reality of the religion in question.
As noted in your own definition of fundamentalism: it is sectarian and a movement. I haven't argued any sectarian position. The question has been focused on the general.
If you reject parishioners own statements about their faith, you have no basis from which to judge religiosity. I understand that for you declaring to be Muslim was a simple expediency (getting married), but it is an error to assume that your own lack of belief is standard.
I take your word for it regarding the proselytes.
The more I read about it the more I suspect that Judaism have a Christian core.
The different Jewish directions(?) would probably disagree.
=Verdana]There is goodwill towards humanity and I have stumbled over many quotes from famous rabbis praising the proselytes as the choice people of God. They are more worth to Him because they are more righteous and not as stiff-necked(?) as the generations of a troublesome people.[/font]
I take it that it is as you suggest a question of religion or should be, but the reality and practice suggest that it is all about race or heritage.
I am sitting here thinking of differences in the actual practice of a religion, and the intended practice described through intricate commandments, creeds and articles of the same(religion).
I mentioned in an earlier part of the discussion, before I moved this to its own thread, that I think many oppressed peoples often assume the rhetoric of their oppressors. I think many Jews have fallen into this situation. The very notion of race is problematic, yet the term persists as a hang over from the days of the "white man's burden" and eugenics.
Another issue is the shear weight of years that have passed. It is clear that Judaism pre-70 A.D. and what arose after the Temple's destruction and the Diaspora are quite different: as different as Christianity before the Ecumenical Councils and their consequent. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that a variety of views have some historical referent. This could include even ideas about base identity.
Your references to mixing is apropos. Moses having an Ethiopian wife a good example. Solomon's is noted for his many wives, but my reading is that the real issue was his marrying outside the Covenant (non-believers) and then he began to fall under their influence.
Possibly there were restrictions because of growth pains.
I believe even in your faith which is based on chosen/voluntary/unpaid leadership, there would be problems when the growth is too high.
I think that is right. Growing pains certainly exist and the foibles of men are always a problem as well.
*the third direction is not mentioned, could it be that Jesus and his followers where Essenes?
I know people who hold this view, but it seems to me to have problems. One simple one is the Essenes were separatists this continued up until the rebellion and their destruction by Titus. Whereas, Jesus embraced Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, this continued even afterwards: Peter and Paul taught in the Temple and Jesus' brother James was based in Jerusalem.
After the first Diaspora, 10 of the tribes were lost into the north countries.
(Hey, I could even be a descendant of one of them without knowing it; many of the peoples of Norway came from the east. I could be a blond descendant of Ephraim).
The story of the Book of Mormon tells of migrating Jews (meaning people from the Kingdom of Judah) they were Manasseh and Ephraim were they not(refugees from the destruction of the North kingdom)? They traveled to America and settled there creating two powerful nations: the Lamanites and Nephites. They became two different ethnic groups were the first destroyed the latter. Some of the Native peoples of America could very well be descendants of the first?
I do think a couple of the LDS prophets called them Jews (not the Indians but the Lamanite/Nephite nations).
That's right.
bmolsson
06-29-2005, 03:28
The question has been focused on the general.
Your stand is that religion is all about faith. I disagree. You argue a fundamentalistic view on religion by putting the old values of faith above a new more secular reality where the religion today is active.
I understand that for you declaring to be Muslim was a simple expediency (getting married), but it is an error to assume that your own lack of belief is standard.
In the worlds largest muslim country, Indonesia, most muslims call themselves "muslim KTP", which means that their religion is stated in their identity card, but not a part of their faith. There are a lot of literature written in Indonesia on the problem with the growth of a secular culture in a country built of a very religious views. Indonesia is still a islamic democracy, even if people don't have the faith anymore. It's already proven with scientific methods. Your position is subjective and have no relevance today.
Your stand is that religion is all about faith.
No, I argued, as I already pointed out, faith (belief) is relevant for understanding devotion. The religious system is distinct.
I disagree. You argue a fundamentalistic view on religion by putting the old values of faith above a new more secular reality where the religion today is active.
Religion cannot be secular and what is secular is not religion. Neither of these points involve any kind of fundamentalism.
In the worlds largest muslim country, Indonesia, most muslims call themselves "muslim KTP", which means that their religion is stated in their identity card, but not a part of their faith. There are a lot of literature written in Indonesia on the problem with the growth of a secular culture in a country built of a very religious views. Indonesia is still a islamic democracy, even if people don't have the faith anymore. It's already proven with scientific methods. Your position is subjective and have no relevance today.
The failures of Islam to instill any devotion amongst Indonesians is irrelevant to the more basic issue of devotion. If one is Muslim according to a legal category that is a contrivance of the nation, not a standard at large. Whatever changes are going on in Indonesia does not effect this basic point.
bmolsson
06-29-2005, 12:09
No, I argued, as I already pointed out, faith (belief) is relevant for understanding devotion. The religious system is distinct.
Maybe devotion, but it's not relevant to understand religion as a system.
According to you and the metaphysical, how can you say that a religious system is distinct ??
Religion cannot be secular and what is secular is not religion. Neither of these points involve any kind of fundamentalism.
The reality of today is far more secular than when the largest religions was developed. Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.
The failures of Islam to instill any devotion amongst Indonesians is irrelevant to the more basic issue of devotion. If one is Muslim according to a legal category that is a contrivance of the nation, not a standard at large. Whatever changes are going on in Indonesia does not effect this basic point.
Empirical data shows that you are wrong. The majority of muslims today are not muslims due to devotion, but due to birth and affiliation.
Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.
This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…
Maybe devotion, but it's not relevant to understand religion as a system.
I think you've gotten confused on my basic position. I gave you a definition of religion. That definition did not include faith. Religion as a system is distinct from belief in that system. If someone allies themselves with a religious view, my position is that can only be meaningful if they actually believe in the religion they claim adherence to. Thus, a Christian is one who believes in Christianity (that Jesus is the Christ and savior of mankind), a Muslim is one who accepts the five Pillars of Islam (including the Shahada: there is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet), and a Jew is one who believes in the tenets of Judaism ( i.e. the Torah).
The reality of today is far more secular than when the largest religions was developed. Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.
Yes, the world is more secular, but this doesn't mean religion is secular. They are mutually exclusive positions. Note the way the word was defined when it first appeared in English in 1846: Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter".
Empirical data shows that you are wrong. The majority of muslims today are not muslims due to devotion, but due to birth and affiliation.
So, you are saying there is a study where the world's Muslim community stated they didn't actually believe in Islam, but accepted the status "Muslim" because it was assigned them by their state? What is this study? Assuming such actually exists, Why would you consider this compelling? If a state passed a bill where everyone's favorite color was declared to be green and such was the case from birth does that mean everyone sees green as their favorite color? The point is that regardless of any legal action, it cannot reach to the heart of man. There are certain categories and labels that can only be applied by the subject.
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.
This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…
That's what I've been trying to flush out.
bmolsson
06-30-2005, 03:21
That's what I've been trying to flush out.
Not at all. You keep on getting back to faith and the deity.... ~;)
bmolsson
06-30-2005, 03:37
This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…
A fundamentalist is a person that only want to see the letters of the written and is inable to see the meaning in a perspective.
Several milleniums ago, human society where built up on a power structure, which was based on appointment from a higher power or deity. This made it possible for the human race to develop a distance between the leading personalities without any direct contacts with the subjects. This was a must since information distribution as we know it today did not exist.
This society researched it's origin as well as other subjects of interest. There was no modern scientific traditions and this reasearch was based on what was at hand at that time.
The religion was the only political and economical structure in place and also "science" was included there. All collected knowledge was written down in texts that later was seen as "holy".
I argue that a theory, like creationism, based on these holy texts should be treated as a theory and the holy texts should be analyzed as results from the collected knowledge at the time. Several modern scientific reasearch has been made on these texts, for example there are proof that Jesus actually has lived, based on archelogical findings.
Pindar refute this on the basis that the holy texts have a metaphysical appeal, they claim there is a deity. I argue that this is irrelevant since people didn't know anything else at the time and the metaphysical appeal is only "noise" on the findings.
Further more, I argue that the deity mentioned, in fact can be a physical being present at the time. Alien, different human or similar are possibilities that should not be ignored.
Further down in the discussion, Pindar argue that religion is nothing without it's faith. People belonging to a religion do believe in a metaphysical appeal that can be found in the "holy texts" and teachings of the religion.
I argue that this is not at all the reality. People belong to their respective religions due to birth and affiliation. A child is taught to believe, it's only a "tool" to align the individual in to the power structure.
In fact one of the basic conditions for democracy to function is that everyone in the society have similar values and understandings. If not, you get a civil war on your hands, which we have seen even in a great nation like US.
So bottom line, Pindar has taken a fundamentalistic view on religion and refuse to see beyond the faith and metaphysical appeal, since he claim that it is the fundamental pillar of the religions.
bmolsson
06-30-2005, 04:09
I think you've gotten confused on my basic position. I gave you a definition of religion. That definition did not include faith. Religion as a system is distinct from belief in that system. If someone allies themselves with a religious view, my position is that can only be meaningful if they actually believe in the religion they claim adherence to. Thus, a Christian is one who believes in Christianity (that Jesus is the Christ and savior of mankind), a Muslim is one who accepts the five Pillars of Islam (including the Shahada: there is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet), and a Jew is one who believes in the tenets of Judaism ( i.e. the Torah).
I am not confused at all. I just disagree with you.
Yes, the world is more secular, but this doesn't mean religion is secular. They are mutually exclusive positions. Note the way the word was defined when it first appeared in English in 1846: Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter".
I didn't say religion was secular. Further more, secularism is actually a view of tolerance. The need of a system without a power structure appointed by a deity, formulated secularism. You could argue that secularism is a product of modern nationbuilding with multiple societies integrated in the same society.
A secular society can be a theocracy, as long as the participation in the leading religion is not made mandatory.
So, you are saying there is a study where the world's Muslim community stated they didn't actually believe in Islam, but accepted the status "Muslim" because it was assigned them by their state? What is this study? Assuming such actually exists, Why would you consider this compelling? If a state passed a bill where everyone's favorite color was declared to be green and such was the case from birth does that mean everyone sees green as their favorite color? The point is that regardless of any legal action, it cannot reach to the heart of man. There are certain categories and labels that can only be applied by the subject.
No, I did say that there is a study of Indonesias muslim community, where a majority of the muslims don't believe in a deity. Islam is not equalled with the belief in the deity in this study.
In regards to your color example, it's exactly what I am trying to say. The society tells everyone at brith that the green color is the favorite, everyone is taught to believe so, but not all do actually agree with this. Since the favorite color is not of importance to them as individuals, they accept the fact and participate in the society anyway.
The heart of man is not what is the most important for most people. Food, family, the flock, etc are far more important for the individual to survive and live a good life than faith in a deity or a favorite color.
A fundamentalist is a person that only want to see the letters of the written and is inable to see the meaning in a perspective.
This is different than your earlier reference to fundamentalism from wikipedia. So, a fundamentalist is any who take a literal position? Is that your view?
Several modern scientific reasearch has been made on these texts, for example there are proof that Jesus actually has lived, based on archelogical findings.
There is no archeological "proof" Jesus lived.
Pindar refute this on the basis that the holy texts have a metaphysical appeal, they claim there is a deity.
Further down in the discussion, Pindar argue that religion is nothing without it's faith. People belonging to a religion do believe in a metaphysical appeal that can be found in the "holy texts" and teachings of the religion.
So bottom line, Pindar has taken a fundamentalistic view on religion and refuse to see beyond the faith and metaphysical appeal, since he claim that it is the fundamental pillar of the religions.
It's interesting to see how you characterize my view. Actually, my stance is:
Creationism is not science, because it does not meet the standards of a science. Two examples are: it makes a metaphysical appeal, it lacks a verification schema.
Religious devotion can only be meaningful or properly understood through belief. If someone doesn't actually believe in religious precept they are not religious. For example a Muslim is someone who believes in the Five Pillars of Islam.
On fundamentalism: your old definition (the wikipedia def.) didn't apply as it was centered on sectarian movements. You've introduced another definition so I'll wait to see if I understand your view before I comment.
In regards to your color example, it's exactly what I am trying to say. The society tells everyone at brith that the green color is the favorite, everyone is taught to believe so, but not all do actually agree with this. Since the favorite color is not of importance to them as individuals, they accept the fact and participate in the society anyway.
Let's work with this model. If under this situation the government tells person A their favorite color is Green and they actually claim Orange is their favorite: what is their favorite color? Who is right?
If person B is told green is their favorite color and they are indifferent, is green really their favorite color?
If person C is told green is their favorite color and they claim: "yes, green is my favorite color" is the final determination based on the government dicta or the person's statement?
The heart of man is not what is the most important for most people. Food, family, the flock, etc are far more important for the individual to survive and live a good life than faith in a deity or a favorite color.
It would seem that would depend on the person. Those who commit their lives to a cause may disagree. Those who die for a cause would seem to also disagree.
bmolsson
07-01-2005, 04:18
Let's work with this model. If under this situation the government tells person A their favorite color is Green and they actually claim Orange is their favorite: what is their favorite color? Who is right?
The government is right and they have the Patriot act to back it up.
If person B is told green is their favorite color and they are indifferent, is green really their favorite color?
Since they have a green T-shirt, they still belong to the team.
If person C is told green is their favorite color and they claim: "yes, green is my favorite color" is the final determination based on the government dicta or the person's statement?
They are patriotic, which is something good in societies based on religion.
It would seem that would depend on the person. Those who commit their lives to a cause may disagree. Those who die for a cause would seem to also disagree.
The people who disagree dies or goes to Gitmo, so they don't really count, do they...... ~;)
bmolsson
07-01-2005, 04:47
So, a fundamentalist is any who take a literal position? Is that your view?
Yes, I would say that is close enough for my view in this discussion.
There is no archeological "proof" Jesus lived.
From google (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html)
Another google (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm)
Creationism is not science, because it does not meet the standards of a science. Two examples are: it makes a metaphysical appeal, it lacks a verification schema.
You know my stand: Creationism is a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not central for the theory. The verification scheme is the documentation found on human behavior through history.
Religious devotion can only be meaningful or properly understood through belief. If someone doesn't actually believe in religious precept they are not religious. For example a Muslim is someone who believes in the Five Pillars of Islam.
Your definition of religious is not a prerequisite for being a member of the religions in question. You confuse faith with membership.
Yes, I would say that is close enough for my view in this discussion.
OK, is this a pejorative? Any who believe Jesus is the Christ is a fundamentalist?
From google (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html)
Another google (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm)
I don't usually consider the contents of records as archeology proper. I consider such as a historical claim or documentation. Perhaps you combine the two.
You know my stand: Creationism is a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not central for the theory. The verification scheme is the documentation found on human behavior through history.
I know. It is unconvincing. Science has never worked in or aspired to the metaphysical as it lacks concrete data. A literary device is not a proof. At best it reflects the belief of the writer. If someone wrote they saw Deity that does not constitute the event occurred.
Your definition of religious is not a prerequisite for being a member of the religions in question. You confuse faith with membership.
Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.
The government is right and they have the Patriot act to back it up.
Since they have a green T-shirt, they still belong to the team.
They are patriotic, which is something good in societies based on religion.
The people who disagree dies or goes to Gitmo, so they don't really count, do they...... ~;)
You should have taken my post seriously. It would have helped you break free from your dogmatic chains.
bmolsson
07-03-2005, 04:53
You should have taken my post seriously. It would have helped you break free from your dogmatic chains.
I think that favorite colors as an analogy is not to take me seriously, hence the response..... ~:grouphug:
bmolsson
07-03-2005, 05:06
OK, is this a pejorative? Any who believe Jesus is the Christ is a fundamentalist?
Nope. Only if he refuse to see anything else being developed in his religion. Also it's not unique to Christianity. I have several friends here with your views, but they are muslims, buddhist and hindu. All my jewish friends are very secular, don't seem to do believe at all. Still jewish and proud of being so.
I don't usually consider the contents of records as archeology proper. I consider such as a historical claim or documentation. Perhaps you combine the two.
Not really, I am just more objective than you.
I know. It is unconvincing. Science has never worked in or aspired to the metaphysical as it lacks concrete data. A literary device is not a proof. At best it reflects the belief of the writer. If someone wrote they saw Deity that does not constitute the event occurred.
Never had any intention to convince you of the perfection of Creationism. I just want you and everyone else to see on it with objectivity and some respect. What people, all our ancestors, have worked with, believed in and documented, deserves this respect and objectivity IMHO.
Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.
I disagree. A reality check will show you something else.
I think that favorite colors as an analogy is not to take me seriously, hence the response..... ~:grouphug:
Mental states are not legally controlled. The disregard for the analogy could and would equally apply to your own perspective on religion equalling a legal status. You cannot have it both ways.
Nope. Only if he refuse to see anything else being developed in his religion.
Based on this answer: I don't understand you definition. You equate fundamentalism with literalism. If someone accepts that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, as it states in the New Testament, that would be based on a literal reading.
All my jewish friends are very secular, don't seem to do believe at all. Still jewish and proud of being so.
Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.
Not really, I am just more objective than you.
I don't think you understand what objective means. It is not the same as dogmatic. In a scientific setting it would refer to following the evidence, or its lack in this case, to a conclusion. You have failed to meet that standard. Sorry. ~:pat:
Never had any intention to convince you of the perfection of Creationism. I just want you and everyone else to see on it with objectivity and some respect. What people, all our ancestors, have worked with, believed in and documented, deserves this respect and objectivity IMHO.
My respect is irrelevant. The point is science has a base meaning. That meaning constrains its usage.
Posted by Pindar
Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.
