The Ultimate Poll!

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-22-2005, 18:55
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

So research on the Bible or the Quaran is actually a physical science in your view ??

No, but the object of study is a physical thing. Physical science or Hard Science is the study of nature.

Quote:

It's a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not the core.

It's a theory based on social science, hence it is falsifiable.

You must be referring to the Big Bang.... ~D Never the less, the deity does not necessarily have to be metaphysical. There you have the large difference. You assume that a supreme being or an intelligent design is metaphysical. I claim that it might not be that.
Further more, the creationism itself doesn't identify the deity and you will find the same theory with different deities.....

I have put three of your quotes together. Your idea seems to be that Creationism is a science for two basic reasons: one, it makes appeals to social science. Two, the Creator might be other than a metaphysical object. Now I think I have given fairly straight forward rebuttals to both of these approaches. Let me try again. We have laid out some simple criteria for science which you appear to agree with. One of those was verification and the another falsifiability. Now under a Creationism schema what is the verification or falsifiability standard? The view doesn't appear able to answer either question without begging the question. How does one prove or falsify the idea the universe has a Creator?

All Creationists I have ever met have understood the approach centers around a Divine appeal. We also noted this in the Wikipedia citation. You seem to have a different standard and believe the Creator could be included in the physical universe. The problem with this unique approach is logical. The position is an attempt to explain what 'is', the material realm, the physical universe. If the creative source is itself an object of creation then you have failed to provide an explanation for the object under scrutiny and again beg the question. This is why I said the view is incoherent.

Quote:

Religion is a legislation and a party system. It's origin is the community and nothing else.

I have already demonstrated this notion is false. None of the major faiths' beginnings were political. In fact, the source of several was an individual:

Buddhism: The Buddha
Judaism: Moses (or Abraham)
Christianity: Jesus
Islam: Muhammad

Hinduism's origins is more amorphous and one could argue some kind of community standard except for the fact there is a long tradition of asceticism and the Forest Tradition which is individualistic.

Quote:

The whole European feodal system is grown out of Christianity. Claiming that Christianity doesn't have a political affiliation is absurd.

Do you mean the Feudal system? If so, there are a couple problems with this view: one, feudalism was tied to military obligation and was not strictly speaking Christian concept (though the Lords and Bishops etc. involved were no doubt Christian). But, even were one to grant your whole view here, the other problem is Medieval Western Europe was not the source of Christianity nor its full representation. Christianity predates the Medieval Period and extended beyond Western Christianity.

So you are clear: the above attempted point would suggest you might not be. I have not argued there is no or hasn't been any theocratic element in Christianity or other faiths. Quite the contrary, what I have argued is that any attending theocratic tradition is not inherent to the religion. I demonstrated this both through historical appeal and in the case of Christianity to the precepts of the faith. I could do the same with other faiths, but one counter-example is enough to show the view is incorrect.

Quote:

It's not a question of agree with Shahada, it's a only a question of obey it. Your faith is irrelevant as long as you obey. That is religion at its best.

I know Islam does have some history of forced conversion, but most Muslims would argue that was not the standard. It is not the standard in other faith traditions either.

Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
No one is born a Christian.

I was.

If so then you are a part of a new Christianity here to for unknown in the world. The standard to become Christian traditionally involves a baptismal rite. For some sects this is done while still a baby.

Quote:

I will tell that to my dear friend the Rabbi..... :bow:

Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history.

Quote:

Yes, Judaism is a religion, yes, you are born a jew and yes, you will always be considered a jew.

One can only hold that view if one buys into the rhetoric of racism which is flawed. Judaism is a religion. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore belief is the primary element.

Quote:

If you don't accept Pancasila you are not allowed to enter. Nowadays, since red China started to invest in infrastructure in Indonesia, nobody will check it. Apply for a residential Visa and you tell them that you don't belong to one of the approved religions, you will be denied entry. It has been tested.

You didn't mention residence, you said one cannot enter the country. This would mean an atheist could not enter Indonesia. Are you backing off that claim?

Quote:

No ?

Definately so.
06-23-2005, 07:24
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have put three of your quotes together. Your idea seems to be that Creationism is a science for two basic reasons: one, it makes appeals to social science. Two, the Creator might be other than a metaphysical object. Now I think I have given fairly straight forward rebuttals to both of these approaches. Let me try again. We have laid out some simple criteria for science which you appear to agree with. One of those was verification and the another falsifiability. Now under a Creationism schema what is the verification or falsifiability standard? The view doesn't appear able to answer either question without begging the question. How does one prove or falsify the idea the universe has a Creator?

The theory of creation is based upon fables, literature and traditions where evidence from history, literature studies and human behavior verify and of course can be falsified the theory. In natural science there are evidence for a creation as well, some also used in evolution. It's here important to note that creationism doesn't exclued evolution and vice versa.

The creator is in a similar way verified. The orginial creatrion theory did not include universum as we know it today and what was "outside the natural spehere" are today included in it. There is nowhere stated that the creator would not be a part of this universum.

For example, there are several documented sightings of UFO, today as well as through history. What was this really ? An alien ? Higher force ?
Today several sects have replaced the traditional deity with an alien super race. Regardless who or what the creator was or might be, the fact remains that there are scientific evidence you can build a theory on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

All Creationists I have ever met have understood the approach centers around a Divine appeal. We also noted this in the Wikipedia citation. You seem to have a different standard and believe the Creator could be included in the physical universe. The problem with this unique approach is logical. The position is an attempt to explain what 'is', the material realm, the physical universe. If the creative source is itself an object of creation then you have failed to provide an explanation for the object under scrutiny and again beg the question. This is why I said the view is incoherent.

Again you base your logic on your own physical capacity. What you note as a "natural sphere" is not at all given to be the limit to the metaphysical. Universe is without borders. It expands in to eternity. This is the scientific theory on the size of universum. But in natural science it would not be possible. There has to be a measurable beginning and end. If there now are a limit beyond our current capacity, what would be beyond this limit etc.
Imagine our universe being somebody else molecular system.
I maintain that there is a possibility that our world as we know it is a creation by a more intelligent force. The possibility might be small, but should not be ignored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have already demonstrated this notion is false. None of the major faiths' beginnings were political. In fact, the source of several was an individual:

Buddhism: The Buddha
Judaism: Moses (or Abraham)
Christianity: Jesus
Islam: Muhammad

Hinduism's origins is more amorphous and one could argue some kind of community standard except for the fact there is a long tradition of asceticism and the Forest Tradition which is individualistic.

Buddha was no religion. Jesus was actually a jew. Muhammad and Moses where political leaders if anything.
Again your fundamentalistic view on faith misses the actual content of religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Do you mean the Feudal system? If so, there are a couple problems with this view: one, feudalism was tied to military obligation and was not strictly speaking Christian concept (though the Lords and Bishops etc. involved were no doubt Christian). But, even were one to grant your whole view here, the other problem is Medieval Western Europe was not the source of Christianity nor its full representation. Christianity predates the Medieval Period and extended beyond Western Christianity.

So you are clear: the above attempted point would suggest you might not be. I have not argued there is no or hasn't been any theocratic element in Christianity or other faiths. Quite the contrary, what I have argued is that any attending theocratic tradition is not inherent to the religion. I demonstrated this both through historical appeal and in the case of Christianity to the precepts of the faith. I could do the same with other faiths, but one counter-example is enough to show the view is incorrect.

The feudal system was using Christian faith as a tool to create a structure in a society. The whole western Christianity is nothing more than a political and economical structure. The faith is irrelevant for the structure itself. Today the faith is replaced with a voting system instead, hence the faith is not necessary to create a structure of leadership.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I know Islam does have some history of forced conversion, but most Muslims would argue that was not the standard. It is not the standard in other faith traditions either.

Islam is a way of life. It's a set of rules that are enforced upon the subjects. In a secular society with muslims, nobody is forced to anything. In a islamic society everyone is forced to follow this set of rules. Plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.

That was not very nice to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If so then you are a part of a new Christianity here to for unknown in the world. The standard to become Christian traditionally involves a baptismal rite. For some sects this is done while still a baby.

My birth certificate states Protestant. My 4 childrens birth certificates states Islam. Again, your thing for faith takes you from the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history.

This was pretty racist, don't you think.

A friend of mine (jewish) wanted to marry a Hindu girl. She couldn't convert to Judaism, but he could become a hindu. He now have 2 religion and is happy with that.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

One can only hold that view if one buys into the rhetoric of racism which is flawed. Judaism is a religion. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore belief is the primary element.

I never disputed that Judaism is a religion. Also the views are from Judaism itself. If your view is that Judaism is a racist religion, it stands for you.
Faith is not the core in any religion. There are not control or enforcement on the faith as such, while there are a long range of other rules on your daily life, strictly enforced in most religions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

You didn't mention residence, you said one cannot enter the country. This would mean an atheist could not enter Indonesia. Are you backing off that claim?

No. I suggest you try to apply for a Visa to enter Indonesia and attach a letter claiming your atheism.
Currently you only have to answer the question on religion in a residence Visa, since they want tourists to enter. Still the fact remains that if you don't believe in Pancasila, you are not welcome on Indonesian soil.
06-24-2005, 00:19
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The theory of creation is based upon fables, literature and traditions where evidence from history, literature studies and human behavior verify and of course can be falsified the theory. In natural science there are evidence for a creation as well, some also used in evolution. It's here important to note that creationism doesn't exclued evolution and vice versa.

The creator is in a similar way verified. The orginial creatrion theory did not include universum as we know it today and what was "outside the natural spehere" are today included in it. There is nowhere stated that the creator would not be a part of this universum.

I think you have misunderstood the full import of what I wrote. A fable or literary appeal is not a proof that the subject matter, in this case a Creator, actually exists. If someone argued: "God created the world" as a scientific point and was then challenged, appealing to the Bible or Koran would not be a proof God exists. Creationism fails to meet a scientific standard on this point.

Actually the Genesis account (which perhaps should be our focus, given Creationism advocates are basically Christian groups) does make a distinction between the source of creation and the product:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Here Deity is clearly distinguished from the creation and that creation is the natural order and all that surrounds man.

As far as whether a Creator can be contained inside his creation. This is a logical point. It is important only if you recognize logic. Creationism is attempting to work within a rational milieu so they would have to recognize this distinction.

Quote:

For example, there are several documented sightings of UFO, today as well as through history. What was this really ? An alien ? Higher force ?
Today several sects have replaced the traditional deity with an alien super race. Regardless who or what the creator was or might be, the fact remains that there are scientific evidence you can build a theory on.

UFO's being God is problematic for the reasons mentioned above and explained before. Further, this is not the position of Creationism proponents. If this is your view that you want to put forward or some modification say: that aliens created the earth, life on earth etc. that's OK, but it needs to be distinguished from the standard theory. Further, if you want to be taken seriously then you would need to met the truth standard of all scientific theories namely: verification. Where is the proof? Seeing a light in the sky does not equal a proof that aliens created the world.

Quote:

Again you base your logic on your own physical capacity. What you note as a "natural sphere" is not at all given to be the limit to the metaphysical. Universe is without borders. It expands in to eternity. This is the scientific theory on the size of universum. But in natural science it would not be possible. There has to be a measurable beginning and end. If there now are a limit beyond our current capacity, what would be beyond this limit etc.
Imagine our universe being somebody else molecular system.
I maintain that there is a possibility that our world as we know it is a creation by a more intelligent force. The possibility might be small, but should not be ignored.

Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.

Quote:

Buddha was no religion. Jesus was actually a jew. Muhammad and Moses where political leaders if anything.
Again your fundamentalistic view on faith misses the actual content of religions.

Most people would classify Buddhism as a religion. If you want to argue this was not The Buddha's intent that may be an interesting point to look into, but for our purposes it is irrelevant. He is considered the founder of the movement and he did not create a theocracy.

Jesus was a Jew, this does not change the fact Early Christianity was not a theocracy.

Moses assumed his prophetic mantle prior to the Exodus and it was his second, Joshua who actually founded the Jewish homeland. Further, while Moses is typically seen as the founder of Judaism, we should note this would not be his own point of view. He claimed to be a representative of Deity as was his ancestor Joseph and would trace it, at the very least, all the way back to Abraham who was the source of the Hebrew Covenant (the Abrahamic Covenant) from which their identity was drawn. Abraham didn't form a theocracy either.

Muhammad did become a political leader, but as I already noted: his prophetic call was prior to his flight from Mecca.

Now I think one could argue that Judaism and Islam have nearly from their traditional beginnings been theocratic, but the charge was that all religion is so, This is not the case. There is also the bugbear that both faiths exist in present non-theocratic settings and there are faithful advocates that claim this is in keeping with the central teachings of the faith.

Quote:

The feudal system was using Christian faith as a tool to create a structure in a society. The whole western Christianity is nothing more than a political and economical structure. The faith is irrelevant for the structure itself. Today the faith is replaced with a voting system instead, hence the faith is not necessary to create a structure of leadership.

The feudal system is not Christianity.

The whole of Western Christianity is not simply political and economic, not only because this branded "Western Christianity" is not the source of the faith, but also because the very tenets of the belief extend beyond and reject the base principles you charge. You may want to read St. Augustine's "City of God". Augustine is perhaps the major thinker of Western Christianity and one of the central thrusts of the work is exactly counter to your understanding.

Quote:

Islam is a way of life. It's a set of rules that are enforced upon the subjects. In a secular society with muslims, nobody is forced to anything. In a islamic society everyone is forced to follow this set of rules. Plain and simple.

If you restrict the discussion to a theocracy: "an Islamic society" then Islam is going to dictate the "rules" by definition. However, this doesn't really fit with the point surrounding the Shahada. Islam did not typically force conversion. Noting the politics of the various Caliphates demonstrates the basic point. While political control was maintained that was separate from individual conversion. Should one wish to become Muslim agreement with the Shahada was/is fundamental. This is a pronouncement of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.

That was not very nice to say.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to offend. It simply seems to me that your general views on religion are not very charitable. You seem to assign the basest of intent to religious questions.

Quote:

My birth certificate states Protestant. My 4 childrens birth certificates states Islam. Again, your thing for faith takes you from the real world.