I disagree. A reality check will show you something else.
You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiousity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity. ~:grouphug:
The Wizard
07-03-2005, 23:08
The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity. It is this character that has preserved Jewish identity in the diaspora, and this character of Judaism also came to be because of this situation. It is this that makes the matter of being a Jew a complicated thing.
Myself, I am a Jew. According to conservative and progressive Jews, that is. Orthodox Jews would not call me a Jew, because my father is a Jew and not my mother. Yet my father has a Dutch father himself, while his own mother was a "pure" (excuse the term; there is a lack of better terms so my hand is forced) Jewess, with both a Jewish mother and father. So, what is he? A full-blooded Jew or just as much a Jew as I am?
If we go with the latter, I would be less a Jew, since my father would only be 50% Jewish and my mother is Dutch, so that would make me 25% Jewish.
Confusing, no? Nevertheless, I have learned Hebrew and have been accepted as a Jew by the American (and Israeli) Jews at the synagogue on Aruba. I've not done my Bar Mitsvah yet, and not sure if I ever will (or even if I still can).
~Wiz
I’ll just butt in here since I seemed to have fuelled this discussion. It is my experience that when two opposing sides are at Remi, it calls for mediation with a third party.
I asked for a definition of fundamentalism because the wording of the statement that I first quoted sparked my interest (the notion that a religious stance is fundamentalistic because it does not evolve).
Historically the notion fundamentalism was first used in Protestantism early in the 20th century by a group of conservative members of a few protestant denominations as a counter to a modernisation tendency of the denominations in question.
In this bmolsson is somewhat right.
They published a publication called “The Fundamentals“, where they laid down 5 doctrines that they considered fundamental to their faith.
They were: The virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, the substitutional atonement and the literal and physical second coming of Christ.
Today this term is used in a derogatory way to describe a fringe religious group or extremists.
It does however have a precise denotation: The returning to the defining or founding principles of the religion.
This is consequently a reaction to modernism which bmolsson calls evolve.
Hence fundamentalism is an active movement and implies taking action against an attempt at modernising a religion.
I would say Fundamentalism is a sign of a dead religion (I might take some FLAK for that statement).
The Deist religions out there, which are many, do not believe in revelation and hence is left to their own judgements with their only point of reference; a book compiled by the enemy.
The only choice they have is making this book infallible, because with out it they have nothing. They have hamstrung their other supporting pillars by deeming them heretic.
Originally Christianity was based on the revelatory element which encompassed change at a moments notice (ref. Peter and converting gentiles).
Often heavenly messengers brought the new doctrines and rites. Whenever a change occurred confirmation was required and given. Hence a religion based on the revelatory element is in fact not dead and could evolve at any moments notice.
It can not sustain any fundamentalists or modernists as these would be in opposition with the current status.
I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?
bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.
Here in Norway 90% of the population is Lutheran. A very large percentage have not the faintest clue what that involves. They faithfully baptise their children, send their youth to confirmation, their young adults to church for marriage and burry their old in sanctified Lutheran ground. Very few know what they are supposed to believe in; the trinity, the virgin birth etc…
Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).
bmolsson
07-04-2005, 02:50
Mental states are not legally controlled.
Sure they are. The definition of an adult is based on mental state. There is a big portion of the legal system as well as health care system pointing out peoples mental state and health in a legal point of view. I am very suprised that you of all can't see this.....
I don't understand you definition.
It's ok, I still like you.... ~:grouphug:
Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.
It's called reality. It's not always as we want it to be, hence a lot of fanatic muslims trying to bomb the majority in to your way of thinking.
I don't think you understand what objective means. It is not the same as dogmatic. In a scientific setting it would refer to following the evidence, or its lack in this case, to a conclusion. You have failed to meet that standard. Sorry. ~:pat:
I failed to be objective ? Don't think so...
You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......
My respect is irrelevant.
Noted.
You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiousity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity. ~:grouphug:
We are talking about religion here. The substantive. Being religious has nothing to do with being a member of a religion. A child can't legally be consent until after a certain age, meaning that children can't be religious, which is incorrect in more or less all religions.
Don't turn this in to a English language discussion, that is just so low. You know exactly what I mean. ~:handball:
bmolsson
07-04-2005, 02:54
I think Sigurd Fafnesbane got my position fairly correct. Thanks... ~;)
I've found it more convenient to refer to Jews as followers of Judaism, and Hebrews as the ethnic group (sic). While most Hebrews are Jews, not all Jews are Hebrews. These are my 2 cents.
ICantSpellDawg
07-04-2005, 03:38
You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......
Pindarbot never said that he could "prove" that Aristotle lived using archaeology. You, however, said that there was "archaeological proof" that Jesus lived. There is historical evidence that both lived, but nothing that could scientifically "prove" it one way or the other.
bmolsson, you seem to not really like to subscribe to pre-established definitions, but rather create your own. We have all discussed how difficult human comminication would be if people all created their own definitions in their heads rather than obey an ever-evolving lexicon. Proof was the key word here and Jesus' life cannot be "proven" using archaeology at this time.
bmolsson
07-04-2005, 06:40
Pindarbot never said that he could "prove" that Aristotle lived using archaeology. You, however, said that there was "archaeological proof" that Jesus lived. There is historical evidence that both lived, but nothing that could scientifically "prove" it one way or the other.
I argue that the historical proof we have says that both actually lived. What can not be proved is if Jesus was a God or a son of one.
bmolsson, you seem to not really like to subscribe to pre-established definitions, but rather create your own. We have all discussed how difficult human comminication would be if people all created their own definitions in their heads rather than obey an ever-evolving lexicon. Proof was the key word here and Jesus' life cannot be "proven" using archaeology at this time.
Which pre-established definitions am I not subscribing on ? What have I created on my own ?
The key is your word ever-evolving lexicon. I am trying to see things differently and with objectivity.
For example religion; It's a fact that most people belonging to the large religions today are not actually religious per Pindar's definition. Would this make them less members of the religion. No. Here we have the disagreement. Actually a scientific survey of people being religious and members of the religion would show my thesis correct.
I must say that I am a bit surprised over you telling me that I am creating my own definitions. My intentions is nothing more that open up the mind of Pindar towards reality.
The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity.
As I noted in my initial post: I think this is one common way of claiming Jewish identity. The problem as I see it is there isn't one single Jewish culture. Ethiopian and Russian ethnicity is different for example.
I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?
bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.
Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).
I agree many may identify with a particular faith without knowing anything about that faith. This may very well be due to a cultural inheritance or tradition. My point is: it is improper to apply the label Jew, Christian or any other faith to a person if there is no belief. If some belief exists: i.e. Muhammad was God's prophet or Jesus is the Christ or Jews are the Covenant people etc. then even without a formal adherence or devout practice the label still has some meaning. Without any supporting belief the label is void.
Posted by Pindar
Mental states are not legally controlled.
Sure they are. The definition of an adult is based on mental state. There is a big portion of the legal system as well as health care system pointing out peoples mental state and health in a legal point of view. I am very suprised that you of all can't see this.....
Actually in the U.S., Japan and other nations, whose legal systems I have some experience with, Adult status is determined by age. Legal judgments on mental status have to do with culpability. Neither of these positions attempt to control the metal state of the subject. Indeed no one argues the law can control mental states.
Posted by Pindar
Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.
It's called reality. It's not always as we want it to be, hence a lot of fanatic muslims trying to bomb the majority in to your way of thinking.
You are saying that stating that belief is a fundamental component of religious status is a terrorist notion and terrorists are killing people who don't agree?
I failed to be objective ?
Yes. You seem to define a number of things according to criteria that is peripheral to the subject at hand.
You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......
You are referring to the other thread. You did not understand my post in the other thread it appears. I did not claim any proof about Aristotle. I did state that historical data is suggestive. Suggestive is not definitive. There is no 'proof' that Aristotle or Jesus lived. There are historical records noting these people lived. I stated that such historical data (the more the better) means it is not unreasonable to assume they did, in fact, live. Now a statement about Jesus does not equal a proof of His Divinity. It may indicate the writer believed this was the case, but belief is not a proof. I took this same stance with your references to Biblical texts: that someone wrote down a creation account may mean the writer believed what he wrote: God created the temporal realim, but this does not equal a proof. That is the point.
Posted by Pindar
Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.
bmolsson, I disagree. A reality check will show you something else.
Pindar: You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiosity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity.
We are talking about religion here. The substantive. Being religious has nothing to do with being a member of a religion. A child can't legally be consent until after a certain age, meaning that children can't be religious, which is incorrect in more or less all religions.
Don't turn this in to a English language discussion, that is just so low. You know exactly what I mean. ~:handball:
You stated you 'disagree' I don't know if this is to the whole prior post or a part. I responded with replies to each possible disagreement as I understood it. I do have to guess what you mean sometimes.
I agree that being religious may not mean being a part of a formal religion, but I also believe that being part of a formal religion does mean one is involved in some degree of religiosity and that religiosity has a belief component. Thus the one is a subset of the other.
Consent prior to formal membership is a fundamental component of major tracts of Protestantism. Consent is also the defining stance regarding sin in Catholic and Orthodox traditions (though Catholic teaching also has the notion of Original sin). Jewish teaching also ties sin to consent: meaning a willful act. In short: I would agree babies aren't religious.
bmolsson
07-04-2005, 12:56
Actually in the U.S., Japan and other nations, whose legal systems I have some experience with, Adult status is determined by age. Legal judgments on mental status have to do with culpability. Neither of these positions attempt to control the metal state of the subject. Indeed no one argues the law can control mental states.
A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....
You are saying that stating that belief is a fundamental component of religious status is a terrorist notion and terrorists are killing people who don't agree?
For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.
Yes. You seem to define a number of things according to criteria that is peripheral to the subject at hand.
Similar to what I think of your arguments, but I am to polite to use it....
You are referring to the other thread. You did not understand my post in the other thread it appears. I did not claim any proof about Aristotle. I did state that historical data is suggestive. Suggestive is not definitive. There is no 'proof' that Aristotle or Jesus lived. There are historical records noting these people lived. I stated that such historical data (the more the better) means it is not unreasonable to assume they did, in fact, live. Now a statement about Jesus does not equal a proof of His Divinity. It may indicate the writer believed this was the case, but belief is not a proof. I took this same stance with your references to Biblical texts: that someone wrote down a creation account may mean the writer believed what he wrote: God created the temporal realim, but this does not equal a proof. That is the point.
So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......
Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......
Knowledge is always a hard nut to crack. We don't know if God created the temporal realim. We do know that it exist and that the only known record on how life was created says it was created by a God. Some parts of this thesis have alternatives today and tomorrow maybe more will have it. Furthermore we don't really know how to define a God. Walk on water, fly and slapping flashes is not longer something only a God can do, who knows what we all can do in the near future..........
You stated you 'disagree' I don't know if this is to the whole prior post or a part. I responded with replies to each possible disagreement as I understood it. I do have to guess what you mean sometimes.
I agree that being religious may not mean being a part of a formal religion, but I also believe that being part of a formal religion does mean one is involved in some degree of religiosity and that religiosity has a belief component. Thus the one is a subset of the other.
Consent prior to formal membership is a fundamental component of major tracts of Protestantism. Consent is also the defining stance regarding sin in Catholic and Orthodox traditions (though Catholic teaching also has the notion of Original sin). Jewish teaching also ties sin to consent: meaning a willful act. In short: I would agree babies aren't religious.
I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.
A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....
Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.
For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.
I don't know what Muslim terrorist groups you are thinking of. Most I know of focus on political ends, not mental states.
So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......
Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.
There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.
Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......
Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.
I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.
I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say. ~:grouphug:
My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.
You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.
As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.
bmolsson
07-05-2005, 00:44
Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.
The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.
Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.
There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.
This logic seems a lot like mine.... ~D
Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.
Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.
I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say. ~:grouphug:
My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.
You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.
As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.
I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth. ~:grouphug:
ICantSpellDawg
07-05-2005, 01:35
The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.
This logic seems a lot like mine.... ~D
Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.
I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth. ~:grouphug:
jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?
The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.
The imposition of civil duty doesn't compel a particular mental state. It does compel certain actions however.
This logic seems a lot like mine....
If you want to argue that there are old texts that speak of Deity then we have no issue. This is certainly the case. If you want argue that those texts constitute a proof of God's existence then I would disagree. This is the central issue with trying to argue that a "social science" appeal can somehow bring a definitive result to the question of Deity.
Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.
Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.
I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth. ~:grouphug:
Thanks for your understanding. I feel a little better knowing you care. Do I need to shave my head?
jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?
bmolsson has transcended logic. :sultan:
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 13:06
jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?
Raise your hand before you speak...... ~:cool:
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 13:18
The imposition of civil duty doesn't compel a particular mental state. It does compel certain actions however.
Forced solidarity is a mental state which the evil state calls civil duty to make it sound better.
Actions are not enough, you are supposed to feel good when you do the duties as well. If you ever been drafted you would understand what I am saying.
If you want to argue that there are old texts that speak of Deity then we have no issue. This is certainly the case. If you want argue that those texts constitute a proof of God's existence then I would disagree. This is the central issue with trying to argue that a "social science" appeal can somehow bring a definitive result to the question of Deity.
I argue that the old texts prove that there are findings and sightings of the existance of something people in old times believe was a deity. The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity, hence the logic that something existed. Actually it doesn't prove that the assumed deity is a deity, but it is enough to build a theory on it.
Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.
And how is that ?
Thanks for your understanding. I feel a little better knowing you care. Do I need to shave my head?
Why ? My faith always told me you where bald ??? ~:grouphug:
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 13:23
bmolsson has transcended logic. :sultan:
:bow:
Being a deity is not always easy...... ~:cheers:
ICantSpellDawg
07-06-2005, 13:23
Raise your hand before you speak...... ~:cool:
What does this mean?
Is this some sort of childish reference to my childishness?
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 13:26
What does this mean?
Is this some sort of childish reference to my childishness?
Congratulations !!! You won a cokie... ~:grouphug:
Forced solidarity is a mental state which the evil state calls civil duty to make it sound better.
Actions are not enough, you are supposed to feel good when you do the duties as well. If you ever been drafted you would understand what I am saying.
There is nothing in the legal dicta of the U.S. or Indonesia I would wager that conflates civil duty with a required attitude. The IRS doesn't care if you like or dislike paying tax, as long as you do it.
I argue that the old texts prove that there are findings and sightings of the existance of something people in old times believe was a deity.
Why would you consider something written as a proof?
Are you arguing that belief equals existential reality meaning: I write about something then that something actually happened or exists?
The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity, hence the logic that something existed. Actually it doesn't prove that the assumed deity is a deity, but it is enough to build a theory on it.
Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.
Posted by Pindar
Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.
And how is that ?
Theologians, paranormals, shaman etc.
Why ? My faith always told me you where bald ??? ~:grouphug:
Your faith couldn't see under my hat?
I'm a surfer, surfers can't be bald: it's against the rules.
bmolsson
07-07-2005, 04:03
There is nothing in the legal dicta of the U.S. or Indonesia I would wager that conflates civil duty with a required attitude. The IRS doesn't care if you like or dislike paying tax, as long as you do it.
If you believe that blowing up large buildings is a good idea, you will be detained immediately, even if you have not blown any buildings up. Isn't that correct ?
There are many crimes that is set on your mental state, before any actual actions has been taken by you. All in the interest of the safety of the society.
Why would you consider something written as a proof?
Are you arguing that belief equals existential reality meaning: I write about something then that something actually happened or exists?
Not at all. Let us take one example:
If you have 1,000 people eating a cake. You then ask them to tell you what it taste like. The majority answer "strawberry".
Would you consider that the cake taste "strawberry" ?
Now take the same group and ask them to pray. You then ask them to tell you if God answered their prayers. If the majority answered, yes, God answered my prayer.
Would you consider that God exist ?
Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.
With very few exceptions, all cultures are built around a powerstructure with somebody raised above others. This includes secular cultures.
Theologians, paranormals, shaman etc.
Yep, there you have a point.
Your faith couldn't see under my hat?
I'm a surfer, surfers can't be bald: it's against the rules.
Why would you need hair when surfing the net..... Just say you have it... ~:confused:
If you believe that blowing up large buildings is a good idea, you will be detained immediately, even if you have not blown any buildings up. Isn't that correct ?
Not in the U.S.
Not at all. Let us take one example:
If you have 1,000 people eating a cake. You then ask them to tell you what it taste like. The majority answer "strawberry".
Would you consider that the cake taste "strawberry" ?
Now take the same group and ask them to pray. You then ask them to tell you if God answered their prayers. If the majority answered, yes, God answered my prayer.
Would you consider that God exist ?
So, your argument is if a 1000 people write God answered their prayer then God exists?
Now if another 1000 write God didn't answer their prayer does God suddenly cease to exist?
bmolsson: The human behavior doesn't normally strife for a deity...
Posted by Pindar
Given that all cultures have been basically theistic this wouldn't seem to be the case. Atheism (with small exception) is a relatively new standard.
With very few exceptions, all cultures are built around a powerstructure with somebody raised above others. This includes secular cultures.
Your reply doesn't really answer my point. I assume you agree that theism has been a general cultural trait.
Why would you need hair when surfing the net..... Just say you have it... ~:confused:
I surf waves baby. Some of my atheist buddies have been to Indonesia on surf trips: never got arrested or barred from the country interestingly enough.
ICantSpellDawg
07-07-2005, 12:44
Your reply doesn't really answer my point. I assume you agree that theism has been a general cultural trait.
i have heard of only 1 organized tribal society on a tiny island in indonesia with absolutely no Deistic concept. i have been trying to find a link to information on this tribe, but i cannot
this leads me to believe that it is either right under my nose or the investigation into their origins didn't hold up and the researchers found evidence of a god concept
who knows
anyone have any links?
bmolsson
07-08-2005, 07:24
Not in the U.S.