Christian communities do not typically determine their membership based off of a birth certificate. They determine one's Christian status off of a rite (baptism). Further, most democratic states do not list any religious affiliation on birth certificates. It appears you judge the whole off of a particular. Now ask yourself: did the government assign you to be Christian? Probably not, my guess is they asked your parents who said he is faith X. This was marked down for whatever government purpose they have. I imagine if you really were Christian your parents took you to a church and had you baptized at some point. Latter on, I guess you decided to be Muslim. Unless this was forced on you, I can only assume this is because you thought Islam was correct. Now you seem to be an agnostic, this again is because of your views about the nature of God. These basic identifications suggest a willed act either to join or sustain some belief system. If you didn't agree with any of these views then I don't think you should be held as part of that group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history

This was pretty racist, don't you think.

I don't know what you mean? Are you talking about "two Jews three opinions"? Well since I've been told that by several Rabbis and other Jews I know, I would say no.

I also don't think being a Jew is a racial catergory so I would say no, again.

Quote:

[I never disputed that Judaism is a religion. Also the views are from Judaism itself. If your view is that Judaism is a racist religion, it stands for you.
Faith is not the core in any religion. There are not control or enforcement on the faith as such, while there are a long range of other rules on your daily life, strictly enforced in most religions.

I don't understand this.

What is your definition of religion?

Quote:

No. I suggest you try to apply for a Visa to enter Indonesia and attach a letter claiming your atheism.
Currently you only have to answer the question on religion in a residence Visa, since they want tourists to enter. Still the fact remains that if you don't believe in Pancasila, you are not welcome on Indonesian soil.

I'm not an atheist.

"Not welcome" and "unable to enter" are not the same. Is it possible for an atheist to legally enter the country? If the government doesn't ask tourists about their faith, that would seem to undercut your view.
06-25-2005, 02:38
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think you have misunderstood the full import of what I wrote. A fable or literary appeal is not a proof that the subject matter, in this case a Creator, actually exists. If someone argued: "God created the world" as a scientific point and was then challenged, appealing to the Bible or Koran would not be a proof God exists. Creationism fails to meet a scientific standard on this point.

Actually the Genesis account (which perhaps should be our focus, given Creationism advocates are basically Christian groups) does make a distinction between the source of creation and the product:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Here Deity is clearly distinguished from the creation and that creation is the natural order and all that surrounds man.

As far as whether a Creator can be contained inside his creation. This is a logical point. It is important only if you recognize logic. Creationism is attempting to work within a rational milieu so they would have to recognize this distinction.

I think you have reached the core of our argument. You assume that God is a metaphysical deity. Assume it's not and the picture changes. Further more heaven today is something totally different from what it was 2000 years ago. Science has evolved, just like the theories it is based upon. My claim is very simple, it is wrong to discount Creationism as a theory based social science. It has flaws and many of its defenders refuse to have a objective view on to it due to their fundamentalistical and fanatical faith. Remove the faith factor and you get a rather interesting theory to work with. You refuse to give any credit what so ever to the scientists through history that has worked very hard on explaining the creation of our selves. I think that shows a certain lack of respect for history as well as the many people that has created the society we today are living in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

UFO's being God is problematic for the reasons mentioned above and explained before. Further, this is not the position of Creationism proponents. If this is your view that you want to put forward or some modification say: that aliens created the earth, life on earth etc. that's OK, but it needs to be distinguished from the standard theory. Further, if you want to be taken seriously then you would need to met the truth standard of all scientific theories namely: verification. Where is the proof? Seeing a light in the sky does not equal a proof that aliens created the world.

See it from the other side. God being UFO's instead. Further more, there is actually nothing that says that the aliens here are the aliens. Maybe we in fact are the aliens. Seeing a light in the sky is just as much proof as determining a 10,000 year old culture based on a rock. Today we are analyzing planets and other solar systems on the lights from them. It's called science. You are now locking your self in to a subjective thinking where the theory itself have to prove itself scientifically, instead of letting the scentifical evidence build the theory.
This refusal of objectivity indicates a bias for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.

We are not talking about belief or faith. We are talking about objectivity, which is a very important thing in all science and theory building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Most people would classify Buddhism as a religion. If you want to argue this was not The Buddha's intent that may be an interesting point to look into, but for our purposes it is irrelevant. He is considered the founder of the movement and he did not create a theocracy.

Jesus was a Jew, this does not change the fact Early Christianity was not a theocracy.

Moses assumed his prophetic mantle prior to the Exodus and it was his second, Joshua who actually founded the Jewish homeland. Further, while Moses is typically seen as the founder of Judaism, we should note this would not be his own point of view. He claimed to be a representative of Deity as was his ancestor Joseph and would trace it, at the very least, all the way back to Abraham who was the source of the Hebrew Covenant (the Abrahamic Covenant) from which their identity was drawn. Abraham didn't form a theocracy either.

Muhammad did become a political leader, but as I already noted: his prophetic call was prior to his flight from Mecca.

Now I think one could argue that Judaism and Islam have nearly from their traditional beginnings been theocratic, but the charge was that all religion is so, This is not the case. There is also the bugbear that both faiths exist in present non-theocratic settings and there are faithful advocates that claim this is in keeping with the central teachings of the faith.

Wrong. Buddha did not create Buddhism. Buddism created Buddha. Same thing with Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Jesus was created by Christianity and it is only a coincidence that it was Jesus and not Petrus or Judas. A religious structure need a leader to rally around with a direct connection to a source for selection of the power structure. Faith is purely needed to give creditability to the power structure. Nothing else.
Again if you try to be more objective and see beyond the faith, you will see that the religions of today are structures far beyond faith alone. There are hundreds of failed religions, with their own selected faith, deities, profets and writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

The feudal system is not Christianity.

The whole of Western Christianity is not simply political and economic, not only because this branded "Western Christianity" is not the source of the faith, but also because the very tenets of the belief extend beyond and reject the base principles you charge. You may want to read St. Augustine's "City of God". Augustine is perhaps the major thinker of Western Christianity and one of the central thrusts of the work is exactly counter to your understanding.

It doesn't change the fact that it actually is the political and economical structure of the west. This structure remains even if the faith is fading away. I think that is a rather strong argument for my thesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If you restrict the discussion to a theocracy: "an Islamic society" then Islam is going to dictate the "rules" by definition. However, this doesn't really fit with the point surrounding the Shahada. Islam did not typically force conversion. Noting the politics of the various Caliphates demonstrates the basic point. While political control was maintained that was separate from individual conversion. Should one wish to become Muslim agreement with the Shahada was/is fundamental. This is a pronouncement of faith.

It's not more fundamental than swearing aligency to the American flag and constitution when entering an American citizenship. It's in reality purely symbolic and has absolutely nothing to do with faith in any God or system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Sorry, it wasn't meant to offend. It simply seems to me that your general views on religion are not very charitable. You seem to assign the basest of intent to religious questions.

Apology accepted. I only separate faith from religion, based on logic and scientific observations. Faith is something beautiful and I envy those who have a true faith. Must make life must easier to live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Christian communities do not typically determine their membership based off of a birth certificate. They determine one's Christian status off of a rite (baptism). Further, most democratic states do not list any religious affiliation on birth certificates. It appears you judge the whole off of a particular. Now ask yourself: did the government assign you to be Christian? Probably not, my guess is they asked your parents who said he is faith X. This was marked down for whatever government purpose they have. I imagine if you really were Christian your parents took you to a church and had you baptized at some point. Latter on, I guess you decided to be Muslim. Unless this was forced on you, I can only assume this is because you thought Islam was correct. Now you seem to be an agnostic, this again is because of your views about the nature of God. These basic identifications suggest a willed act either to join or sustain some belief system. If you didn't agree with any of these views then I don't think you should be held as part of that group.