I guess you are right. Gitmo is not a part of US....... ~;)
So, your argument is if a 1000 people write God answered their prayer then God exists?
Now if another 1000 write God didn't answer their prayer does God suddenly cease to exist?
No, what I did say was that if 1,000 people believe that the cake taste like strawberry, then it does taste like strawberry..... ~:grouphug:
I assume you agree that theism has been a general cultural trait.
Yes, I agree to that. Furthermore, I say that due to this there must be some reason for this which we still are unable to with certainty point out. Based on the behavior towards theism, we have enough base to make a theory.
I surf waves baby. Some of my atheist buddies have been to Indonesia on surf trips: never got arrested or barred from the country interestingly enough.
Well, they did get Corby..... Sorry, sarcasm intended.... ~:grouphug:
I guess you are right. Gitmo is not a part of US....... ~;)
No one is in Gitmo for their beliefs though a few are there because they're Indonesian. ~:grouphug:
No, what I did say was that if 1,000 people believe that the cake taste like strawberry, then it does taste like strawberry.....
I don't know, but the 1000 people seem to believe it does.
bmolsson
07-09-2005, 13:13
No one is in Gitmo for their beliefs though a few are there because they're Indonesian. ~:grouphug:
I did tell them that a T-shirt with bin Laden on the chest was a bad idea.....
I don't know, but the 1000 people seem to believe it does.
So you don't know in the Strawberry case, but in the God case you immediately made a conclusion. Shouldn't the sceintific approach be less biased?..... ~:grouphug:
I did tell them that a T-shirt with bin Laden on the chest was a bad idea.....
They should have listened.
So you don't know in the Strawberry case, but in the God case you immediately made a conclusion. Shouldn't the sceintific approach be less biased?..... ~:grouphug:
I don't know what you are referring to? Are you thinking of this:
the bad guys: Not at all. Let us take one example:
If you have 1,000 people eating a cake. You then ask them to tell you what it taste like. The majority answer "strawberry".
Would you consider that the cake taste "strawberry" ?
Now take the same group and ask them to pray. You then ask them to tell you if God answered their prayers. If the majority answered, yes, God answered my prayer.
Would you consider that God exist ?
the good guys: So, your argument is if a 1000 people write God answered their prayer then God exists?
Now if another 1000 write God didn't answer their prayer does God suddenly cease to exist?
This is me trying to understand your point. I have made no conclusion, but asked some questions. In neither instance do I know if what was tasted was strawberry or what was answered was Divine.
bmolsson
07-10-2005, 13:42
This is me trying to understand your point. I have made no conclusion, but asked some questions. In neither instance do I know if what was tasted was strawberry or what was answered was Divine.
Well, I imagined you would say that taste is scientifically valid, while response on prayer is not. The issue was not the questions, but the empirical approach......
Never mind.... ~:grouphug:
Well, I imagined you would say that taste is scientifically valid, while response on prayer is not. The issue was not the questions, but the empirical approach......
Never mind.... ~:grouphug:
OK, and you have to belief in Judaism to be a Jew. ~;)
bmolsson
07-11-2005, 03:03
OK, and you have to belief in Judaism to be a Jew. ~;)
Not if you ask 1,000 jews..... ~;)
bmolsson
07-11-2005, 03:15
Pindar, bottom line. Jews consider them jews regardless if they have the faith or not. Judaism is not about faith, it's about a way of living, a society itself.
ICantSpellDawg
07-11-2005, 04:38
Pindar, bottom line. Jews consider them jews regardless if they have the faith or not. Judaism is not about faith, it's about a way of living, a society itself.
if you consider yourself part of someone elses definition of something, shouldn't you adhere to the accepted meaning?
otherwise, create your own word- then you can have full say over the definition
the society owes its differences to the religion
if i moved from ireland and 1500 years later my progeny found itself in algeria, would it be reasonable for them to conscider themselves irish? once the defining difference is cut from individual - they become a person - just liek others - with different experiences - just like everyone else
they can call themselves whatever theyd wish - but it would be either innacurate or based on a false understanding of the difference in the first place
many jews are not even semitic - they have either been cross bred or converted - what are they? what if they break away from the faith of their ancestors? what then?
bmolsson
07-11-2005, 05:53
if you consider yourself part of someone elses definition of something, shouldn't you adhere to the accepted meaning?
This is the whole point. The religion is a evolving beast, it changes all the time. The reality around the religion today differs from yesterday.
Furthermore, faith is not something you can measure and therefore inappropiate as a part of the definition. Pindar has argued this all the time........ ~D
ICantSpellDawg
07-11-2005, 12:33
This is the whole point. The religion is a evolving beast, it changes all the time. The reality around the religion today differs from yesterday.
Furthermore, faith is not something you can measure and therefore inappropiate as a part of the definition. Pindar has argued this all the time........ ~D
but i thought that we were no longer talking about re-interpretation
i thought that we were talking about abandonement of the faith
when does something cross the border from being one thing to being another
i thought that pindar said that one who did not believe in the 5 pillars was not a muslim
so that one who does not believe in 1 God hasnt even met the basic requirement of judaism
bmolsson
07-11-2005, 13:04
but i thought that we were no longer talking about re-interpretation
i thought that we were talking about abandonement of the faith
when does something cross the border from being one thing to being another
i thought that pindar said that one who did not believe in the 5 pillars was not a muslim
so that one who does not believe in 1 God hasnt even met the basic requirement of judaism
Turn it around. If you believe in 1 God, does that make you a jew ?
The reality is that most people that enter a religion do that by birth and nothing else. Because you make an assumption that all people that belong to a certain religion believe in their specific God, don't make them actually believe in the same God.
Religion as well as most other old traditions, are based on an ancient reference base and is no longer relevant. Fundamentalists disagree with this, while the reformed and more objective members of the religion agree with it.
It is not a valid view to assume that every member of a religion is "religious".
Pindar, bottom line. Jews consider them jews regardless if they have the faith or not. Judaism is not about faith, it's about a way of living, a society itself.
The bottom line is considering oneself something doesn't necessarily make it so. Designations should have some criteria. For religion, I think that baseline criteria is belief.
Turn it around. If you believe in 1 God, does that make you a jew ?
No, but belief in one God is a necessary condition for being a Jew. You need to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. For example: one who holds to the Five Pillars of Islam has met the sufficient condition for being Muslim.
The reality is that most people that enter a religion do that by birth and nothing else. Because you make an assumption that all people that belong to a certain religion believe in their specific God, don't make them actually believe in the same God.
Religion as well as most other old traditions, are based on an ancient reference base and is no longer relevant. Fundamentalists disagree with this, while the reformed and more objective members of the religion agree with it.
It is not a valid view to assume that every member of a religion is "religious".
Religion without religiosity is not religion. You need to distinguish between cultural designations and actual religion.
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 02:39
The bottom line is considering oneself something doesn't necessarily make it so. Designations should have some criteria. For religion, I think that baseline criteria is belief.
Belief in what ? The belonging to the ethnic group ? The family tradition ? The rules of life ? Belief in a modern society is more than a traditional deity.
No, but belief in one God is a necessary condition for being a Jew. You need to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. For example: one who holds to the Five Pillars of Islam has met the sufficient condition for being Muslim.
I do distringuish, it's enough to be born a jew or a muslim to be a part of the respective religion.
Religion without religiosity is not religion. You need to distinguish between cultural designations and actual religion.
I think you confuse religions with cults and sects...... ~:grouphug:
ICantSpellDawg
07-12-2005, 03:04
Belief in what ? The belonging to the ethnic group ? The family tradition ? The rules of life ? Belief in a modern society is more than a traditional deity.
I do distringuish, it's enough to be born a jew or a muslim to be a part of the respective religion.
I think you confuse religions with cults and sects...... ~:grouphug:
first you were arguing about the cultural practices based on religion
you are now saying that an atheist can be a theist because of his upbringing in a tradition of theism?
Belief in what ?
Belief in the tenets of the faith. Religion is a belief system: absent the belief one cannot be considered a part of the system.
I do distringuish, it's enough to be born a jew or a muslim to be a part of the respective religion.
Which again means you discount conversion.
I think you confuse religions with cults and sects...... ~:grouphug:
You would be wrong.
you are now saying that an atheist can be a theist because of his upbringing in a tradition of theism?
This sounds very bmolsson like.
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 05:43
you are now saying that an atheist can be a theist because of his upbringing in a tradition of theism?
Yes, most of the Christians in this forum is actually atheists..... Why don't you make a poll..... :bow:
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 05:52
Belief in the tenets of the faith. Religion is a belief system: absent the belief one cannot be considered a part of the system.
I disagree.
Which again means you discount conversion.
Not at all. It's like immigration, good for the prosperity, but rejected by the majority. ~D
You would be wrong.
Nah....
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 05:54
This sounds very bmolsson like.
Because he has seen the light ..... ~;)
Yes, most of the Christians in this forum is actually atheists..... Why don't you make a poll..... :bow:This, søta bror, is where I no longer can agree.
The term/label Christian is always used in context with religiosity.
Even back here where 90% of the population are members of the Lutheran church, very few label themselves as Christian.
To be a Christian involves faith in the Lord Jesus and this is true for all who call themselves a Christian (not the first name!!).
Not many would label themselves as secular Christian as it becomes an oxymoron.
Posted by Pindar
Which again means you discount conversion
Not at all. It's like immigration, good for the prosperity, but rejected by the majority. ~D
You assume that because you changed your religious status to wed that all others are equally void of belief. It is not so.
This, søta bror, is where I no longer can agree.
The term/label Christian is always used in context with religiosity.
Even back here where 90% of the population are members of the Lutheran church, very few label themselves as Christian.
To be a Christian involves faith in the Lord Jesus and this is true for all who call themselves a Christian (not the first name!!).
Not many would label themselves as secular Christian as it becomes an oxymoron.
Master bmolsson has already admitted such things as Muslim-Christian and theist-atheist are possible. He is not concerned with oxymorons. The constraints of logic do not deter him. He is a master of his own ship sailing a sea of his own design. :pirate:
ICantSpellDawg
07-12-2005, 17:51
everytime i get depressed about the point of the world i will just look to these forums and remember that at least i dont disagree with the basic meanings of words and use them interchangably to describe anything
"that was the most tyrannosaurus bus philanthroper in the meso-intelligent hippo sector. you dont know what i mean? let me break it down for you. ive created this new language by hijaking an pre-established one where no word means what anyone believes it to mean..."
bmolsson
07-13-2005, 14:21
This, søta bror, is where I no longer can agree.
The term/label Christian is always used in context with religiosity.
Even back here where 90% of the population are members of the Lutheran church, very few label themselves as Christian.
To be a Christian involves faith in the Lord Jesus and this is true for all who call themselves a Christian (not the first name!!).
Not many would label themselves as secular Christian as it becomes an oxymoron.
Ok. 90 % belongs to the Lutheran Church, but they are not Christians ? Isn't the Lutheran Church a part of the Christian religion ?
According to the CIA statistics there are no atheists in US. Even though there seems to be plenty of them here.
Most atheists will marry in the church, celebrate Christmas and get buried at a church graveyard. Why is that ?
Furthermore, most people will belong to a religion when they are born. Does that make the believers ?
It's all about reality.
bmolsson
07-13-2005, 14:22
You assume that because you changed your religious status to wed that all others are equally void of belief. It is not so.
Prove it.... ~;)
bmolsson
07-13-2005, 14:33
everytime i get depressed about the point of the world i will just look to these forums and remember that at least i dont disagree with the basic meanings of words and use them interchangably to describe anything
How can you be sure that the word you are using actually is the word you should be using ? You view might be biased..... ~;)
ICantSpellDawg
07-13-2005, 14:47
Prove it.... ~;)
the burden of proof lies with you
you are the one challenging an established notion
you have done little to establish your claim other than saying that anything can be anything
ICantSpellDawg
07-13-2005, 14:58
Ok. 90 % belongs to the Lutheran Church, but they are not Christians ? Isn't the Lutheran Church a part of the Christian religion ?
According to the CIA statistics there are no atheists in US. Even though there seems to be plenty of them here.
Most atheists will marry in the church, celebrate Christmas and get buried at a church graveyard. Why is that ?
Furthermore, most people will belong to a religion when they are born. Does that make the believers ?
It's all about reality.
i think you miss the point of the CIA statistics
they give you the religious breakdown
OF THOSE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS, - may be 75% of the total population
so is the breakdown is (fake stats) 35% Catholic, 50% protestant, 3% Jewish, 2% muslim, 10% other - this is the 100% breakdown of 75% of the population.
atheists are not counted because it is not a religion so it does not belong on the religion percentage list - they are part of the 25% (total pop) who are not religious
some other countries include atheist in the religious breakdown
Ok. 90 % belongs to the Lutheran Church, but they are not Christians ? Isn't the Lutheran Church a part of the Christian religion ?
It is... but reality is; if you ask the majority of the Norwegian people if they are Christian, that is: "Are you a Christian?" (you know beforehand that 9 out of 10 are members of the 'Christian' Lutheran Church) you will definitely get 8 out of 10 times: "No, I am not". Why is that?
This is because to be a Christian, that is to label yourself a Christian, you involve a question of personal belief.
Someone who calls themselves a Christian here, and you know this very well, are people believing in Jesus Christ and think they are saved.
As for Jewish people and asking them if they are Jews, they would probably call themselves a Jew even if they don’t believe in the religion of Judaism.
As for Muslims, I can’t make any knowledge claim there because I have none.
Furthermore, most people will belong to a religion when they are born. Does that make them believers ?
As my Norwegian example shows: it does not.
Would you call me a Christian?
It is... but reality is; if you ask the majority of the Norwegian people if they are Christian, that is: "Are you a Christian?" (you know beforehand that 9 out of 10 are members of the 'Christian' Lutheran Church) you will definitely get 8 out of 10 times: "No, I am not". Why is that?
This is because to be a Christian, that is to label yourself a Christian, you involve a question of personal belief.
Someone who calls themselves a Christian here, and you know this very well, are people believing in Jesus Christ and think they are saved.
As for Jewish people and asking them if they are Jews, they would probably call themselves a Jew even if they don’t believe in the religion of Judaism.
[/color]
As my Norwegian example shows: it does not.
Would you call me a Christian?
I agree.
As far as the Jewish question is concerned: I think those who define themselves a Jewish even though they don't believe in Judaism do so out of some cultural affinity or false notions of race. My position is these two views are mistaken. I don't believe Jewish status can be coherently defended without reference to belief.
ICantSpellDawg
07-14-2005, 00:02
I agree.
As far as the Jewish question is concerned: I think those who define themselves a Jewish even though they don't believe in Judaism do so out of some cultural affinity or false notions of race. My position is these two views are mistaken. I don't believe Jewish status can be coherently defended without reference to belief.
regarding religion, it seems to be people who dont (or refuse to) understand the concept itself that identify without belief. Judaism is a bit tricky, tho
"The English suffix -ism was first used to form a noun of action from a verb, as in baptism, from baptein, a Greek word meaning "to dip". Its usage was later extended to signify systems of belief."
when we say judaISM, you do know what we mean, bmolsson
bmolsson
07-14-2005, 04:01
i think you miss the point of the CIA statistics
they give you the religious breakdown
OF THOSE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS, - may be 75% of the total population
so is the breakdown is (fake stats) 35% Catholic, 50% protestant, 3% Jewish, 2% muslim, 10% other - this is the 100% breakdown of 75% of the population.
atheists are not counted because it is not a religion so it does not belong on the religion percentage list - they are part of the 25% (total pop) who are not religious
some other countries include atheist in the religious breakdown
You are wrong. The whole population is included. :book:
bmolsson
07-14-2005, 04:07
the burden of proof lies with you
you are the one challenging an established notion
you have done little to establish your claim other than saying that anything can be anything
It is NOT and established notion that members of a religion have the faith in the appointed deity. Membership of a religion is a administrative status and have absolutely nothing to do with the individual faith. :bow:
bmolsson
07-14-2005, 04:11
It is... but reality is; if you ask the majority of the Norwegian people if they are Christian, that is: "Are you a Christian?" (you know beforehand that 9 out of 10 are members of the 'Christian' Lutheran Church) you will definitely get 8 out of 10 times: "No, I am not". Why is that?
This is because to be a Christian, that is to label yourself a Christian, you involve a question of personal belief.
Someone who calls themselves a Christian here, and you know this very well, are people believing in Jesus Christ and think they are saved.
I recall that in Norway you have to ask for exit from the "state church" to be releaved from the church taxes ? Isn't that so ?
As for Jewish people and asking them if they are Jews, they would probably call themselves a Jew even if they don’t believe in the religion of Judaism.
As for Muslims, I can’t make any knowledge claim there because I have none.
It's not about believing in the religion, it's a bout the faith in the deity. There is a large difference in that.
As my Norwegian example shows: it does not.
Would you call me a Christian?
If you are a member of a Christian church yes. If not, no. If you believe in God or not, is totally up to you.
bmolsson
07-14-2005, 04:14
regarding religion, it seems to be people who dont (or refuse to) understand the concept itself that identify without belief. Judaism is a bit tricky, tho
"The English suffix -ism was first used to form a noun of action from a verb, as in baptism, from baptein, a Greek word meaning "to dip". Its usage was later extended to signify systems of belief."
when we say judaISM, you do know what we mean, bmolsson
Sure, make the whole discussion a piss contest in English language and everything will just be fine and dandy. :bow:
bmolsson
07-14-2005, 04:16
Me.