Again, you miss the point. A child receive it's citizenship based on marriage, which is still today based on religion. The reality is something totally different from what you want it to be. Faith is irrelevant, regardless what you want it to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't know what you mean? Are you talking about "two Jews three opinions"? Well since I've been told that by several Rabbis and other Jews I know, I would say no.

I also don't think being a Jew is a racial catergory so I would say no, again.

I will drop this, now when there is a separate thread for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't understand this.

What is your definition of religion?

Religion is a political and social construct to organize people in to a society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not an atheist.

Good for you... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

"Not welcome" and "unable to enter" are not the same. Is it possible for an atheist to legally enter the country? If the government doesn't ask tourists about their faith, that would seem to undercut your view.

The Indonesian constitution forbids atheists on Indonesian soil. Plain and simple. When entering as a tourist, it is assumed that you believe in one of the accepted religions. If you in fact are an atheist you do break the law regardless if you get caught or not.
06-25-2005, 08:59
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I think you have reached the core of our argument. You assume that God is a metaphysical deity. Assume it's not and the picture changes.

Indeed it would change, but not necessarily in a coherent way. If you argue Deity is part of the physical universe then you do need to answer the base incongruity of the physical universe being created: having a beginning (which is the standard notion) and the uncreated nature of Deity. Deity, to be Deity, cannot be created and be Divine. This revolves around the base definition of God which is a necessary Being. This means God cannot, not be. God is self -existent. The physical sphere is considered contingent. This means it could be otherwise. Thus, the two operate along different orders of logic. This is one simple problem. Another is what I mentioned before about Deity being a part of His creation which is a logical absurdity. A third would be, entropy. Entropy is a state that effects all physical properties. Deity as a necessary, self-existent, self-sustaining Being cannot be subject to entropy by definition. These sorts of problems are legion. The reason no one familiar with logic or the history of Western Thought argues that God is part of the physical world is because it is so fraught with logical quandaries. If you want to argue your definition of Deity allows for these absurdities, then others would not recognize that thing as God.

Both Christianity and Islam were influenced in their theology by Greek philosophy. Christianity primarily by Neo-Platonism and Islam by Aristotelianism. Both of these views made common appeal to the logic of perfection. Under that standard Deity cannot be a part of the physical world and be logically coherent.

Quote:

My claim is very simple, it is wrong to discount Creationism as a theory based social science.

If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.

Quote:

See it from the other side. God being UFO's instead. Further more, there is actually nothing that says that the aliens here are the aliens. Maybe we in fact are the aliens.

So you are saying God could be Aliens or perhaps we are God? There are singular/plural issues here. Refer to some of the points I made above.

One additional thing you should note is making claims in and of themselves does not constitute science. If I say the moon could be made of blue cheese at its center. One would ask for proof. If the reply was: "well, until we dig to the center of the moon's core we don't know, so it could be" This in logic is called an appeal to ignorance. It is a fallacy. It cannot serve as the basis for a knowledge claim.

Quote:

Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.

We are not talking about belief or faith. We are talking about objectivity, which is a very important thing in all science and theory building.

I don't think you caught the point being made. If you claim a scientific perspective you need proof. This does not exist. There is no proof of a Creator. The position fails.

Quote:

Wrong. Buddha did not create Buddhism. Buddism created Buddha. Same thing with Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Jesus was created by Christianity and it is only a coincidence that it was Jesus and not Petrus or Judas. A religious structure need a leader to rally around with a direct connection to a source for selection of the power structure.

Of course the texts of the three faiths you list do not agree. Neither do the advocated principles of the faiths or believers agree with this view.

Quote:

Faith is purely needed to give creditability to the power structure. Nothing else.
Again if you try to be more objective and see beyond the faith, you will see that the religions of today are structures far beyond faith alone. There are hundreds of failed religions, with their own selected faith, deities, profets and writings.

I have never argued religion is solely a "faith alone" endeavor. I have argued that for practioners faith (belief in) is the primary determiner of a devotional life. A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things. Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.

Quote:

It doesn't change the fact that it actually is the political and economical structure of the west. This structure remains even if the faith is fading away. I think that is a rather strong argument for my thesis.

If the 'it' here is Christianity then you idea is completely wrong. Democracy is not the creation of Christianity. Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism are not the creation of Christianity.

Quote:

It's not more fundamental than swearing aligency to the American flag and constitution when entering an American citizenship. It's in reality purely symbolic and has absolutely nothing to do with faith in any God or system.

You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

Swearing allegiance to the Constitution when becoming a U.S. Citizen is not simply symbolic. It has real political/legal ramifications which do not apply if coerced or not freely given.

Quote:

Apology accepted. I only separate faith from religion, based on logic and scientific observations. Faith is something beautiful and I envy those who have a true faith. Must make life must easier to live.

I really don't think you have any understanding of religion. Your statements thus far, have utterly failed to take the respective faiths mentioned on their own terms and therefore have violated one of the central points of any sincere analysis seeking understanding. In their place you have offered a social/political amalgam that is not representative of the larger metaphysical elements of their teachings or true to the devotional life of adherents. It is flawed.

Quote:

. A child receive it's citizenship based on marriage, which is still today based on religion..

What does this mean? One becomes a citizen of Indonesia only after marriage? Or, is it only the children of married Citizens are given citizenship?

Where is this written?

State recognized marriage is actually the religious rite? There is no public license?

If what you say about Indonesia is correct, you homeland operates completely differently form any other nation I have had dealings with.

Quote:

Religion is a political and social construct to organize people in to a society.

Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
I'm not an atheist.

Good for you...

I think so.

Quote:

The Indonesian constitution forbids atheists on Indonesian soil. Plain and simple. When entering as a tourist, it is assumed that you believe in one of the accepted religions. If you in fact are an atheist you do break the law regardless if you get caught or not.

Well, I read through your Constitution. I found this:

RELIGION

Article 29

(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.

It doesn't state atheists are forbidden on Indonesian soil. It does say there is a guaranteed freedom of religion. This guarantee is not qualified.
06-26-2005, 07:31
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Indeed it would change, but not necessarily in a coherent way. If you argue Deity is part of the physical universe then you do need to answer the base incongruity of the physical universe being created: having a beginning (which is the standard notion) and the uncreated nature of Deity. Deity, to be Deity, cannot be created and be Divine. This revolves around the base definition of God which is a necessary Being. This means God cannot, not be. God is self -existent. The physical sphere is considered contingent. This means it could be otherwise. Thus, the two operate along different orders of logic. This is one simple problem. Another is what I mentioned before about Deity being a part of His creation which is a logical absurdity. A third would be, entropy. Entropy is a state that effects all physical properties. Deity as a necessary, self-existent, self-sustaining Being cannot be subject to entropy by definition. These sorts of problems are legion. The reason no one familiar with logic or the history of Western Thought argues that God is part of the physical world is because it is so fraught with logical quandaries. If you want to argue your definition of Deity allows for these absurdities, then others would not recognize that thing as God.