And the control group ? ~;)
ICantSpellDawg
07-14-2005, 05:11
i am a firm believer in definitions
it is my belief that we define things as we go
when we change the fundamentals it becomes something new
this is an era of personal responsibility
we should know what to call ourselves on the census lists
if we do not follow the basic tenents of a religion - we are not part of the club
these tenants are not simply cultural or based on practice, but in many cases belief - which is really the defining trait of whether that is your religion
you seem to be playing the word game
finding alternate meanings for the common understanding AND denying basic naming schemes such as ISM and the entire concept of religiosity
i do see your point
some people do claim to be part of a religion when they in fact do not believe
i think that they are mistaken
however, i dont know how you can base the claim that MOST people who claim to be part of a religion do not believe in it
i do not know anyone who doesnt have a faith in god that chooses "Catholic" or another denomination on forms that they fill out
they tend to check "Other" or "none"
why do they have that selection on the sheet and why do so many people choose it?
you mean to tell me that a percent of the population as large as that was raised with NO religion???????? i doubt it - i live in New york and i know VERY few people who were raised as atheists
they seem to be (for the most part) people who were raised with religion but rejected it, adopting suitable words and definitions - rather than warping the ideas behind pre-established ones
(this doesnt PROVE anything, but this site seems reasonably reputable
http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm)
i hate capitalization and punctuation
I recall that in Norway you have to ask for exit from the "state church" to be releaved from the church taxes ? Isn't that so ?
Nope, here the church and the state are the same thing unlike Sweden. Even if I am not a member of said state church (Lutheran) a part of my tax goes to the church. I have to become a member of another state sanctioned organisation e.g. Human ethic society to be sure that that organisation get money for my membership through taxes.
If I were to become a Jehova's witness or a Mormon which are not state sanctioned, a part of my tax would still go to the state church.
I believe this is not so in Sweden where you can tick off in your tax return that you are not affiliated with any state sanctioned organisations and get a 1700SeK tax relief.
If you are a member of a Christian church yes. If not, no. If you believe in God or not, is totally up to you.
I am not a member of the state church and I am an agnostic.
One of my best friends is a registred member of the state church but is an atheist.
Would you still call him a Christian to his face (he is 6'3" and 280 lb and has a reputation of being quite a Viking and can be VERY intimidating)?
The difference between him and me is I made the bothersome work of resigning from the church but he couldn't be bothered.
We both pay the clergy of the Lutheran church through taxes.
I have an open mind towards religion, he doesn't. He believes all religion is crap.
bmolsson
07-15-2005, 03:39
i do see your point
some people do claim to be part of a religion when they in fact do not believe
i think that they are mistaken
however, i dont know how you can base the claim that MOST people who claim to be part of a religion do not believe in it
Even if they are mistaken, it doesn't change the fact that most members of modern religions don't have any faith in a higher deity. If you make a poll in this forum and ask people which religion they belong to and if they believe in God or not, you will see that the largest group will belong to a religion and at the same time either be atheist or agnostics........
ICantSpellDawg
07-15-2005, 04:41
Even if they are mistaken, it doesn't change the fact that most members of modern religions don't have any faith in a higher deity. If you make a poll in this forum and ask people which religion they belong to and if they believe in God or not, you will see that the largest group will belong to a religion and at the same time either be atheist or agnostics........
that is absurd
i never argued that people know what they were talking about
i am arguing that saying one is religious without belief is absurd
i would say that i am not catholic - i was raised a catholic and i am surrounded by catholics, but i dont buy it and i choose to live differently.
am i wrong?
there are other descriptions to go by: traditional catholic, of catholic descent, etc. i have been raised in the catholic tradition, i even go to mass sometimes to be with my parents - but not because of a belief.
even if one doesnt abide by the rules - they are catholic if they buy the concepts that are necessary to be defined as one.
also - the idea that MOST think this way is seriously warped
have you done a study? or do you simply have faith that this is the truth in the face of all logic and criticism?
Even if they are mistaken, it doesn't change the fact that most members of modern religions don't have any faith in a higher deity.
This is flawed. It is flawed because it is oxymoronic. Membership suggests some standard whereby the designation can be made. If one can be a member one can also not be a member. It therefore cuts against the 'fixed' notion of religion. The standard is therefore dependant on the individual and if the individual is the primary factor then the motivations (beliefs) of the individual are relevant.
bmolsson
07-16-2005, 07:38
This is flawed. It is flawed because it is oxymoronic. Membership suggests some standard whereby the designation can be made. If one can be a member one can also not be a member. It therefore cuts against the 'fixed' notion of religion. The standard is therefore dependant on the individual and if the individual is the primary factor then the motivations (beliefs) of the individual are relevant.
Use your logic on American citizenship.....
There is nothing oxy with members of religions. It's all about adminsitration in a large social structure....
bmolsson
07-16-2005, 07:42
or do you simply have faith that this is the truth in the face of all logic and criticism?
~D
I am the man ?? ~:cheers:
Use your logic on American citizenship.....
There is nothing oxy with members of religions. It's all about adminsitration in a large social structure....
Alas, a light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
The above was refuted long ago. You'll have to do better than that.
bmolsson
07-16-2005, 09:12
Alas, a light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
The above was refuted long ago. You'll have to do better than that.
I think that my thread have proved my point. I am a muslim and I don't believe in Allah. You are a Christian and you don't believe in the old testament.
By the way, the faith in the North Korean leader would actually make the communism there a religion. Really interesting actually......
I think that my thread have proved my point. I am a muslim and I don't believe in Allah. You are a Christian and you don't believe in the old testament.
By the way, the faith in the North Korean leader would actually make the communism there a religion. Really interesting actually......
Alas, no. You are not a Muslim as you do not accept the Five Pillars of Islam. I am a Christian and I do accept the Old Testament. Communism is not a religion.
You are confused on oh so many things, but I like you anyway. The perplexed have a certain charm.
ICantSpellDawg
07-16-2005, 23:01
guh
needless words
bmolsson
07-17-2005, 04:01
Alas, no. You are not a Muslim as you do not accept the Five Pillars of Islam. I am a Christian and I do accept the Old Testament. Communism is not a religion.
You are confused on oh so many things, but I like you anyway. The perplexed have a certain charm.
Oke, please tell me how the earth was created and how humans was put upon it...... :book:
On my confusion, legends through history was never believed in nor accepted during they lives, I just accept that sacrifice for the better good..... ~:grouphug:
ICantSpellDawg
07-17-2005, 06:50
Oke, please tell me how the earth was created and how humans was put upon it...... :book:
On my confusion, legends through history was never believed in nor accepted during they lives, I just accept that sacrifice for the better good..... ~:grouphug:
dont you mean WERE put on it
dont you mean WERE never believed
dont you mean THEIR lives
????????
eye :sweetheart: booze
drinky drinky
Oke, please tell me how the earth was created and how humans was put upon it...... :book:
On my confusion, legends through history was never believed in nor accepted during they lives, I just accept that sacrifice for the better good..... ~:grouphug:
Neither of these answers will effect your non-Muslim status.
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 02:39
dont you mean WERE put on it
dont you mean WERE never believed
dont you mean THEIR lives
????????
eye :sweetheart: booze
drinky drinky
I sure do..... ~:grouphug:
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 02:41
Neither of these answers will effect your non-Muslim status.
I am a muslim and I have documentation to prove it..... ~:cheers:
I still want to hear how you, as a believer, consider the earth history. ~:)
I am a muslim and I have documentation to prove it.....
Sorry your not. You claimed Muslim status to marry and duped those who consider Islam meaningful in the process. An Atheist-Muslim is an oxymoron. Sorry swammy. :sultan:
I still want to hear how you, as a believer, consider the earth history. ~:)
I consider the earth's history historically.
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 06:06
Sorry your not. You claimed Muslim status to marry and duped those who consider Islam meaningful in the process. An Atheist-Muslim is an oxymoron. Sorry swammy. :sultan:
I don't have any documentation saying I am an Atheist, hence I can't be an oxymoron. And I do consider Islam being meaningful, as a base for the Pancasila powerstructure in the Indonesian democracy. So you are wrong.
I consider the earth's history historically.
I sense a reluctance to stand up for your faith. What are you afraid off ? Ending up being called swammy ?? ~D
I don't have any documentation saying I am an Atheist, hence I can't be an oxymoron. And I do consider Islam being meaningful, as a base for the Pancasila powerstructure in the Indonesian democracy. So you are wrong.
Can't be a Muslim if you don't belive in Allah, but you can be the swammy. I wont take that from you. :sultan:
I sense a reluctance to stand up for your faith. What are you afraid off ? Ending up being called swammy ?? ~D
What do you mean? I answered your question.
Did you mean: how was the earth created? I don't know how it was created.
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 15:10
Can't be a Muslim if you don't belive in Allah, but you can be the swammy. I wont take that from you. :sultan:
The empirical evidence says something totally different. My faith is metaphysical, while the documents are physical. Therefore I am scientifically a muslim....... ~:cheers:
What do you mean? I answered your question.
Did you mean: how was the earth created? I don't know how it was created.
So you are not a Christian ?? ~:eek:
The empirical evidence says something totally different. My faith is metaphysical, while the documents are physical. Therefore I am scientifically a muslim.......
Are you saying you have faith?
So you are not a Christian ?? ~:eek:
I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Christ.
bmolsson
07-19-2005, 03:14
Are you saying you have faith?
Sure I have, and plenty of it. Not as recommended though....
I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Christ.
Ok, how was earth created according to your Christian faith ?
Sure I have, and plenty of it. Not as recommended though....
What does this mean? You told me previously you didn't belive in Allah.
Ok, how was earth created according to your Christian faith ?
Don't know, there isn't a definative explanation.
bmolsson
07-19-2005, 06:03
What does this mean? You told me previously you didn't belive in Allah.
This means that I have a high quantity of faith directed elsewhere than Allah. Purely empirical that is.....
Don't know, there isn't a definative explanation.
Explanation made in the Bible and by Christian scholars is rather definative. Don't you believe in that God created earth ???
LOL! This is actually a bit funny…
“To know what to ask is already to know half." –Aristotle
The ability to ask the right question is a skill that is very much underrated. If you ask the right question straight off then you are more likely to get the right answer first time.
Who and how gives two completely different answers… ~;)
This means that I have a high quantity of faith directed elsewhere than Allah. Purely empirical that is.....
thus, your a secularist and not a Muslim.
Explanation made in the Bible and by Christian scholars is rather definative. Don't you believe in that God created earth ???
See Sigurd's reply
bmolsson
07-19-2005, 14:23
thus, your a secularist and not a Muslim.
Nope, the documentation says muslim and not secularist. ~:cheers:
See Sigurd's reply
I want your reply. :book:
ICantSpellDawg
07-19-2005, 16:17
Nope, the documentation says muslim and not secularist. ~:cheers:
I want your reply. :book:
This is like watching a stranded goldfish fight a grizzly to the death.
bmolsson
07-20-2005, 03:43
This is like watching a stranded goldfish fight a grizzly to the death.
It's actually the crunch of a very long discussion.
Pindar believes in God and old testament, but don't see Creationism as a theory worth looking at. He judge that people belonging to a religion are not really members to the same religion if they don't fit a construct invented at the beginning of the very religion, this regardless the fact that most member of the religion actually do it the other way around.
On the other side we have bmolsson, that doesn't believe in God, have a documentated membership in a religion, since he is a part of the society requiring this membership. Furthermore, he doesn't believe in Creationism, but argue that it's a theory built on findings in literature, human behavior and social patterns, and therefore needs to be respected as a possibility.
Pindar is a religious person that refuse to see the evolution of religion and it's role in society. He also mocks the result of the evolution and judge peoples be or not to be based on the fundamentalistic view that if you don't believe in the metaphysical deity, you can not be a part of any religion.
As a metaphore, better than yours above, this is the race between the rabbit and the turtle. The rabbit is for sure the fastest, but not really interested in the race. The turtle keeps on working itself towards the goal without looking back or think of how it looks during the race. In the end, reality and objectivity wins....... ~:grouphug:
It's actually the crunch of a very long discussion.
Pindar believes in God and old testament, but don't see Creationism as a theory worth looking at. He judge that people belonging to a religion are not really members to the same religion if they don't fit a construct invented at the beginning of the very religion, this regardless the fact that most member of the religion actually do it the other way around.
My goodness!
"A light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehendeth it not".
Nothing you describe above reflects my views. I haven't said anything about Creationism's worth. If someone wants to believe in Creationism bully for them. I simply pointed out it is not science and shouldn't be considered as such since it doesn't meet the criteria of science.
I have said nothing about any original intent clause for religiosity. I have argued that belief is a necessary condition to identify with a faith. I have also argued that the belief must be the base tenets that distinguish that faith from anything else in the world. For example: one can't say because they believe in their stamp collection they are therefore Muslim.
On the other side we have bmolsson, that doesn't believe in God, have a documentated membership in a religion, since he is a part of the society requiring this membership.
We have already determined that under the Indonesian Constitution with its religious freedom clause there is no requirement to be Muslim.
Pindar is a religious person that refuse to see the evolution of religion and it's role in society. He also mocks the result of the evolution and judge peoples be or not to be based on the fundamentalistic view that if you don't believe in the metaphysical deity, you can not be a part of any religion.
This is also a mischaracterization. A Christian by definition recognizes an 'evolution' in religion. This is expressed by the canon itself: the Old and New Testaments. I have said nothing that precludes a faith from change, but change doesn't mean the complete erasure of what allows the movement to be identified. There must be some base continuity so as to identify the thing: otherwise one is talking about two different objects.
I have never argued that belief in Deity is a qualifier for religion. I have argued that belief in Allah is a qualifier to be Muslim. This is based on the Shahada the first principle of Islam.
My position is simple: words and concepts have a base meaning and one is not a liberty to change them to mean anything they want: a book is not the planet Jupiter.
King of Atlantis
07-20-2005, 04:33
I have not read nearly this whole argument,wondered why people were still arguing about what a jew was :dizzy2: , but i agree with Pindar on every point he just made.
I see why he is getting so many votes as best debater :bow:
Kanamori
07-20-2005, 04:37
a book is not the planet Jupiter.
Yes, but for how long?
bmolsson
07-20-2005, 07:05
Nothing you describe above reflects my views. I haven't said anything about Creationism's worth. If someone wants to believe in Creationism bully for them. I simply pointed out it is not science and shouldn't be considered as such since it doesn't meet the criteria of science.
You did not agree that it was a theory. You claimed it was a pure metaphysical fantasy.
I have said nothing about any original intent clause for religiosity. I have argued that belief is a necessary condition to identify with a faith. I have also argued that the belief must be the base tenets that distinguish that faith from anything else in the world. For example: one can't say because they believe in their stamp collection they are therefore Muslim.
You said that the faith is a prerequiste for a person to be a member of a religion. I disagree. Stamp collections is a new argument in the debate.
We have already determined that under the Indonesian Constitution with its religious freedom clause there is no requirement to be Muslim.
There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God.
This is also a mischaracterization. A Christian by definition recognizes an 'evolution' in religion. This is expressed by the canon itself: the Old and New Testaments. I have said nothing that precludes a faith from change, but change doesn't mean the complete erasure of what allows the movement to be identified. There must be some base continuity so as to identify the thing: otherwise one is talking about two different objects.
That is not how I read your comments on Islam and a range of other religions.
I have never argued that belief in Deity is a qualifier for religion. I have argued that belief in Allah is a qualifier to be Muslim. This is based on the Shahada the first principle of Islam.
Which is not the case in islam here in Indonesia. The faith can not be quantified and can therefore not be a qualifier in reality. I am sure that is scientific.....
My position is simple: words and concepts have a base meaning and one is not a liberty to change them to mean anything they want: a book is not the planet Jupiter.
I have never argue otherwise. On one hand you argue that faith is metaphysical and can't be quantified. On the other hand you claim that it's a qualifier to be a part of a very much real society as a religion.
You have to make up your mind and not turn things in to something that makes you happy for the moment. There is a world out there you know....
Bmolsson,
Your reply telling me my position is flawed. I have never argued faith is metaphysical fancy or any other view you put forward. My position is and has been what I posted. To repeat:
-Creationism is not science.
-Belief is a necessary condition for religiosity.
-Religious systems have a core meaning that identifies and distinguishes them.
a) In the case of Islam this would be the Five Pillars the first of which is:
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" (the Shahada).
b) Muslim identity would require agreement with the "A".
-Tangent: There is nothing in the Indonesian Constitution that requires belief in God. Note: Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution
(1). The state shall be based upon belief in one god.
(2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.
There is nothing that states one must believe in God.
bmolsson
07-20-2005, 12:01
Your reply telling me my position is flawed. I have never argued faith is metaphysical fancy or any other view you put forward. My position is and has been what I posted.
So what have you argued that faith is then ?
-Creationism is not science.
I have claimed that Creationism is a theory based on social science. You introduced creationism as science. Do you disagree with that Creationism is a theory based on social science ?
-Belief is a necessary condition for religiosity.
And how do you quantify belief ? It's impossible to use a metaphysical belief as a condition for something earthly, freely based on your own views.
Reality is that faith is irrelevant to somebody being a member of a religion or not.
Surely you can bring it all down to an issue in the English language and claim that being religious is not the same as being a member of a religion. You usually do so. ~:grouphug:
-Religious systems have a core meaning that identifies and distinguishes them.
a) In the case of Islam this would be the Five Pillars the first of which is:
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" (the Shahada).
b) Muslim identity would require agreement with the "A".
The symbolism you are talking about is not the core of a religion seen from scientific view. The pillar you describe can not be proven or quantified, hence it's only a symbol. US is not what it is because of it's flag.