Not at all. I have not argued that the creator is a deity. In fact I have only argued that there is a possibility that there might be a creator of some kind, based on evidence in historical writings as well as evidence on intelligent design. The actual question in creationism is actually if or not it's possible to randomly create life.
Again you insist on looking fundamentalistic on the faith based view of creationism. Look at it in a scientific way instead. Let the evidence speak.
Is the writings in the Bible based on something ? The Quaran ? Why was the pyramids created ? How could the stone faces and the stone henge be placed at the time they where placed ? Why is all DNA in all living creatures the same ? If life is a random creation, why don't we have alternatives ? Or do we have alternatives ?
Bottomline, I don't argue that God is the creator. I argue that Creationism is a theory worth looking at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.

I claim that Creationism is a theory based on social science. There are still no conclusive proof how life itself appeared, still Evolution is accepted as a theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

So you are saying God could be Aliens or perhaps we are God? There are singular/plural issues here. Refer to some of the points I made above.

Not if you put the faith aside....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

One additional thing you should note is making claims in and of themselves does not constitute science. If I say the moon could be made of blue cheese at its center. One would ask for proof. If the reply was: "well, until we dig to the center of the moon's core we don't know, so it could be" This in logic is called an appeal to ignorance. It is a fallacy. It cannot serve as the basis for a knowledge claim.

If you interviewed all the astronauts that have visited the moon and they all claimed that the moom was made of blue cheese. Their claim was made on the fact that they tasted and smelled it. Would you consider the possibility that the moon was made of blue cheese ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think you caught the point being made. If you claim a scientific perspective you need proof. This does not exist. There is no proof of a Creator. The position fails.

The proof can be found in the historical writings as well as there are a large portion of cases with unexplained sightings. Further more, it is accepted that we are not the only life form in universe as well as not by far the most advanced. I think that is a pretty good start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Of course the texts of the three faiths you list do not agree. Neither do the advocated principles of the faiths or believers agree with this view.

The texts you refer to also argue that a deity created the world..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have never argued religion is solely a "faith alone" endeavor. I have argued that for practioners faith (belief in) is the primary determiner of a devotional life. A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things.

Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.

You are starting to get my point now.... ~D

Just rethink the truth claims a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If the 'it' here is Christianity then you idea is completely wrong. Democracy is not the creation of Christianity. Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism are not the creation of Christianity.

All the isms you mention are all products from the western christianity (not created by). The values are based and evolved from the religious structure that has built Europe. There are morals as well as practical approach crucial for the existence of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

Swearing allegiance to the Constitution when becoming a U.S. Citizen is not simply symbolic. It has real political/legal ramifications which do not apply if coerced or not freely given.

No it's not absurd. It's reality.

The swearing of allegiance to the constitution is purely symbolic. A child born in to American citizenship never have to do it, hence it has no other value than symbolism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I really don't think you have any understanding of religion. Your statements thus far, have utterly failed to take the respective faiths mentioned on their own terms and therefore have violated one of the central points of any sincere analysis seeking understanding. In their place you have offered a social/political amalgam that is not representative of the larger metaphysical elements of their teachings or true to the devotional life of adherents. It is flawed.

My understanding of religions are practical. Faith can't be proven and is therefore not a parameter..... ~D
Religion is a reality, metaphysical belief is not...... :bow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If what you say about Indonesia is correct, you homeland operates completely differently form any other nation I have had dealings with.

There are very few nations in the world that grant citizenship based on where you are born (might only be US). Most countries will grant the citizen ship after the fathers citizenship based on his citizenship. If the woman is unmarried, it will follow hers. Further more, the child will, with very few exeptions, receive the same religion as the father (or mother if unmarried). I have seen this in real life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.

No it doesn't. Extremism and fanatism is a social failure and irrelevant for this discussion. Societies without practical application of its political, religious, nationalistic or patriotic structure will fail, regardless how much the believe in a higher power.
Further more, political parties are actually proof of my thesis rather than the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

It doesn't state atheists are forbidden on Indonesian soil. It does say there is a guaranteed freedom of religion. This guarantee is not qualified.

Atheism has been tested in court during the 50ies. Nothing has changed since.
06-26-2005, 23:56
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Not at all. I have not argued that the creator is a deity.

Then, you are not arguing Creationism. Creationism, as already demonstrated, does make a Divine appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.

I claim that Creationism is a theory based on social science. There are still no conclusive proof how life itself appeared, still Evolution is accepted as a theory...

The proof can be found in the historical writings as well as there are a large portion of cases with unexplained sightings. Further more, it is accepted that we are not the only life form in universe as well as not by far the most advanced. I think that is a pretty good start.

Regardless the subject matter, if you claim a scientific basis, you need proof. Appeals to ignorance do not constitute proof, a text is not proof, a light in the sky is not proof, assumptions about life elsewhere is not proof.

If you claim aliens created the earth and all life on the earth you need to proof aliens exist and that they were the casual agents. Proof?

Evolution is a theory about the development of life, not its origin. As a theory evolution assumes life is already a present condition.

Quote:

If you interviewed all the astronauts that have visited the moon and they all claimed that the moom was made of blue cheese. Their claim was made on the fact that they tasted and smelled it. Would you consider the possibility that the moon was made of blue cheese ?

Sure.

Quote:

The texts you refer to also argue that a deity created the world

Yes. I have already pointed out religion makes metaphysical appeal.

Quote:

A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things. Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.

You are starting to get my point now.... ~D

Just rethink the truth claims a bit.

So, you admit belief is an element of religious devotion?

Quote:

All the isms you mention are all products from the western christianity (not created by). The values are based and evolved from the religious structure that has built Europe. There are morals as well as practical approach crucial for the existence of them.

This is historically false. Democracy predates the advent of Christianity by roughly half a millennia. Marxism is atheistic and makes no appeal to Christian precept. Socialism is a child of Marxism. Capitalism makes no appeal Christian sentiment.

Quote:

Posted by Pindar
You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

No it's not absurd. It's reality.

It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.

Quote:

The swearing of allegiance to the constitution is purely symbolic. A child born in to American citizenship never have to do it, hence it has no other value than symbolism.

A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities.

Quote:

My understanding of religions are practical. Faith can't be proven and is therefore not a parameter..... ~D
Religion is a reality, metaphysical belief is not...... :bow:

Religion is not science. You do not understand either if you conflate two separate theoretical stances.

Quote:

There are very few nations in the world that grant citizenship based on where you are born (might only be US). Most countries will grant the citizen ship after the fathers citizenship based on his citizenship. If the woman is unmarried, it will follow hers. Further more, the child will, with very few exeptions, receive the same religion as the father (or mother if unmarried). I have seen this in real life.

The nation's legal strictures I am familiar with typically trace citizenship to any child born of a citizen. Religious standing is irrelevant and not noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar
Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.

No it doesn't. Extremism and fanatism is a social failure and irrelevant for this discussion. Societies without practical application of its political, religious, nationalistic or patriotic structure will fail, regardless how much the believe in a higher power.
Further more, political parties are actually proof of my thesis rather than the opposite.

Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.

Quote:

Atheism has been tested in court during the 50ies. Nothing has changed since.

So, your actual claim is based on a legal ruling, not the Constitution itself. This ruling barred atheists from entering Indonesia? Yet, they do. What does this say? The nation is unable or unwilling to enforce its bigotry or is comfortable with hypocritical legal positions.
06-27-2005, 03:59
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then, you are not arguing Creationism. Creationism, as already demonstrated, does make a Divine appeal.