-Tangent: There is nothing in the Indonesian Constitution that requires belief in God. Note: Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution
(1). The state shall be based upon belief in one god.
(2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.
There is nothing that states one must believe in God.
The first article of Pancasila:
Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa
The state is actually the people. As mentioned, it has been tested in court already. You have to believe in God to reside on Indonesian soil.
So what have you argued that faith is then ?
For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.
I have claimed that Creationism is a theory based on social science. You introduced creationism as science. Do you disagree with that Creationism is a theory based on social science ?
I don't know any advocates of Creationism who claim it as a social science. Regardless, social science, if it is a science as the label would seem to indicate, must have a verification schema. For Creationism this would be verification of a Creator. This doesn't exist. It is not science.
(I have explained this multiple times)
And how do you quantify belief ?
The assertion by a subject of the reality of some X.
The symbolism you are talking about is not the core of a religion seen from scientific view. The pillar you describe can not be proven or quantified, hence it's only a symbol. US is not what it is because of it's flag.
Religion isn't science.
The first article of Pancasila:
Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa
The state is actually the people. As mentioned, it has been tested in court already. You have to believe in God to reside on Indonesian soil.
I don't know what the Indonesian there means, but if you want to argue the translation of the Indonesian Constitution is wrong please do so. The translation I provided does not say "one must believe in God". Aside from the problem of the text itself there are two obvious difficulties with your view: 1) practical: you don't believe in God and are living in Indonesia. 2)fromal: I'm sure there are Buddhists in Indonesia that probably have actual Temples or some organized structure. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The government does nothing to these Buddhists. Your position fails.
Now I think the crux of your argument is that religion is a legal category. You claim that since you have a card of some sort that identifies you as Muslim you are therefore Muslim regardless of your real views on God. I do not doubt you have some such card. My point is that law does not have the power to determine this status: even in the face of actual legislation. Law can assign culpability but cannot determine reality or belief. For example: if Indonesia decided to pass a law that said all Indonesians are 7ft. tall and even marked that on personal I.D.s it wouldn't change people's height. The same is the case with belief, as I mentioned before: if Indonesia passed a law saying all Indonesians' favorite color was Green, it wouldn't make it so. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore irrespective of any law passed religion is a product of a persons' belief.
bmolsson
07-21-2005, 03:08
For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.
More word games ? What are you afraid off ? :book:
I don't know any advocates of Creationism who claim it as a social science. Regardless, social science, if it is a science as the label would seem to indicate, must have a verification schema. For Creationism this would be verification of a Creator. This doesn't exist. It is not science.
(I have explained this multiple times)
No, you are avoiding the question.
Creationism is a theory based on social science.
There are no need to cerify the existence of a deity as the creator. In the theory of evolution, you don't have to verify where the origin of life is.
Creationism theory is trying to explain where earth and life comes from, not if there is a creator or not.
The assertion by a subject of the reality of some X.
So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.
Religion isn't science.
But anthropology is.
I don't know what the Indonesian there means, but if you want to argue the translation of the Indonesian Constitution is wrong please do so. The translation I provided does not say "one must believe in God". Aside from the problem of the text itself there are two obvious difficulties with your view: 1) practical: you don't believe in God and are living in Indonesia. 2)fromal: I'm sure there are Buddhists in Indonesia that probably have actual Temples or some organized structure. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The government does nothing to these Buddhists. Your position fails.
My position doesn't fail. The Indonesian constitution might fail though. I didn't write the Pancasila and it has been widely critized for it's flaws on Buddhism and Hinduism (both accepted religions). Furthermore, faith can't be quantified so you can't really be prosecuted as long as you belong to a religion. No religion will test or try to quantify your religion here in Indonesia, since it's scientifically impossible, so regardless you faith, you can be a member of one of the 5 accepted religions.
However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution, regardless if Pindar likes it or not.
Now I think the crux of your argument is that religion is a legal category. You claim that since you have a card of some sort that identifies you as Muslim you are therefore Muslim regardless of your real views on God. I do not doubt you have some such card. My point is that law does not have the power to determine this status: even in the face of actual legislation. Law can assign culpability but cannot determine reality or belief. For example: if Indonesia decided to pass a law that said all Indonesians are 7ft. tall and even marked that on personal I.D.s it wouldn't change people's height. The same is the case with belief, as I mentioned before: if Indonesia passed a law saying all Indonesians' favorite color was Green, it wouldn't make it so. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore irrespective of any law passed religion is a product of a persons' belief.
You are wrong.
First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.
If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.
If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.
With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.
So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong. ~:grouphug:
ICantSpellDawg
07-21-2005, 03:47
You are wrong.
First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.
If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.
If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.
With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.
So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong. ~:grouphug:
I, personally, disagree.
In my own opinion after following the arguement, I believe that you are the one who is wrong. However, I do believe that you may have trumped Pindar's point about Indonesians being 7 feet tall. At the same time, I am not sure that the point that you were refuting was damaging to Pindar's superior arguement at all.
bmolsson
07-21-2005, 03:50
I, personally, disagree.
In my own opinion after following the arguement, I believe that you are the one who is wrong. However, I do believe that you may have trumped Pindar's point about Indonesians being 7 feet tall. At the same time I am not sure that the point that you were refuting was damaging to Pindar's superior arguement at all.
Well, I didn't write the Indonesian constitution so if you think that Pindar is superior to the Indonesian constitution, I have no problems..... ~;)
Posted by bmolsson
So what have you argued that faith is then ?
Good Guys:For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.
Bmolsson:More word games ? What are you afraid off ?
I don't understand this reply. You asked what faith is and I answer. Why is this a word game?
No, you are avoiding the question.
Creationism is a theory based on social science.
There are no need to cerify the existence of a deity as the creator. In the theory of evolution, you don't have to verify where the origin of life is.
Creationism theory is trying to explain where earth and life comes from, not if there is a creator or not.
This is old ground. You do need to make sure you understand Creationism before you post note: Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) The position is tied to the existence of a God.
So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.
Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.
But anthropology is.
The study of man. This usually means various cultures.
My position doesn't fail. The Indonesian constitution might fail though. I didn't write the Pancasila and it has been widely critized for it's flaws on Buddhism and Hinduism (both accepted religions). Furthermore, faith can't be quantified so you can't really be prosecuted as long as you belong to a religion. No religion will test or try to quantify your religion here in Indonesia, since it's scientifically impossible, so regardless you faith, you can be a member of one of the 5 accepted religions.
However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution, regardless if Pindar likes it or not.
This is incoherent. You posted the Indonesian Constitution states: "one must believe in God". I have shown you the actual text. It does not say this. I have also given the example of Buddhism which is a non-theistic religion. You admit that Buddhism is recognized in Indonesia, but then say one has to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This makes no sense given the above.
First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.
If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.
If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.
With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.
So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong. ~:grouphug:
I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again: law cannot create mental states. Belief is a mental state. Therefore the law cannot create belief. Religion is tied to belief therefore law cannot create religious status.
Note: skin color alone didn't determine slave status in the U.S. There were free Blacks in the U.S. even while there was slavery in the U.S.
Well, I didn't write the Indonesian constitution so if you think that Pindar is superior to the Indonesian constitution, I have no problems..... ~;)
It's not a question of writing the Constitution as much as understanding it.
bmolsson
07-21-2005, 05:18
I don't understand this reply. You asked what faith is and I answer. Why is this a word game?
No you did not answer what faith is.
This is old ground. You do need to make sure you understand Creationism before you post note: Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) The position is tied to the existence of a God.
I have and in Wikipedia you can also read: God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Here we come to the crunch in our discussion. Creationism includes evolutionary creationism as well as intelligent design. The creator does not have to be what traditionally is seen as God. The force needed to create life has through times been assumed to be a deity, that in your belief assumed the form of Jesus Christ.
If you question the definition of God and the definition of 6 days, apply social science and try to understand why people in history worked this out, further more apply any other scientific knowledge and see behind the theory of creationism. Surely this will give a lot of more questions, but it doesn't require a traditional God and it does deserve respect to be further researched.
In the same discussion about religion, you refuse to see beyond the old definitions you find in a dictionary. If you want to give it another name, fine, but as it is now, there is no other name for it. What is religion beyond faith ? And what is creationism beyond the classical God ?
Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.
And how much is that ?
The study of man. This usually means various cultures.
Does that include religions ?
This is incoherent. You posted the Indonesian Constitution states: "one must believe in God". I have shown you the actual text. It does not say this. I have also given the example of Buddhism which is a non-theistic religion. You admit that Buddhism is recognized in Indonesia, but then say one has to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This makes no sense given the above.
Yes, it is incoherent, but it is how it is written. I never argued that it makes sense, just how it actually is. When it was written, they didn't know better, just as with any other religious texts. Society have evolved and our understanding is today superior to our ancestors.
I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again: law cannot create mental states. Belief is a mental state. Therefore the law cannot create belief. Religion is tied to belief therefore law cannot create religious status.
Note: skin color alone didn't determine slave status in the U.S. There were free Blacks in the U.S. even while there was slavery in the U.S.
Since when did height become a mental state ?
I know that law cannot create belief or any other mental state. That is why I argue that the mental state and belief is irrelevant in a modern society and in modern religions.
If you argue that I have to believe in God to be a muslim, you have argued that my mental state can be quantified. The pillar in Islam that legislates me having the faith can never be enforced. That is why you are wrong.
bmolsson
07-21-2005, 05:23
It's not a question of writing the Constitution as much as understanding it.
You seems to forget that there are people behind the constitution and understanding them would make you understand the constitution better. Once again you seem to forget the people and their reality.
Kanamori
07-21-2005, 05:24
Since I haven't noticeda cultural argumentation against Pindar's position, as I understand it, I will put it forward. There is no denying that someone who believes in the old texts and Yaweh is a Jew. There is also the afore mentioned differnece between a Jew and a Hebrew: "Jews follow Judaism, a religion. Hebrews are a race of Semites." - Insane Apache. There is, however, a difference between being a Jew and being Jewish. There is a Jewish culture -- a culture of or resembling the Jews. When you, Pindar, say, "Further, the culture of an Ethiopian Jew and a Russian Jew are not the same," it seems to be an argument in preparation of an assertion such as my own. Of course, Russian Jews and Ethiopian Jews have different cultures, there is no way around it. This, however, does not mean that their cultures are not distinctly Jewish, again of or resembling the Jews. Although they are disparate in their qualities, they share the distinction that their culutures developed the way they did, under a simialr model if you will, because of their religion. Also there is distinct Jewish quisine. All Jewish quisines are not the same from the different regions Jews inhabit, but they all share the same origin. Saying cultural things are Jewish is saying that they originated under the same model, more specifically: because of their religion, the culuture of different Jews changed as they moved or were forced into other areas and were exposed and entered -- assimilated isn't the right word ;) -- into existing socities and cultures. As those cultures encouter the Jewish cultures, portions of them rub off, such as Jewish quisine and habits. You can be Jewish without being a Jew. Some of the culture of New York City comes to mind as a case in point.
No you did not answer what faith is.
I did. I said faith is a type of belief.
I have and in Wikipedia you can also read: God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Here we come to the crunch in our discussion. Creationism includes evolutionary creationism as well as intelligent design. The creator does not have to be what traditionally is seen as God.
Find me one Creationist group that argues a creationism that doesn't appeal to a Deity. This might exist, but I have never met any. The problem (as I mentioned before) is that if creation (all that is) is itself the product of another creature then it begs the question. Where did the creature that created come from? Theists avoid this problem because the traditional understanding of Deity is a self-existent Being. This is one of the reasons for an appeal to an Absolute.
The difficulty is twofold. One, you seem to be arguing for an idiosyncratic creationism that nobody holds. Two, even should some fellow who writes from his trailer hold this view: it is logically incoherent.
In the same discussion about religion, you refuse to see beyond the old definitions you find in a dictionary. If you want to give it another name, fine, but as it is now, there is no other name for it. What is religion beyond faith ? And what is creationism beyond the classical God ?
I use basic definitions because I want to maintain a point of contact with my interlocutor (in this case, you). If I were to veer from a common understanding I would explain the variation and justify that change. "It" is not sufficient.
Now you ask: "what is religion beyond faith"? I don't think religion is dependant on faith to be identified as a system. The faith (belief) is a requirement for one to be a practitioner.
So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.
Me: Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.
bmolsson: And how much is that ?
I don't know what this is aiming at, but the previous answer seems self-evidentiary. If one says they believe in X that is enough. The statement is sufficient.
Does that include religions ?
Of course. One can study the behaviors, rituals, etc. of religion. None of this tells whether the religion under investigation is true. One could demonstrate that group Y practices faith X and delineate what faith X involves. One could even ask the practitioners about the level of their commitment. None of this speaks to the truth claims of the faith, only the structure and belief of the members, as it were. Religion is involved in making truth claims. Creationism is also making a truth claim. In order for religion or Creationism to be a science one would need to be able to falsify the conclusions being made. So, if a Catholic or Creationist states: "God created the universe": one needs some data to verify the claim. Absent this ability the position cannot be considered science.
Yes, it is incoherent, but it is how it is written. I never argued that it makes sense, just how it actually is. When it was written, they didn't know better, just as with any other religious texts. Society have evolved and our understanding is today superior to our ancestors.
Good, no more about this tangent hopefully.
Since when did height become a mental state ?
Height isn't a mental state. In my earlier post I wrote that law cannot create reality or belief. The height example was meant to demonstrat that passing a law cannot change the height of a people. You didn't understand my point, but instead wrote on citizenship standards. I didn't respond since this wasn't critical.
I know that law cannot create belief or any other mental state. That is why I argue that the mental state and belief is irrelevant in a modern society and in modern religions.
If you argue that I have to believe in God to be a muslim, you have argued that my mental state can be quantified. The pillar in Islam that legislates me having the faith can never be enforced. That is why you are wrong.
This doesn't follow. Because law cannot create a belief, it doesn't follow that belief is therefore irrelevant. People blowing themselves up on subways would seem to demonstrate the point.
This introduction of quantification doesn't help your case.
You have repeatedly claimed "objectivity" and "reality" as the mantra for your position, but on three distinct points where there is a clear standard you have not been able to come to terms with the facts. These cases were/are:
Creationism: the wiki article (as demonstrated), indicates a position arguing for a God as the source of the universe, but you defer.
Islam: this is defined by the Five Pillars. The first is the Shahada (as demonstrated), yet you defer.
Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing. Again you deferred.
This pattern is condemning for one who appeals of 'objectivity'. Objectivity means accommodating the real state of things, not holding doggedly to a pet position.
Kanamori
Hello,
I need to qualify a few things to make sure I understand your position: " You can be Jewish without being a Jew". So one can be the adjective without inferring the noun?
You seem to agree that a believer in Judaism is a Jew. So we agree here. You also seem to be arguing that in addition to this designation a Jew can be defined by culture. Now you admit that there is no consistent "Jewish" culture, but the claim is still appropriate because one can trace back to a common point of origin. Is that right? This common point of origin would be appeal to Abraham or the introduction of Mosaic Law and its surrounding features? Would that be your view? Regardless, the key it would seem is this point of origin. If I understood you correctly then it would seem Christians are also Jews as they trace back to that same point: accepting all the Old Testament as actual and authoritative. One might also argue Muslims are also Jews as they too recognize the Old Testament and trace back to Abraham. This would seem a problem.
Another question: if a believer of Judaism is a Jew, and a follower of "Jewish culture" is a Jew, is either considered primary? For example: can one believe in Judaims and not follow any Jewish cultural whatever and still be Jewish? What if one follows "Jewish culture" but claims he is Buddhist. Is this fellow still a Jew?
Question three: if one doesn't believe in Judaism and doesn't follow Jewish culture can they still be a Jew? What if he claims he is Jewish but does neither of the two?
Note: I don't agree with the Hebrew/Jew explanation given by Insane Apache. Hebrew is not a race. Hebrew referred to the collective tribes of Israel. Jew referred to the descendants of Judah or members of the kingdom of Judah after the kingdom of Solomon divided.
Kanamori
07-21-2005, 21:13
I need to qualify a few things to make sure I understand your position: " You can be Jewish without being a Jew". So one can be the adjective without inferring the noun?
They can have an element in them that is Jewish, but they need not be a Jew. So, the adjective requires a portion, but not the entirety, of the noun. Saying that the adjective and the noun are unrelated is ludicrous.
Now you admit that there is no consistent "Jewish" culture, but the claim is still appropriate because one can trace back to a common point of origin. Is that right?
"Admit" seems to imply that I recognize it as a weakpoint, although it is not a weakpoint. Essentially, though, your understanding of my position is sufficient for as far as we've gone.
This common point of origin would be appeal to Abraham or the introduction of Mosaic Law and its surrounding features? Would that be your view?
Yes, it is.
Regardless, the key it would seem is this point of origin. If I understood you correctly then it would seem Christians are also Jews as they trace back to that same point: accepting all the Old Testament as actual and authoritative. One might also argue Muslims are also Jews as they too recognize the Old Testament and trace back to Abraham.
Christians are not Jews. Because they have some Jewish elements does not make them Jews. Following that line, one who would argue Muslims are Jews would also be incorrect.
...more later, it's back to the slaving hell hole I go. ~D
ICantSpellDawg
07-21-2005, 21:47
Christians are not Jews. Because they have some Jewish elements does not make them Jews. Following that line, one who would argue Muslims are Jews would also be incorrect.
This is where, I think, the real issue with your post comes up (which, I might add was a good post). What is the qualifier that seperates some with similar traditions from others that are both based in the same tradition. This would seem to contradict your point that some are "Jews" without the belief. There doesnt seem to be much of a homogenous racial beggining point that differs from the beggining point of others. I don't know - I'm just attempting to talk about stuff.
They can have an element in them that is Jewish, but they need not be a Jew. So, the adjective requires a portion, but not the entirety, of the noun. Saying that the adjective and the noun are unrelated is ludicrous.
I'm confused. An adjective requires something from the noun to maintain meaning, but that something is not sufficient to allow a direct tie?
So Jew status equals a cultural status and culture is defined as what can be traced back to a common point of origin. This position allows for distinct 'cultures' to still qualify as "Jew" because of traceability. I think this is the crux. Now if that is your position I don't see how you can discount Christians and Muslims since both maintain a clear traceability.
Now, get back into that slaving hell hole! :whip:
bmolsson
07-22-2005, 11:50
I did. I said faith is a type of belief.
:balloon2:
Find me one Creationist group that argues a creationism that doesn't appeal to a Deity. This might exist, but I have never met any. The problem (as I mentioned before) is that if creation (all that is) is itself the product of another creature then it begs the question. Where did the creature that created come from? Theists avoid this problem because the traditional understanding of Deity is a self-existent Being. This is one of the reasons for an appeal to an Absolute.
There are several groups leaning towards the intelligent design theory, which is a evolution of the creationist theory. Most of them believes in a higher alien race.
Sure, the theists will of course use the deity to avoid the paradox. In my thoughts I don't try to avoid the paradox, since currently there are no end of the paradox, regardless which theory you bring forward.
You might have a point when arguing that I am not talking about creationism, it's just that I don't know what to call it. For me the possible creator doesn't have to be absolute since for the the creationism theory only tries to explain the creation of life here on earth.
The difficulty is twofold. One, you seem to be arguing for an idiosyncratic creationism that nobody holds. Two, even should some fellow who writes from his trailer hold this view: it is logically incoherent.
Why trailer ?
I use basic definitions because I want to maintain a point of contact with my interlocutor (in this case, you). If I were to veer from a common understanding I would explain the variation and justify that change. "It" is not sufficient.
You only use a definition that supports your position. In other discussions, you will see things further. For you this debate is more about winning the debate then actually penetrate the actual issue.
Now you ask: "what is religion beyond faith"? I don't think religion is dependant on faith to be identified as a system. The faith (belief) is a requirement for one to be a practitioner.
Just what I have been arguing (the bold text). I can agree that to be a practitioner you need faith, but to be a member, your faith is irrelevant.
I don't know what this is aiming at, but the previous answer seems self-evidentiary. If one says they believe in X that is enough. The statement is sufficient.
So a statement that says you believe is actually sufficient to prove the faith ? If the world would be that simple.... ~:grouphug:
Of course. One can study the behaviors, rituals, etc. of religion. None of this tells whether the religion under investigation is true. One could demonstrate that group Y practices faith X and delineate what faith X involves. One could even ask the practitioners about the level of their commitment. None of this speaks to the truth claims of the faith, only the structure and belief of the members, as it were. Religion is involved in making truth claims. Creationism is also making a truth claim. In order for religion or Creationism to be a science one would need to be able to falsify the conclusions being made. So, if a Catholic or Creationist states: "God created the universe": one needs some data to verify the claim. Absent this ability the position cannot be considered science.
Creationism is not a sciences, it's a theory based on social science.
You could also study why religions have developed at all, and why so many have a similar view on the creation. It has nothing to do with faith. You seems coming back to this faith dependency, which has no scientific value what so ever in your way of seeing things.
Height isn't a mental state. In my earlier post I wrote that law cannot create reality or belief. The height example was meant to demonstrat that passing a law cannot change the height of a people. You didn't understand my point, but instead wrote on citizenship standards. I didn't respond since this wasn't critical.
Actually I already guessed that height is not a mental state.... :bow:
Actually, passing a law can determine the height of people.
Example:
All Indonesians are 6 ft tall or taller.
This means that people that are less than 6 ft are not Indonesians. This has been practiced in many countries. You could call it apartheid for example.
This doesn't follow. Because law cannot create a belief, it doesn't follow that belief is therefore irrelevant. People blowing themselves up on subways would seem to demonstrate the point.
Actually law can create belief.
Example:
You use a helmet because you believe that it will save you in an accident.
A law is there to create this belief. If you don't believe this you will be punished.
If you argue that people use helmet because they are afraid of being punished, you can't prove it. You actually don't know if everyone believe in using a helmet or because they are afraid being punished.
Now apply this to religion.
Example:
If you don't believe in God, you will be expelled from the religion.
Does all the members of the religion believe in God or are they afraid of being expelled ?
People blowing themselves up on subways might do this because they are afraid of being expelled or punished by a law or force larger than the normal legal system or even death itself.
This introduction of quantification doesn't help your case.
I am just trying to find a way to make you understand that the mental state, faith, is not something that you can use in your argumentation. It's not possible to quantify, actually not even possible to prove that it's present.
You have repeatedly claimed "objectivity" and "reality" as the mantra for your position, but on three distinct points where there is a clear standard you have not been able to come to terms with the facts. These cases were/are:
Creationism: the wiki article (as demonstrated), indicates a position arguing for a God as the source of the universe, but you defer.
Islam: this is defined by the Five Pillars. The first is the Shahada (as demonstrated), yet you defer.
Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing. Again you deferred.
This pattern is condemning for one who appeals of 'objectivity'. Objectivity means accommodating the real state of things, not holding doggedly to a pet position.
Creationism: The word is as you say depending on a God. I don't defer that. What I do defer is that the God doesn't have to be absolute. Wikipedia is a bit grey on this if you read in on God.
Islam: I defer that a muslim is not a muslim due to his faith, since the faith can not be measured or be proven. I consider Islam a real system and not a product of faith.
Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing, neither is the meaning. I do agree that it is not logical though.
I disagree that my position is a pet position. I do believe that your position is a fundamentalistic position though. ~:handball:
bmolsson
07-22-2005, 12:06
An adjective requires something from the noun to maintain meaning, but that something is not sufficient to allow a direct tie?
We all need to take English lessons, oooo, great master..... :bow:
What was the subject again ?? :help:
bmolsson
07-22-2005, 12:13
A small note:
At the CIA site the following is said on the composition of members of religions in US:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10%
According to this only 10% of the Americans don't have any faith. Would this be accurate ? This forum would indicate something different....
ICantSpellDawg
07-22-2005, 12:31
We all need to take English lessons, oooo, great master..... :bow:
What was the subject again ?? :help:
This IS the subject that the thread is about. Understanding the words being used is crucial to this arguement.
ICantSpellDawg
07-22-2005, 12:41
A small note:
At the CIA site the following is said on the composition of members of religions in US:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10%
According to this only 10% of the Americans don't have any faith. Would this be accurate ? This forum would indicate something different....
Are you serious?
You are basing your interpretation of national belief on (mainly) incredibly young internet users who are into "Total War" and tend to argue about things to a fault? The environment of questioning is not conducive to Theism or Religion in general (from my opinion). I am 22 and live in New York. I am an atheist, yet i feel as though I am in the minority. Of my age group, maybe not, but even in a bastion of atheism there is still much faith. Those C.I.A. figures would lead me, instead of making a statement about its innacuracy, to thinking about the 10% "none" group.
Why would there be a "none" selection if people who were raised with a religion were expected to identify with that same religion irrespective of belief? Oh, that is right, they wouldn't because many people realize that that would be absurd.
Also - if you speak to some atheists, eventually an inkling of a belief in a creator or intelligent design theory creeps out (or something that rationalizes their moral code). Myself included, although it is based soely on a non-scientific empiricism (if that isn't an oxymoron)
People blowing themselves up on subways might do this because they are afraid of being expelled or punished by a law or force larger than the normal legal system or even death itself.
The very call-sign of extremism; the lack of sufficient faith. Hence the compulsory element of doing something extra.
ICantSpellDawg
07-22-2005, 13:00
The very call-sign of extremism; the lack of sufficient faith. Hence the compulsory element of doing something extra.
I cannot see how that act could be considered as one stemming from a lack of faith as a rule.
I cannot see how that act could be considered as one stemming from a lack of faith as a rule.Maybe I should have highlighted what I was commenting on:
"People blowing themselves up on subways might do this because they are afraid of being expelled or punished by a law or force larger than the normal legal system or even death itself".
The very notion that they are afraid of not gaining what they aspire to, compel them to do more than what is required using illegitimate means. This is extremism.
ICantSpellDawg
07-22-2005, 21:02
Maybe I should have highlighted what I was commenting on:
"People blowing themselves up on subways might do this because they are afraid of being expelled or punished by a law or force larger than the normal legal system or even death itself".
The very notion that they are afraid of not gaining what they aspire to, compel them to do more than what is required using illegitimate means. This is extremism.
I agree, but when someone sacrifices their own life according to the laws of the faith in which they practice (not necessarily Islam, but FAITH doesnt have to come from the Quran only), that is not showing a lack of faith in a belief held. If one is a Christian BELIEVER and murders for fun - they may still have FAITH that they will go to hell and attempt to do things later in life to avoid their destination. This does not mean that they do not have FAITH, but that they do not believe that they are going to heaven. I am not saying it is the same, but i hope that i am not arguing a seperate issue.
:You might have a point when arguing that I am not talking about creationism...
Good, we agree.
Your own notions are your own and not my present concern.
Why trailer ?
Literary flare.
You only use a definition that supports your position. In other discussions, you will see things further. For you this debate is more about winning the debate then actually penetrate the actual issue.
I use standard definitions for the reasons I mentioned: to maintain a point of contact i.e. clarity, nothing more.
Posted by Pindar
Now you ask: "what is religion beyond faith"? I don't think religion is dependant on faith to be identified as a system. The faith (belief) is a requirement for one to be a practitioner.
Just what I have been arguing (the bold text). I can agree that to be a practitioner you need faith, but to be a member, your faith is irrelevant.
My position has been membership is irrelevant without belief.
So a statement that says you believe is actually sufficient to prove the faith ? If the world would be that simple.... ~:grouphug:
Of course! If I ask someone: "Do you believe in religion X" and they say "Yes". I believe them. Their statement is sufficient.
Creationism is not a sciences, it's a theory based on social science.
I don't know what the second clause is supposed to mean. Social science, as indicated by the noun, claims to be science. I agree with the first clause.
You could also study why religions have developed at all, and why so many have a similar view on the creation. It has nothing to do with faith
I agree.
Actually, passing a law can determine the height of people.
Example:
All Indonesians are 6 ft tall or taller.
This means that people that are less than 6 ft are not Indonesians. This has been practiced in many countries. You could call it apartheid for example.
Actually law can create belief.
Example:
You use a helmet because you believe that it will save you in an accident.
A law is there to create this belief. If you don't believe this you will be punished.
If you argue that people use helmet because they are afraid of being punished, you can't prove it. You actually don't know if everyone believe in using a helmet or because they are afraid being punished.
Neither of these examples follow. A law cannot make someone a certain height. One could codify citizenship based on height, but that is a separate issue.
Law cannot make someone believe a thing either. People may wear a proscribed helmet for a host of reasons: they don't want a ticket, they want to be protected, they think its a smart fashion choice etc. The point is the law cannot force the belief.
Religious motivations are not my concern. If someone wants to be identified with a certain faith, they must believe in that faith to be so identified.
I am just trying to find a way to make you understand that the mental state, faith, is not something that you can use in your argumentation. It's not possible to quantify, actually not even possible to prove that it's present.
This is wrong. I can prove someone believes in a thing, by asking them.
Creationism: The word is as you say depending on a God.
Good this is settled.
Islam: I defer that a muslim is not a muslim due to his faith, since the faith can not be measured or be proven.
It can be demonstrated by asking. That is all that is required.
Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing
Show me where the Indonesian Constitution says: "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia"
A small note:
At the CIA site the following is said on the composition of members of religions in US:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10%
According to this only 10% of the Americans don't have any faith. Would this be accurate ? This forum would indicate something different....
All the studies I have seen on religiousity in the U.S. indicate the number of non-believers is quite small. Perhaps even less than the 10% figure.
This forum has a rather large number of atheists and agnostics. This may be due to a certain failure of education. :scholar:
King of Atlantis
07-22-2005, 21:58
A small note:
According to this only 10% of the Americans don't have any faith. Would this be accurate ? This forum would indicate something different....
Like half the americans here are also libralterians(sp). So you think that is proportional to the U.S.?
Colovion
07-22-2005, 22:25
I hear jews created the bagel. I love bagels. I also notice that a large portion of Jews are hilarious. I love Seinfeld.
So I must love Jews. :D
Kanamori
07-23-2005, 05:26
Bah, I'm going on vacation to the Carolinas to visit relatives and then up into Fairfax...I'll try to think of something to argue w/o admitting that I'm using different definitions of Jewish and trying to link them:P Wish me luck.
:bow:
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 07:02
All the studies I have seen on religiousity in the U.S. indicate the number of non-believers is quite small. Perhaps even less than the 10% figure.
This forum has a rather large number of atheists and agnostics. This may be due to a certain failure of education. :scholar:
And they are all scientists..... ~D
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 07:22
This IS the subject that the thread is about.
So the actual membership in a religion is irrelevant ? You must be a teacher or something.... ~;)
Bah, I'm going on vacation to the Carolinas to visit relatives and then up into Fairfax...I'll try to think of something to argue w/o admitting that I'm using different definitions of Jewish and trying to link them:P Wish me luck.
:bow:
Have fun. ~:)
Don't drink the water.
King of Atlantis
07-23-2005, 08:14
And they are all scientists..... ~D
now that is far from the truth.
btw, you seemed to have casually not answered pindar's last post. Wise move.
And they are all scientists..... ~D
Or they're all pretending to be scientists.
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 08:24
Literary flare.
Oh, so just nonsense.... ~:cheers:
My position has been membership is irrelevant without belief.
Of course! If I ask someone: "Do you believe in religion X" and they say "Yes". I believe them. Their statement is sufficient.
Interesting. So a religion is built on a statement, which doesn't have to be verified. I wouldn't really call that faith. It's just a symbolic statement in other words. You have just proven my point.
Neither of these examples follow. A law cannot make someone a certain height. One could codify citizenship based on height, but that is a separate issue.
Law cannot make someone believe a thing either. People may wear a proscribed helmet for a host of reasons: they don't want a ticket, they want to be protected, they think its a smart fashion choice etc. The point is the law cannot force the belief.
Yes, it can. It's done daily in China. It was done daily in Iraq. You have stated that belief is proven by asking. The response sets the fact. If you hold a gun to somebodys head and ask him: If you don't believe in God I will shoot you, do you believe in God ?
Same thing with law. You get the answer you want, depending on how you ask the question.
If you claim that faith is proven with a question, then law can determine the faith through law enforcement.
Religious motivations are not my concern. If someone wants to be identified with a certain faith, they must believe in that faith to be so identified.
Actually you have just stated that they only have to say they believe in the faith. Their actual belief is irrelevant.
This is wrong. I can prove someone believes in a thing, by asking them.
How do you know they are telling the truth ?
It can be demonstrated by asking. That is all that is required.
And if they get something in return for giving you the answer you desire, would they still be muslims ? (eg. missionaries)
Show me where the Indonesian Constitution says: "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia"
Knock yourself out.... Indonesian Law on Religion (http://www.hukumonline.com/data_center.asp)
This in English gives you a hint on why it's so incoherent.. Indonesian Legal System (http://www.llrx.com/features/indonesia.htm)
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 08:38
now that is far from the truth.
btw, you seemed to have casually not answered pindar's last post. Wise move.
Not at all, just needed some time to get a source for Indonesian law online..... ~;)
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 08:39
Or they're all pretending to be scientists.
Not as long as they believe.... ~D
King of Atlantis
07-23-2005, 09:00
Not at all, just needed some time to get a source for Indonesian law online..... ~;)
okay, it just looked suspicious that you posted without answering his main post. my mistake, ~:cheers:
Posted by Pindar
My position has been membership is irrelevant without belief.
Of course! If I ask someone: "Do you believe in religion X" and they say "Yes". I believe them. Their statement is sufficient.
Interesting. So a religion is built on a statement, which doesn't have to be verified. I wouldn't really call that faith. It's just a symbolic statement in other words. You have just proven my point.
I think your confused. What you wrote doesn't fit with what I posted. Religion is a system. As such it can be studied, discussed, ignored what have you. To be a practitioner one has to believe in the religion. To know whether someone believes they can be asked. The answer is verification.
Yes, it can. It's done daily in China. It was done daily in Iraq. You have stated that belief is proven by asking. The response sets the fact. If you hold a gun to somebodys head and ask him: If you don't believe in God I will shoot you, do you believe in God ?
I'm not sure what the pronoun is referring to. I don't know if you are trying to say Chinese and Iraqi law create height, belief or both. Regardless, this is not correct. Coercion is not belief.
Posted by Pindar
Religious motivations are not my concern. If someone wants to be identified with a certain faith, they must believe in that faith to be so identified.
Actually you have just stated that they only have to say they believe in the faith. Their actual belief is irrelevant.
Please try and focus on what I write. Religiosity is tied to belief. To know whether one believes they can be asked.
How do you know they are telling the truth ?
You don't. If someone wants to lie they can.