Creationism argues a creator, not that it has to be a diety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Regardless the subject matter, if you claim a scientific basis, you need proof. Appeals to ignorance do not constitute proof, a text is not proof, a light in the sky is not proof, assumptions about life elsewhere is not proof.

If you claim aliens created the earth and all life on the earth you need to proof aliens exist and that they were the casual agents. Proof?

Evolution is a theory about the development of life, not its origin. As a theory evolution assumes life is already a present condition.

Why would you listen to an astronaut, but not to one of the authors to the bible ? Isn't that a bit biased ?
The studies conducted and documented in old writings should be written off just like that ?
In reality your logic would also discredit Astronomy as a science.
Again, you base your view on a fundamentalistic assumption on the creationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes. I have already pointed out religion makes metaphysical appeal.

Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure. It is not created around the metaphysical appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

So, you admit belief is an element of religious devotion?

I have never argued anything else. My argument is that belief is not crucial for the religion as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is historically false. Democracy predates the advent of Christianity by roughly half a millennia. Marxism is atheistic and makes no appeal to Christian precept. Socialism is a child of Marxism. Capitalism makes no appeal Christian sentiment.

The democracy we live by today is based on Christian values. Marxism as well as socialism, only points out what I have said and is a reaction on a power structure based on metaphysical appeal. Neither Marxism nor Socialism would exist without religion, in our case Christianity. Capitalism is based on a christian moral base. We have already discussed that earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.

Only in a fundamentalistic mind. With objectivity and reality it's not so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities.

Just like with religion... ~D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Religion is not science. You do not understand either if you conflate two separate theoretical stances.

Religion is a part of political science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

The nation's legal strictures I am familiar with typically trace citizenship to any child born of a citizen. Religious standing is irrelevant and not noted.

Not for all nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.

A very large portion of the western political parties have it's base out of Christianity. Most countries have their consitutions based on a metaphysical appeal. Religion is politic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

So, your actual claim is based on a legal ruling, not the Constitution itself. This ruling barred atheists from entering Indonesia? Yet, they do. What does this say? The nation is unable or unwilling to enforce its bigotry or is comfortable with hypocritical legal positions.

It could be compared with the persecution of communists in US during the 50, correct. It's there and nobody want to do anything about it.
06-27-2005, 06:37
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Creationism argues a creator, not that it has to be a diety.

You seem to have forgotten your own wikipedia quote:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity."

Quote:

Why would you listen to an astronaut, but not to one of the authors to the bible ? Isn't that a bit biased ?
The studies conducted and documented in old writings should be written off just like that ?
In reality your logic would also discredit Astronomy as a science.
Again, you base your view on a fundamentalistic assumption on the creationism.

I don't know what any of this means. Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.

Quote:

Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure. It is not created around the metaphysical appeal.

Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.

Quote:

I have never argued anything else. My argument is that belief is not crucial for the religion as such.

Belief is crucial for a devotional life.

Quote:

The democracy we live by today is based on Christian values. Marxism as well as socialism, only points out what I have said and is a reaction on a power structure based on metaphysical appeal. Neither Marxism nor Socialism would exist without religion, in our case Christianity. Capitalism is based on a christian moral base. We have already discussed that earlier.

Alas, democracy will reflect the values of the participants. The system itself is not Christian based. Marxism and its children are reactions against capitalism in the 19th Century and misreadings of Hegel. Capitalism is based off of systemic competition and government restraint.

Quote:

Posted by Pindar
It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.

Only in a fundamentalistic mind. With objectivity and reality it's not so.

This doesn't make sense. If you want to understand a religion you need to study the principles advocated, not make up ulterior motives.

Quote:

Posted by Pindar
A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities

Just like with religion...

Religions don't draft.

Quote:

Religion is a part of political science.

Not in any university in the States or anywhere else I know of.

Quote:

Posted by Pindar
Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.

A very large portion of the western political parties have it's base out of Christianity. Most countries have their consitutions based on a metaphysical appeal. Religion is politic.

A political party may or may not appeal to Christian values. Such is not necessary to be a political party or a religion.

Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics.

Quote:

It could be compared with the persecution of communists in US during the 50, correct. It's there and nobody want to do anything about it.

There was no government persecution of communists in the 50's.
06-27-2005, 12:57
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

You seem to have forgotten your own wikipedia quote:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity."

Of course not. A supreme being isn't the same as a deity. The central in Creationism is intelligent design. In the early days it was assumed that this has to be a deity. Our knowledge has increased and creationism evolves...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't know what any of this means. Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.

It means that you only credit the evidence and testamonies you have faith in. That is wrong. ~;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.

I don't condemn anything ?? :dizzy2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Belief is crucial for a devotional life.

Which has nothing to do with religion....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Alas, democracy will reflect the values of the participants. The system itself is not Christian based. Marxism and its children are reactions against capitalism in the 19th Century and misreadings of Hegel. Capitalism is based off of systemic competition and government restraint.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

This doesn't make sense. If you want to understand a religion you need to study the principles advocated, not make up ulterior motives.

I am not trying to understand the principles of religion, I study the actualities and its place in our society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Religions don't draft.

Yes, they certainly do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not in any university in the States or anywhere else I know of.

They are yet to be objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics.

It's a chosen way of building up your society. Just like anarchism, not all movements makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

There was no government persecution of communists in the 50's.

Really ? Did McArthur know that ?
06-27-2005, 18:49
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Of course not. A supreme being isn't the same as a deity.

Supreme Being and Deity are synonyms.

Quote:

Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.

It means that you only credit the evidence and testamonies you have faith in. That is wrong. ~;)

Ahh, no. Science and religion are not the same. The methodology is different. The subject matter is different. A simple example is symmetry. In science symmetry refers to the base repeatability that underlies any scientific research. A viable experiment should be repeatable given the same method and subject matter regardless of place or performer. Biblical prophets were not scientists. Prophets are those whom the Divine has disclosed truth to. It is not the prophet who forces the Gates of Heaven open, but Deity who reveals himself. It is an asymmetric relation.

Quote:

Posted by Pindar
Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.

I don't condemn anything ?? :dizzy2:

You stated: "Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure." The verb and the nominative indicate intent.

Quote:

I am not trying to understand the principles of religion...

That is clear.

Quote:

Yes, they certainly do...

Really, where?

Quote:

They are yet to be objective.

So speaks the collective study of Indonesia. :bow:

Quote:

Really ? Did McArthur know that ?

MacArthur was a WWII/Korean War General. I think you meant the Wisconsin Senator: McCarthy
06-28-2005, 04:00
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Supreme Being and Deity are synonyms.

No

Supreme Being does not have to be divine. It was actually a concept that Robespierre came up with as an alternative to the Christian deity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Ahh, no. Science and religion are not the same. The methodology is different. The subject matter is different. A simple example is symmetry. In science symmetry refers to the base repeatability that underlies any scientific research. A viable experiment should be repeatable given the same method and subject matter regardless of place or performer. Biblical prophets were not scientists. Prophets are those whom the Divine has disclosed truth to. It is not the prophet who forces the Gates of Heaven open, but Deity who reveals himself. It is an asymmetric relation.

Prophets was as close to scientist you could come at the time they did their work. Put things in perspective and stop insisting to use your own time and place as the reference. It's all about objectivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

The verb and the nominative indicate intent.