And if they get something in return for giving you the answer you desire, would they still be muslims ? (eg. missionaries)
If someone wants to lie or deceive they can. It does not change the basic rubric that practitioners are defined by belief. Someone who lies by saying they believe in religion X can be reasonably considered a believer regardless of the reality. Whether I or any one else know the truth isn't really a factor. If after so many years that same person came forward and said: "I didn't really believe and still don't" then one simply knows they are not a believer of religion X and that's OK too.
knock yourself out.... Indonesian Law on Religion (http://www.hukumonline.com/data_center.asp)
This in English gives you a hint on why it's so incoherent.. Indonesian Legal System (http://www.llrx.com/features/indonesia.htm)
My good fellow. Recall your position, you said the Indonesian Constitution says: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". The focus is on this foundational legal document not the legal system in general. I have provided the Indonesian Constitution. No such statement exists. This mistake is indicative of a general pattern. You seem to want to argue things beyond the actual issue at hand.
bmolsson
07-23-2005, 09:34
Posted by Pindar
My position has been membership is irrelevant without belief.
Of course! If I ask someone: "Do you believe in religion X" and they say "Yes". I believe them. Their statement is sufficient.
I think your confused. What you wrote doesn't fit with what I posted. Religion is a system. As such it can be studied, discussed, ignored what have you. To be a practitioner one has to believe in the religion. To know whether someone believes they can be asked. The answer is verification.
You state below in your post that the answer might be a lie, we don't know that. This means that you can practice the religon without believe in it. Further this means that a practitioner of a religion might be a part of the religion in question in order to participate in the system.
With your own logic, this means that a religions practicioners not necessarily have to have the belief you claim is crucial for a practitioner to be a part of a religion. Your position seems like a contradiction.
I'm not sure what the pronoun is referring to. I don't know if you are trying to say Chinese and Iraqi law create height, belief or both. Regardless, this is not correct. Coercion is not belief.
How do you know the answer on the question is due to belief or coercion ?
You are back on your height argument again. I thought we where finished with that one.
Please try and focus on what I write. Religiosity is tied to belief. To know whether one believes they can be asked.
Membership in a religion is not based on belief. In order to be a part of a religion you have to go through a series of symbolic gestures or simply be born in to it.
You equal the word religious with having faith and that is not what we are discussing here. A jew is a jew if he is born from a jewish mother. It has been stated before by others in this thread. The child is a jew regardless if it have any faith or not. Also it will not even get a question if it have any faith.
You don't. If someone wants to lie they can.
Exactly.
If someone wants to lie or deceive they can. It does not change the basic rubric that practitioners are defined by belief. Someone who lies by saying they believe in religion X can be reasonably considered a believer regardless of the reality. Whether I or any one else know the truth isn't really a factor. If after so many years that same person came forward and said: "I didn't really believe and still don't" then one simply knows they are not a believer of religion X and that's OK too.
With your logic you make the assumption that all members of a religion are believers. This assumtion is not the same as you have to believe to be a member of a religion.
Pindar you have to give this one up. Reality is not what you want it to be.
My good fellow. Recall your position, you said the Indonesian Constitution says: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". The focus is on this foundational legal document not the legal system in general. I have provided the Indonesian Constitution. No such statement exists. This mistake is indicative of a general pattern. You seem to want to argue things beyond the actual issue at hand.
I have been signing a form, stating that I belong to one of the approved religions, before I am allowed to reside in Indonesia.
Yes, as a tourist you don't get the question hence it's incorrect to say that you have to believe if you are entering Indonesia.
The laws in Indonesia is sometimes strange. For example, in the provinces of Kalimantan you are not allowed to have anything with a pressure higher than 1 bar. It's a very old law created to stop home made liqour production. There are heaps of strange laws. I closed down a factory with that law as an excuse.
Another old law I used my self in court, which took everyone with surprise, was the law that says that a foreign citizen residing in Indonesia need to have a travel permit if he leaves the community to go to another community. With this I could refuse appear in a corrupt local court and forced the case to appear in Jakarta, which was less corrupt (and they knew me) and I won the case.
I do have problems coming up with the legal text in English. I have the Indonesian text here in a book in front of me. Anyway, I don't expect you to have the faith in me and accept that I am answering your question truthfully, therefore I lack the evidence...... ~:grouphug:
You state below in your post that the answer might be a lie, we don't know that. This means that you can practice the religon without believe in it. Further this means that a practitioner of a religion might be a part of the religion in question in order to participate in the system.
With your own logic, this means that a religions practicioners not necessarily have to have the belief you claim is crucial for a practitioner to be a part of a religion. Your position seems like a contradiction.
The position I have taken is that religiosity is tied to belief. Belief means the subject asserts the reality of some X. A lie is a willed act, a deception. If someone lies about their religious belief: saying they believe when in fact they do not, that means they actually lack belief and have therefore failed to met the conditions for religiosity. Therefore, on a formal level the statement: "religiosity is tied to belief" maintains its integrity. Now, being able to verify a person's belief is a separate matter. As I mentioned before, religion is not science. For practical purposes asking someone their stance is deemed sufficient. Having a final method that eliminates all possibility for error does not exist. One might add the same is the case for science: it can never be definitive, but this does not mean one cannot take a position on some matter i.e. believing a person when they say they believe in religion X or believing the sun will rise tomorrow.
How do you know the answer on the question is due to belief or coercion ?
If someone answers after having a gun put to their head I would consider that coercion.
Membership in a religion is not based on belief. In order to be a part of a religion you have to go through a series of symbolic gestures or simply be born in to it.
You equal the word religious with having faith and that is not what we are discussing here. A jew is a jew if he is born from a jewish mother. It has been stated before by others in this thread. The child is a jew regardless if it have any faith or not. Also it will not even get a question if it have any faith.
I laid out initially three possible options regarding Jewry: race, culture, religion (meaning a belief system). Now if you argue one is a Jew from birth, that is a fixed status. Their will or behavior is not a factor. The only way to hold that view is to argue "Jew" equals race. The problem is there are black, white, yellow, and brown Jews. There is no racial standard one can appeal to. The whole notion of race is actually a bogus category. One is left with a racist position without support and a claim that probably tells more about the speaker than the subject he would label.
With your logic you make the assumption that all members of a religion are believers. This assumption is not the same as you have to believe to be a member of a religion.
I haven't made an assumption. I have made an assertion. The assertion is "religiosity is tied to belief". Absent belief there is no religiosity. Without religiosity, no attending label has meaning.
I have been signing a form, stating that I belong to one of the approved religions, before I am allowed to reside in Indonesia.
Yes, as a tourist you don't get the question hence it's incorrect to say that you have to believe if you are entering Indonesia.
I do have problems coming up with the legal text in English. I have the Indonesian text here in a book in front of me. Anyway, I don't expect you to have the faith in me and accept that I am answering your question truthfully, therefore I lack the evidence......
Regardless the oddities of Indonesian law, the Constitution does not say: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". That was the point. ~:grouphug:
Colovion
07-23-2005, 19:26
For ethnic clarity sake, perhaps add in "Hebrew Jew" to symbolize an ethnic Jew - other Jews would be belief or culture inspired.
For ethnic clarity sake, perhaps add in "Hebrew Jew" to symbolize an ethnic Jew - other Jews would be belief or culture inspired.
Ethnicity is cultural. If one wants to allow some space for this. I would think deferring to the appropriate region would suffice. For example: Ukrainian Jews, or Ethiopic Jews or Moroccan Jews. This way a religious community can be identified along with its ethnic diversity.
bmolsson
07-24-2005, 12:51
The position I have taken is that religiosity is tied to belief. Belief means the subject asserts the reality of some X. A lie is a willed act, a deception. If someone lies about their religious belief: saying they believe when in fact they do not, that means they actually lack belief and have therefore failed to met the conditions for religiosity. Therefore, on a formal level the statement: "religiosity is tied to belief" maintains its integrity. Now, being able to verify a person's belief is a separate matter. As I mentioned before, religion is not science. For practical purposes asking someone their stance is deemed sufficient. Having a final method that eliminates all possibility for error does not exist. One might add the same is the case for science: it can never be definitive, but this does not mean one cannot take a position on some matter i.e. believing a person when they say they believe in religion X or believing the sun will rise tomorrow.
You return to religiosity. To make it more clear do you agree or disagree with my position that To be a member in a religion your faith is irrelevant.
If someone answers after having a gun put to their head I would consider that coercion.
So you assume that everyone with a gun to their head can't believe in God ??
I laid out initially three possible options regarding Jewry: race, culture, religion (meaning a belief system). Now if you argue one is a Jew from birth, that is a fixed status. Their will or behavior is not a factor. The only way to hold that view is to argue "Jew" equals race. The problem is there are black, white, yellow, and brown Jews. There is no racial standard one can appeal to. The whole notion of race is actually a bogus category. One is left with a racist position without support and a claim that probably tells more about the speaker than the subject he would label.
The attempt to put me in a racist category is low, much lower than what one would expect from you Pindar.
I maintain that jews are members of a religion and that they can be born in to the religion, just like many other religions. The race here is not even on the table, so just stop that speculation.
I haven't made an assumption. I have made an assertion. The assertion is "religiosity is tied to belief". Absent belief there is no religiosity. Without religiosity, no attending label has meaning.
So one can not be a member of a religion without having the belief ?
Regardless the oddities of Indonesian law, the Constitution does not say: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". That was the point. ~:grouphug:
That was not the point at all. I said that entry in to Indonesia required you to be a member of 5 approved religions. I was proven wrong for entry, since the religion issue only comes up for residency. Maybe some reading of some older posts would be in order....
You return to religiosity. To make it more clear do you agree or disagree with my position that To be a member in a religion your faith is irrelevant.
I agree a nation could pass a law saying all citizens are members of religion X. My point is any such legislation would be meaningless as the critical ingredient of any such membership is belief.
So you assume that everyone with a gun to their head can't believe in God ??
I assume anyone with a gun put to their head and told to answer a certain way is being coerced.
The attempt to put me in a racist category is low, much lower than what one would expect from you Pindar.
I maintain that jews are members of a religion and that they can be born in to the religion, just like many other religions. The race here is not even on the table, so just stop that speculation.
Your reaction is misplaced. I am not making a trivial personal attack. I am explaining that Jew status from birth implies a fixed standing. It is fixed because the status is independent of any choice or behavior of the individual. This position would follow the "Jewishness is a race" position. Now this is a view that is not simply the domain of Nazis or other nasty groups. I think many Jews assume this same view. The "a Jew is any born of a Jew mother" is an example. This is an old explanation used within Jewry. I think it is a flawed view. Not only because logically it begs the question, but because it is basically a racist position. As I mentioned early on, I think many oppressed groups assume the language of their oppressors. Therefore if a Jew (or yourself, or any other person) took a "Jew is a race" position, I think it reflects more on the preconceptions of the subject than the object itself: meaning they are buying into a larger, and I think flawed, understanding. I think of the three possible categories to place Jewry in, race is the most problematic. It is problematic because the idea of race is a bankrupt notion. Race is more of a social construct. It isn't really a viable category. I hope that is clear. ~:grouphug:
So one can not be a member of a religion without having the belief ?
Not if the word is to have any independent meaning.
That was not the point at all. I said that entry in to Indonesia required you to be a member of 5 approved religions. I was proven wrong for entry, since the religion issue only comes up for residency. Maybe some reading of some older posts would be in order....
You were wrong about entry into Indonesia. You are also wrong about the Constitution. As far as older posts, note:
In response to my post 182: " Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing."
Post 187: "Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing..."
Then there are:
Post 174: "However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution..."
Post 170: "There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God."
Voigtkampf
07-25-2005, 07:58
Game-set-and-match! :book:
bmolsson
07-25-2005, 13:29
I agree a nation could pass a law saying all citizens are members of religion X. My point is any such legislation would be meaningless as the critical ingredient of any such membership is belief.
Well, it is done and it has been present for most country in the world where a state religion has been used. But I guess all those nations where wrong.....
I assume anyone with a gun put to their head and told to answer a certain way is being coerced.
You admit the assumption, now change the gun with being a part of the family, allowed in to school and getting a civil servant job. You will pretty soon have taken away most of the free will we have around a religious society. Which leads to the fact that all faith is forced upon.....
Your reaction is misplaced. I am not making a trivial personal attack. I am explaining that Jew status from birth implies a fixed standing. It is fixed because the status is independent of any choice or behavior of the individual. This position would follow the "Jewishness is a race" position. Now this is a view that is not simply the domain of Nazis or other nasty groups. I think many Jews assume this same view. The "a Jew is any born of a Jew mother" is an example. This is an old explanation used within Jewry. I think it is a flawed view. Not only because logically it begs the question, but because it is basically a racist position. As I mentioned early on, I think many oppressed groups assume the language of their oppressors. Therefore if a Jew (or yourself, or any other person) took a "Jew is a race" position, I think it reflects more on the preconceptions of the subject than the object itself: meaning they are buying into a larger, and I think flawed, understanding. I think of the three possible categories to place Jewry in, race is the most problematic. It is problematic because the idea of race is a bankrupt notion. Race is more of a social construct. It isn't really a viable category. I hope that is clear. ~:grouphug:
So the jews are wrong about themselves.
My position is that more or less all religions have most of their members born in to the religion. For some reasons you don't find muslims in Utah and Lutherans in Mekka. Being a member of a religion is NOT a race, it's still a religion.
Your "race" explanation is a creation to fit your argumentation.
Not if the word is to have any independent meaning.
So that is a NO ?
You were wrong about entry into Indonesia. You are also wrong about the Constitution. As far as older posts, note:
In response to my post 182: " Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing."
Post 187: "Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing..."
Then there are:
Post 174: "However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution..."
Post 170: "There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God."
The first article in Pancasila says so. The laws of immigration as well as the domestic laws lists the 5 approved religions. The ministry of religion decree instructions on it. There are some local laws as well determining rules on conversion and intermarriage. Currently there are several scholars on trial for preaching for a not approved form of Islam in Indonesia, based on the laws above. They have tried to use these laws on Abu Bakar Bashyir to silence his terrorism ambitions.
Game-set-and-match! :book:
Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.
Well, it is done and it has been present for most country in the world where a state religion has been used. But I guess all those nations where wrong.....
Quite right. Law cannot create belief. To assume it can is to misunderstand the nature of law.
You admit the assumption, now change the gun with being a part of the family, allowed in to school and getting a civil servant job. You will pretty soon have taken away most of the free will we have around a religious society. Which leads to the fact that all faith is forced upon.....
So, the argument here is that because one can conceive of coercion then all faith is in fact coerced? This doesn't follow. It is logically incoherent. Whatever pressures may or may not exist, or whatever oppression may or may not exist: belief remains subject dependant.
So the jews are wrong about themselves.
Those Jews who believe Jewry is confined to a race, yes: they are wrong. As I mentioned before: there are black, white, brown and yellow Jews. This alone would mean the notion is incoherent. Further, my position is that race as a category is deeply flawed as there doesn't seem to be any race exclusive traits that can be identified.
My position is that more or less all religions have most of their members born in to the religion. For some reasons you don't find muslims in Utah and Lutherans in Mekka. Being a member of a religion is NOT a race, it's still a religion.
Actually, there are several lovely mosques in Utah.
If you say someone is born into a faith, you need to consider fully what that means. For example if a Muslim couple had a child, and the child was given up for adoption, for whatever reason and whisked away to another place where the adopting couple is Catholic: is the baby still Muslim? What if the child grew up a devout Catholic and actually become a priest, is the young man still Muslim? What if the man, rose in the ecclesiastical ranks to one day be pronounced the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope then a Muslim? I think this illustrates in simple terms the flaws in the thinking.
Your "race" explanation is a creation to fit your argumentation.
I don't think so. I haven't suggested any odd definitions of race. Race is taken to be a non-chosen part of identity: something one has from birth to death. It is considered physically set. This is different from culture and beliefs that are constructs and thus changable.
So that is a NO ?
Yes, that would be a no.
The first article in Pancasila says so. The laws of immigration as well as the domestic laws lists the 5 approved religions. The ministry of religion decree instructions on it. There are some local laws as well determining rules on conversion and intermarriage. Currently there are several scholars on trial for preaching for a not approved form of Islam in Indonesia, based on the laws above. They have tried to use these laws on Abu Bakar Bashyir to silence his terrorism ambitions.
Are you saying this Pancasila is the Constitution? If so, again, I appeal to the text: where in the text does it say: "one must believe in God to live in the country"? I mentioned before I am not concerned with lesser legal views.
bmolsson
07-26-2005, 02:17
Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.
No I don't. I can't see why the fact on a religion like Judaism is going to be "defeated" by your word games. Jews are jews, regardless if they have the faith or not, not because I say so, because they say so themselves.
They have been oppressed enough and have their own right to their own identity.....
Note: Sarcasm intended....
bmolsson
07-26-2005, 02:36
Quite right. Law cannot create belief. To assume it can is to misunderstand the nature of law.
Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....
So, the argument here is that because one can conceive of coercion then all faith is in fact coerced? This doesn't follow. It is logically incoherent. Whatever pressures may or may not exist, or whatever oppression may or may not exist: belief remains subject dependant.
Not that is not the argument. You could conclude that I am arguing that all religion is coerced in a way or another. My whole point is that religions are not based on faith, they are only using it as an argument for their power structure.
So my position has nothing to do with belief or faith. My position is based on the reality of today and in history.
Even though, since history and reality has nothing to do with this, according to you, I guess I have no more arguments.
Those Jews who believe Jewry is confined to a race, yes: they are wrong. As I mentioned before: there are black, white, brown and yellow Jews. This alone would mean the notion is incoherent. Further, my position is that race as a category is deeply flawed as there doesn't seem to be any race exclusive traits that can be identified.
You are the one that brings race in to this discussion, not me. I don't understand why you do so either, but I will not make any conclusions.
Actually, there are several lovely mosques in Utah.