Not at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Really, where?

Example, Jihad and Crusades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

MacArthur was a WWII/Korean War General. I think you meant the Wisconsin Senator: McCarthy

Yes, thanks. I mean McCarthy.
06-28-2005, 05:25
Navaros

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.
06-28-2005, 05:32
Auctoritas

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navaros

evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.

Trolling....trolling...trolling ~;)
06-28-2005, 05:34
Papewaio

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navaros

evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.

It is actually a stronger theory then Newtons Theory of Gravity.
06-28-2005, 13:44
Revelation

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Never debate the values of religion or politics. Your just asking for a war ~D
The bible/church/religion is the greatest money making scam in history. Wish I could think up something a fraction as profitable.
Bible.All time best selling ficticious novel!
Leave the creation lessons to the fanatics, save the non fiction for the scholars, and those of a sensible disposition.
06-28-2005, 18:30
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Supreme Being does not have to be divine. It was actually a concept that Robespierre came up with as an alternative to the Christian deity.

Robespierre's issues with Christianity aside, his "Supreme Being" was a pantheistic deity: a god. Your idea fails historically and in present day usage as well. If you look up supreme being it will refer to an divine status. The word itself should be clear enough: supreme is a superlative that allows no further designation.

Your idiosyncratic approach to religion is removing you farther and farther from normative discussion.

Quote:

Prophets was as close to scientist you could come at the time they did their work. Put things in perspective and stop insisting to use your own time and place as the reference. It's all about objectivity.

Objectivity does not support your view. The objects: prophets and scientists are involved in different projects. The one is concerned with the nature of the Divine and salvation. The other is concerned with the natural order without reference to any Deity. The objects are also involved in different methodologies. The one has truth revealed from God and then conveys that to others (suggesting the prophet occupies a unique position) The other attempts to uncover the nature of things via a strict methodology that requires multiple outside verification. In short, one deals with the sacred the other the mundane.

Quote:

Example, Jihad and Crusades.

Crusades were not compulsory.
06-29-2005, 03:51
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your idiosyncratic approach to religion is removing you farther and farther from normative discussion.

Actually it's your refusal to see anything further than your peculiar view on faith as the core tenants of religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Objectivity does not support your view. The objects: prophets and scientists are involved in different projects. The one is concerned with the nature of the Divine and salvation. The other is concerned with the natural order without reference to any Deity. The objects are also involved in different methodologies. The one has truth revealed from God and then conveys that to others (suggesting the prophet occupies a unique position) The other attempts to uncover the nature of things via a strict methodology that requires multiple outside verification. In short, one deals with the sacred the other the mundane.

The time of the prophets did not have your definition of scientists. The prophets where most of the time appointed prophets after their death. The use of objectivity would allow you to evaluate the writings at the time when they where written instead of using a current reference base. A sighting, incident or investigatio 2000 years ago would be seen differently today. What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Crusades were not compulsory.

It was close enough though, most of the people participating was ordered by their respective "owner"....
06-29-2005, 04:51
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Actually it's your refusal to see anything further than your peculiar view on faith as the core tenants of religion.

My "particular view" as it were, is fairly standard fare. Understanding belief as intrinsic to a religious life is not a revolutionary claim. Understanding that Creationism is concerned with Deity is what the vast majority of people (advocates or no) would agree with. Understanding that science requires some verification of any claim made is part and parcel of the discipline.

Quote:

The time of the prophets did not have your definition of scientists.

Of course not. Science is a product of the West in the 17th Century. This does not change the fact that the object of study, the respective methodology and theoretical posture is quite different.

Quote:

The prophets where most of the time appointed prophets after their death.

Not really, but even were one to grant this idea it doesn't have any impact of the larger issue: prophetic calling and scientific investigation are distinct activities.

Quote:

The use of objectivity would allow you to evaluate the writings at the time when they where written instead of using a current reference base.

When something was written is not relevant to the discussion.

Quote:

What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved.

This is flawed. Aristotle had developed logic by the Fourth Century B.C. and a fully "secular" methodology and approach to knowledge claims was fully established by the time of the New Testament. Yet, this very Period saw the rise of Christianity.

Quote:

It was close enough though, most of the people participating was ordered by their respective "owner"....

This is not correct. The call to Crusade was voluntary. Those who attended a lord were not soldiers and would serve their function independent of location or any Crusade.
06-29-2005, 12:37
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

My "particular view" as it were, is fairly standard fare. Understanding belief as intrinsic to a religious life is not a revolutionary claim. Understanding that Creationism is concerned with Deity is what the vast majority of people (advocates or no) would agree with. Understanding that science requires some verification of any claim made is part and parcel of the discipline.

Belief is no longer equal to religious affiliation. Definition of deity today is different from when the initial text where written.
You can with scientific precision show that this is the case.
Not realise this indicates a fundamentalistic view on religion as well as creationism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Of course not. Science is a product of the West in the 17th Century. This does not change the fact that the object of study, the respective methodology and theoretical posture is quite different.

The inability from the mainstream defenders of creationism to leave a fundamentalistic view doesn't automatically make the theory of creationism less possible. The fact remains that the basis of creationism originates from a time with a different referens level. Translating the theory in to modern terms is something that would give a totally different status for the theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not really, but even were one to grant this idea it doesn't have any impact of the larger issue: prophetic calling and scientific investigation are distinct activities.

You don't find prophetic calling today and you didn't find scientific investigation 2000 years ago. You compare something that has 2 milliniums in between. I would call that comparation abstract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

When something was written is not relevant to the discussion.

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is flawed. Aristotle had developed logic by the Fourth Century B.C. and a fully "secular" methodology and approach to knowledge claims was fully established by the time of the New Testament. Yet, this very Period saw the rise of Christianity.

Calling Endoxa scientific would actually be an argument for my thesis, rather than your.... ~D
The science we know today was developed many centuries later. Usually Francis Bacon in the mid 1600 are seen as the father of modern science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. The call to Crusade was voluntary. Those who attended a lord were not soldiers and would serve their function independent of location or any Crusade.

Slavery have never and will never be voluntary.
06-29-2005, 19:05
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Definition of deity today is different from when the initial text where written.
You can with scientific precision show that this is the case.
Not realise this indicates a fundamentalistic view on religion as well as creationism.

How has the Muslim definition of Allah changed since the Seventh/Eighth Century? How has the Catholic definition of God changed since the Fourth Century?

Quote:

The inability from the mainstream defenders of creationism to leave a fundamentalistic view doesn't automatically make the theory of creationism less possible. The fact remains that the basis of creationism originates from a time with a different referens level. Translating the theory in to modern terms is something that would give a totally different status for the theory.

The possibility of Creationism is not my concern. Whether Creationism qualifies a science is. It is not science. It fails according to subject matter. I fails according to verification schema.

Creationism as a distinct position is relatively new. It has precursors in the 19th Century, but became an actual stance in the 20th I believe.

Quote:

You don't find prophetic calling today...

Actually you do.

Quote:

...and you didn't find scientific investigation 2000 years ago. You compare something that has 2 milliniums in between. I would call that comparation abstract.

Calling Endoxa scientific would actually be an argument for my thesis, rather than your.... ~D
The science we know today was developed many centuries later. Usually Francis Bacon in the mid 1600 are seen as the father of modern science.