If you say someone is born into a faith, you need to consider fully what that means. For example if a Muslim couple had a child, and the child was given up for adoption, for whatever reason and whisked away to another place where the adopting couple is Catholic: is the baby still Muslim? What if the child grew up a devout Catholic and actually become a priest, is the young man still Muslim? What if the man, rose in the ecclesiastical ranks to one day be pronounced the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope then a Muslim? I think this illustrates in simple terms the flaws in the thinking.
The problem you are describing is treated as a "rebirth" in most religions. Also to note, conversion is not accepted in most religions. It is seen as a serious crime and have created more wars and sectarian conflicts than you and I can imagine. Actually it is here the "honor murders" comes in play.
Surely "honor murders" and sectarian conflicts are flaws, but they are sadly enough facts that can not be ignored. Religions are in many things flawed and irrational, but that is not really the discussion.
Bottom line, religions are a political system used to create a power structure, often based on oppression, and it has no interest what so ever in your logics, as long as it doesn't serve their purpose.
I am really surprised that an educated man like you don't know this ??
I don't think so. I haven't suggested any odd definitions of race. Race is taken to be a non-chosen part of identity: something one has from birth to death. It is considered physically set. This is different from culture and beliefs that are constructs and thus changable.
I didn't say that you suggested an odd definition of race. I have no problems with what you say above either. I did say that you used race to fit your line of argument. Wouldn't surprise me if it also was an attempt to drag the whole discussion in to racist debate, which I would consider be low.
Yes, that would be a no.
:bow: No further comments.
Are you saying this Pancasila is the Constitution? If so, again, I appeal to the text: where in the text does it say: "one must believe in God to live in the country"? I mentioned before I am not concerned with lesser legal views.
A correct translation would be "The people of Indonesia must believe in one God only." There are whole books written on the subject.
The critics are having a problem with this since Buddism and Hinduism is allowed religions as well, beside Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism.
The communist party was banned in 1965 due to they had atheism written in their program. Around 500,000 where murdered due to this during this time as well. But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:
Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....
There is no "e" at the end of my name.
I don't have a science, but I do understand science.
More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.
My whole point is that religions are not based on faith, they are only using it as an argument for their power structure.
Power structure could be interpreted as ecclesiastical or political authority. Regardless, of which you are thinking of there are simple counter-examples which I have given before: one, Christian Anchorites. These are hermits that are not tied to any organization or state. Two, Hindu forest ascetics: like their Christian counterparts these mystics have no connection to any of organized body.
So my position has nothing to do with belief or faith. My position is based on the reality of today and in history.
Even though, since history and reality has nothing to do with this, according to you, I guess I have no more arguments.
I am happy to discuss history. The two examples just given are historical. I am also happy to discuss reality. The reality is religion is based on belief. This is demonstrated not only in the rise of most religious movements, but also in conversions, and the devotions of practitioners world wide. Now, you are not a believer, and your exposure to faith appears based on meeting a standard so you could wed. It appears you think that because religion was simply a means for you, it is the same for others. This is a mistake.
You are the one that brings race in to this discussion, not me. I don't understand why you do so either, but I will not make any conclusions.
I brought race into the discussion because it is relevant to the thread which is determining Jew status. Race has been a common way of understanding Jewry. Your own view seems to parallel that position if you hold that Jewishness is something from birth.
The problem you are describing is treated as a "rebirth" in most religions. Also to note, conversion is not accepted in most religions. It is seen as a serious crime and have created more wars and sectarian conflicts than you and I can imagine. Actually it is here the "honor murders" comes in play.
Surely "honor murders" and sectarian conflicts are flaws, but they are sadly enough facts that can not be ignored. Religions are in many things flawed and irrational, but that is not really the discussion.
Bottom line, religions are a political system used to create a power structure, often based on oppression, and it has no interest what so ever in your logics, as long as it doesn't serve their purpose.
I am really surprised that an educated man like you don't know this ??
Conversion exists in most religions. This idea of "rebirth" does not: at least not in the sense you seem to be using it. A child born to a Muslim couple and adopted and raised Catholic hasn't undergone any rebirth. Physically the child is the same. Emotionally and intellectually there does not appear to be any prior stance so there is no "re", no prefix, to apply.
Regarding conversion: conversion is accepted by most religions. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism all accept conversion. Islam also accepts conversion. Now there is a penchant in Islam about leaving once in the faith: nasty business about killing heretics, but this has no standing in the West where I know several former Muslims who have embraced other faiths.
Religions cannot be considered simply political. I have given two counter-examples above.
I didn't say that you suggested an odd definition of race. I have no problems with what you say above either. I did say that you used race to fit your line of argument. Wouldn't surprise me if it also was an attempt to drag the whole discussion in to racist debate, which I would consider be low.
I don't understand this later part of the post. Race has been a featured point of the thread from the beginning. It is one of the possible ways of understanding Jewry.
A correct translation would be "The people of Indonesia must believe in one God only." There are whole books written on the subject.
The critics are having a problem with this since Buddhism and Hinduism is allowed religions as well, beside Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism.
The communist party was banned in 1965 due to they had atheism written in their program. Around 500,000 where murdered due to this during this time as well. But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:
I checked two versions of the Indonesian Constitution. Example 1 (http://www.indonesiamission-ny.org/issuebaru/HumanRight/1945cons.htm) Example 2 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tmRZYHX6x30J:www.gtzsfdm.or.id/documents/laws_n_regs/con_decree/Const_Law_1945.pdf+indonesian+constitution+text&hl=en) Both read:
Chapter 11 Article 29
1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.
2. The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.
Point 1) seems clearly to refer to the government and the direction of national law. It does not refer to individual belief.
Originally Posted by Pindar
Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.
No I don't. I can't see why the fact on a religion like Judaism is going to be "defeated" by your word games. Jews are jews, regardless if they have the faith or not, not because I say so, because they say so themselves.
They have been oppressed enough and have their own right to their own identity.....
Your reply doesn't match my post. Your positional failures have nothing to do with Judaism's success.
Jews are Jews, but it is not just a circular concept. It has real meaning. Determining that meaning was the point of the thread. My position is that the only consistent understanding is tied to belief.
Voigtkampf
07-26-2005, 08:18
Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....
But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:
Bitter sarcasm and little snide attacks are no substitute for good arguments, and no honour sprouts from such course of action.
That is not the way of greatness.
bmolsson
07-26-2005, 09:18
Bitter sarcasm and little snide attacks are no substitute for good arguments, and no honour sprouts from such course of action.
That is not the way of greatness.
I am sorry. It was not my intention. I have to admit that the race insinuation made me a bit dissappointed on Pindar, hence the sarcasm. Will not happen again.... :embarassed:
bmolsson
07-26-2005, 09:20
There is no "e" at the end of my name.
I don't have a science, but I do understand science.
More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.
Power structure could be interpreted as ecclesiastical or political authority. Regardless, of which you are thinking of there are simple counter-examples which I have given before: one, Christian Anchorites. These are hermits that are not tied to any organization or state. Two, Hindu forest ascetics: like their Christian counterparts these mystics have no connection to any of organized body.
I am happy to discuss history. The two examples just given are historical. I am also happy to discuss reality. The reality is religion is based on belief. This is demonstrated not only in the rise of most religious movements, but also in conversions, and the devotions of practitioners world wide. Now, you are not a believer, and your exposure to faith appears based on meeting a standard so you could wed. It appears you think that because religion was simply a means for you, it is the same for others. This is a mistake.
I brought race into the discussion because it is relevant to the thread which is determining Jew status. Race has been a common way of understanding Jewry. Your own view seems to parallel that position if you hold that Jewishness is something from birth.
Conversion exists in most religions. This idea of "rebirth" does not: at least not in the sense you seem to be using it. A child born to a Muslim couple and adopted and raised Catholic hasn't undergone any rebirth. Physically the child is the same. Emotionally and intellectually there does not appear to be any prior stance so there is no "re", no prefix, to apply.
Regarding conversion: conversion is accepted by most religions. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism all accept conversion. Islam also accepts conversion. Now there is a penchant in Islam about leaving once in the faith: nasty business about killing heretics, but this has no standing in the West where I know several former Muslims who have embraced other faiths.
Religions cannot be considered simply political. I have given two counter-examples above.
I don't understand this later part of the post. Race has been a featured point of the thread from the beginning. It is one of the possible ways of understanding Jewry.
I checked two versions of the Indonesian Constitution. Example 1 (http://www.indonesiamission-ny.org/issuebaru/HumanRight/1945cons.htm) Example 2 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tmRZYHX6x30J:www.gtzsfdm.or.id/documents/laws_n_regs/con_decree/Const_Law_1945.pdf+indonesian+constitution+text&hl=en) Both read:
Chapter 11 Article 29
1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.
2. The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.
Point 1) seems clearly to refer to the government and the direction of national law. It does not refer to individual belief.
Your reply doesn't match my post. Your positional failures have nothing to do with Judaism's success.
Jews are Jews, but it is not just a circular concept. It has real meaning. Determining that meaning was the point of the thread. My position is that the only consistent understanding is tied to belief.
Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:
ICantSpellDawg
07-26-2005, 16:54
:stop:
Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:
:medievalcheers:
man, hes good
if i actually disagreed with pindar, i dont know what i would do
probably stay in college for 15 more years and then send him a letter
Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:
"Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well or about the divine to people who are restricted by their concepts?"
Alas, I have failed to free you from your shackles.
Go in peace. :bow:
Voigtkampf
07-27-2005, 06:20
I am sorry. It was not my intention. I have to admit that the race insinuation made me a bit dissappointed on Pindar, hence the sarcasm. Will not happen again.... :embarassed:
Thus you redeem yourself with this, and you glimpse the shine of greatness. :bow:
Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:
Doh… :stunned:
My comment was “interaction”, and that is partly the reason you give up!?!
Nobody ever told you to stop. I was not the judge in this contest. I don’t have any more jurisdiction in Backroom, my realm is now in Rome MP where there is nothing to do. ~D I just stated my opinion that you were pwned.
Which, in itself, is no shame at all; Pindar-sama is practically unbeatable in debates. He is the person that could proverbially spoke the devil into setting himself on fire.
You should practice your exits more.
bmolsson
07-27-2005, 11:18
You should practice your exits more.
Why ? After all I am a frog...... :bow:
Why ? After all I am a frog...... :bow:
:frog:
Just A Girl
01-25-2006, 15:04
I don't have a science, but I do understand science.
More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.
I just had to say.
A law which stated you must change your beleif's or we burn you alive at the steak, Kind of had a controll over beileif.
So Law can controll beleif.
This thread seems like a long time ago.
Me:
More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.
I just had to say.
A law which stated you must change your beleif's or we burn you alive at the steak, Kind of had a controll over beileif.
So Law can controll beleif.
Hello Just A Girl Im Probably ShambleS,
You seem to be raising a legal issue. I don't think you have thought through your comment. Consider, a law is passed just like you describe: belief X or you burn. Now if we have some -X believer and the authorities come to him and say. "Do you believe X?" "We've heard you don't" Our -X believer could simply lie. An edict, regardless of content, cannot change the psyche. The
-X believer could lie to save his skin, or have an epiphany and embrace X but the law itself cannot create the belief.
Consider a stronger example from what you gave. The law demands not only belief but some physical demonstration of belief: say all must be baptized into the Government's faith. Even here individuals may say they believe X and are even baptized but remain non-believers in their heart. Two simple historical examples are Jews in Spain, from the late 15th Century, who outwardly embraced Christianity, but remained closet Jews and Japanese Christians from the early 17th Century who were forced to physically demostrate their rejection of their religion (the fumie was used where suspected Christians were to step on pictures of Christ or other religious paraphernalia to demonstrate their rejection or disbelief) but nonetheless remained closet Christians all the way through to the Modern Era.
Vladimir
01-25-2006, 22:48
The "Jews" have the rather exceptional position of a people who have survived and thrived for so long as to be identified by many characteristics. As a student of history, I deeply respect that.
Just A Girl
01-26-2006, 01:10
This thread seems like a long time ago.
Hello Just A Girl Im Probably ShambleS,
You seem to be raising a legal issue. I don't think you have thought through your comment. Consider, a law is passed just like you describe: belief X or you burn. Now if we have some -X believer and the authorities come to him and say. "Do you believe X?" "We've heard you don't" Our -X believer could simply lie. An edict, regardless of content, cannot change the psyche. The
-X believer could lie to save his skin, or have an epiphany and embrace X but the law itself cannot create the belief.
Consider a stronger example from what you gave. The law demands not only belief but some physical demonstration of belief: say all must be baptized into the Government's faith. Even here individuals may say they believe X and are even baptized but remain non-believers in their heart. Two simple historical examples are Jews in Spain, from the late 15th Century, who outwardly embraced Christianity, but remained closet Jews and Japanese Christians from the early 17th Century who were forced to physically demostrate their rejection of their religion (the fumie was used where suspected Christians were to step on pictures of Christ or other religious paraphernalia to demonstrate their rejection or disbelief) but nonetheless remained closet Christians all the way through to the Modern Era.
But physically opressing people from preforming the rituals accosiated with their beileifs is still Controlling beleif.
Pagans are a good example of Lwaws controlling religion.
Although there are still some. Most were converted thanx to laws making paganism punishable by death.
Soulforged
01-26-2006, 01:14
I'm curious as to why do you're so interested in this topic Pindar? I mean, do you see a problem with the basic and primary correlation between the concept "jew" and the religion "judaism", to me there's nothing to argue, or investigate here, the "jew" is a practioner of judaism. Now if we go to the canons of this religions, and exclusively looking at it from the point of view of the respective religious institutions, once a christian, always a christian, once a jew, always a jew, so the two categories don't seem exclusive to me. I wonder why they appear exclusive to you (refering to your first post).
But physically opressing people from preforming the rituals accosiated with their beileifs is still Controlling beleif.
Pagans are a good example of Lwaws controlling religion.
Although there are still some. Most were converted thanx to laws making paganism punishable by death.
No, physically oppressing people as in proscribing what rituals they may perform impacts behavior not belief.
I'm curious as to why do you're so interested in this topic Pindar? I mean, do you see a problem with the basic and primary correlation between the concept "jew" and the religion "judaism", to me there's nothing to argue, or investigate here, the "jew" is a practioner of judaism. Now if we go to the canons of this religions, and exclusively looking at it from the point of view of the respective religious institutions, once a christian, always a christian, once a jew, always a jew, so the two categories don't seem exclusive to me. I wonder why they appear exclusive to you (refering to your first post).
Hello,
I'm not so interested in this topic, but I do think its interesting how some use and understand the term. As I mentioned in the first post there appear to be three basic standards: Jew as a racial designate, Jew as a ethnic designate and Jew as a religious designate. I think the first two are incoherent for the reasons I described. I think the third is the only way to understand Jewish status in a coherent way.
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.
ICantSpellDawg
01-26-2006, 03:12
Hello,
I'm not so interested in this topic, but I do think its interesting how some use and understand the term. As I mentioned in the first post there appear to be three basic standards: Jew as a racial designate, Jew as a ethnic designate and Jew as a religious designate. I think the first two are incoherent for the reasons I described. I think the third is the only way to understand Jewish status in a coherent way.
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.
mother of god, i love you. welcome back.
mother of god, i love you. welcome back.
:kiss2:
Just A Girl
01-26-2006, 03:30
so are jewish people who arent "jewish" as in religion still technically jewish?
or are they just saying there jewish trying to play the old sympathy trick?
Alexanderofmacedon
01-26-2006, 04:28
Jew: Some one very, very rich
~;) ~:cheers:
Proletariat
01-26-2006, 04:56
Two classy comments back to back. Real nice, guys (or it[s]).
Alexanderofmacedon
01-26-2006, 06:16
Two classy comments back to back. Real nice, guys (or it[s]).
It's called a joke sheesh...:sweatdrop:
so are jewish people who arent "jewish" as in religion still technically jewish?
or are they just saying there jewish trying to play the old sympathy trick?
Or because they're proud of their heritage, but see the issues surrounding their religion like a great deal of other people do, and choose not to take the religion of their people to heart.
so are jewish people who arent "jewish" as in religion still technically jewish?
No. (An X that is -X is -X.)
or are they just saying there jewish trying to play the old sympathy trick?
Earlier (much earlier) in this thread I explained how many minorities adopt the rhetoric of their oppressors. Blacks in the U.S. are a perfect example. I think the same holds for many self identifying Jews. Such labels however are usually non-critical.
AntiochusIII
01-26-2006, 11:25
Perhaps the short answer of this question would be something as simple as "it depends" and the "authority" that decides one's Jewishness be left to the individuals themselves.
At least, that is my thought anyway. The actual use of the word ranges in context and purpose, and the discussion has covered enough ground that I have nothing more to add.
Bar Kochba
01-26-2006, 12:37
im a chasidic jew part of lubavitch and wat i consider a jew is somone born from a jewish mother who was born from a jewish mother who was born from a jewish mother and so on unless they convert through a proper orthodox system it takes maybe 3 years. if your jewish and you convert to another religon you are still a jewish a person
Perhaps the short answer of this question would be something as simple as "it depends" and the "authority" that decides one's Jewishness be left to the individuals themselves.
If that were the standard then the label has no meaning. If the Pope declared he were Jewish would this be a meaningful statement? Unless, one can answer in what way and that way is something other than: "I can decide myself without any other explanation" then the term becomes vacuous.
im a chasidic jew part of lubavitch and wat i consider a jew is somone born from a jewish mother who was born from a jewish mother who was born from a jewish mother and so on unless they convert through a proper orthodox system it takes maybe 3 years. if your jewish and you convert to another religon you are still a jewish a person
Yes, that is a standard explanation. I mentioned this in the thread's very first post. Unfortunately, it begs the question.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.