As I already noted: science is a product of the 17th Century. Even so, a secular approach to knowledge claims existed from the 4th Century B.C. This includes the rise of philosophy and the development of logic. The Levant was under Hellenistic influence from the Alexandrian Conquest forward, yet Christianity developed irrespective of this.

Quote:

Slavery have never and will never be voluntary.

Crusaders weren't slaves.
06-30-2005, 03:47
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

How has the Muslim definition of Allah changed since the Seventh/Eighth Century? How has the Catholic definition of God changed since the Fourth Century?

It has changed by people getting additional sources of education, beside the holy texts within each religion. The reformed parts of the religions are the parts that is growing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

The possibility of Creationism is not my concern. Whether Creationism qualifies a science is. It is not science. It fails according to subject matter. I fails according to verification schema.

Creationism as a distinct position is relatively new. It has precursors in the 19th Century, but became an actual stance in the 20th I believe.

Creationism is a theory based on social science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually you do.

Where ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

As I already noted: science is a product of the 17th Century. Even so, a secular approach to knowledge claims existed from the 4th Century B.C. This includes the rise of philosophy and the development of logic. The Levant was under Hellenistic influence from the Alexandrian Conquest forward, yet Christianity developed irrespective of this.

So you claim that philosophy is a science ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Crusaders weren't slaves.

Neither where the majority of them free men.
06-30-2005, 18:34
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

It has changed by people getting additional sources of education, beside the holy texts within each religion. The reformed parts of the religions are the parts that is growing.

So, in Islam Allah is conceived as something other than thee God by 'reformed' Muslims? Reformed Muslims are polytheists? I don't think this is correct. I don't know of any theological reformulation of the basic Muslim position on Deity. If you do, cite the text or author. For this to be credible the text or position should have some recognized standing within Islam in general: I mean some following should accept this reformulation.

From my reading of Islamic theology it appears formal attempts to explain Allah took an Aristotelian tack. Sufi strains appear to follow a variant of the via negativa model. Neither rejects the base singularity of Allah. Other than these, I don't know any other major tradition.

In Orthodox Christianity, all sects accept the Nicean formulation of the Trinity which dates from 325 A.D.

Quote:

Creationism is a theory based on social science.

I know this is your assertion. The difficulty remains: science has a proof standard, where is the 'proof'?

Quote:

Where ?

The Mormon Church is a simple example. The head of the Church is considered a prophet.

Quote:

So you claim that philosophy is a science ?

No, philosophy is theoretical whereas science has a practical focus. Regardless, both are secular and make knowledge claims.

You should also note however, that before science was considered a separate discipline the basic area of study was called natural philosophy. This is how fellows like Newton referred to themselves : as a natural philosopher. Aristotle and Ptolemy etc. were involved in making knowledge claims about the world or physical strata before the advent of Christianity or Islam.

Quote:

Neither where the majority of them free men.

None were citizens of democratic states true enough, but Crusaders were not compelled to take the cross and that is the relevant point. There was no "draft".
07-01-2005, 04:35
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

So, in Islam Allah is conceived as something other than thee God by 'reformed' Muslims? Reformed Muslims are polytheists? I don't think this is correct. I don't know of any theological reformulation of the basic Muslim position on Deity. If you do, cite the text or author. For this to be credible the text or position should have some recognized standing within Islam in general: I mean some following should accept this reformulation.

From my reading of Islamic theology it appears formal attempts to explain Allah took an Aristotelian tack. Sufi strains appear to follow a variant of the via negativa model. Neither rejects the base singularity of Allah. Other than these, I don't know any other major tradition.

In Orthodox Christianity, all sects accept the Nicean formulation of the Trinity which dates from 325 A.D.

They don't have any opinion. They just live their lives and call themselves muslims since they where born in to it. This is the thing, people don't go around and worry so much as you do Pindar..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I know this is your assertion. The difficulty remains: science has a proof standard, where is the 'proof'?

In the documentation of human behavior through history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, philosophy is theoretical whereas science has a practical focus. Regardless, both are secular and make knowledge claims.

You should also note however, that before science was considered a separate discipline the basic area of study was called natural philosophy. This is how fellows like Newton referred to themselves : as a natural philosopher. Aristotle and Ptolemy etc. were involved in making knowledge claims about the world or physical strata before the advent of Christianity or Islam.

So science was philosophy before it became science. Actually totally in line with what I am saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

None were citizens of democratic states true enough, but Crusaders were not compelled to take the cross and that is the relevant point. There was no "draft".

The serfs where forced to follow their master in to war. Their masters power position was determined based on the Christian laws ruling at the time.
07-02-2005, 18:51
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

They don't have any opinion. They just live their lives and call themselves muslims since they where born in to it. This is the thing, people don't go around and worry so much as you do Pindar.....

Such are not then religious and the label has no real value.

Quote:

In the documentation of human behavior through history.

If someone writes a thing, that in no way quarantines such is actually the case. If I write bmolsson is a woman: your gender does not change. Science is concerned with the actual world, not opinion.

Quote:

So science was philosophy before it became science. Actually totally in line with what I am saying.

The formal criteria and method that determine science did not yet exist, but science is a child of philosophy.

This doesn't support your claim which I took to be: What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved. Your view seems to have been that there was a progression from religion to science. What I have indicated is that two of the great faiths actually developed after the rise of a formal secular system of inquiry.

Quote:

The serfs where forced to follow their master in to war. Their masters power position was determined based on the Christian laws ruling at the time.

Serfs were tied to the land. They did not leave it. Crusaders joined voluntarily. The masses i.e. 'The Peoples' Crusade' under Peter the Hermit were also volunteers.

A knight or Lord's position was based on noble status or martial prowess.
07-03-2005, 05:19
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Such are not then religious and the label has no real value.

I disagree. With your definition, most of our large religions would be reduced to insignificant cults.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

If someone writes a thing, that in no way quarantines such is actually the case. If I write bmolsson is a woman: your gender does not change. Science is concerned with the actual world, not opinion.

Again a rather long fetched analogy. The science in question is to analyse the writings and the human behavior that made text written. That is why we have social science. It is the real world we are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

The formal criteria and method that determine science did not yet exist, but science is a child of philosophy.

This doesn't support your claim which I took to be: What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved. Your view seems to have been that there was a progression from religion to science. What I have indicated is that two of the great faiths actually developed after the rise of a formal secular system of inquiry.

The two great religions have taken some writings as a base in their system. The bible was not written in order to create Christianity. The old formal system you refer to was philosophy and they did not have access to the methods today used in your definition of science.
Further more, your thesis on science origin is based on writings, which you already discarded as evidence of any significance. With your view on archeology, we can't even prove that Aristotles actually did exist at all. Your hardline view falls on your own thesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Serfs were tied to the land. They did not leave it. Crusaders joined voluntarily. The masses i.e. 'The Peoples' Crusade' under Peter the Hermit were also volunteers.

A knight or Lord's position was based on noble status or martial prowess.

Once again, I disagree. Any country in Europe had it's population oppressed and with religion as the determinator of the power structure. With modern views, the Crusaders would have been seen as insurgents and terrorists, brainwashing and forcing innocent people in to horrible deeds......
07-03-2005, 18:05
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I disagree.

I know, and I'm sure you would defend with equal fervor any law stating green as the national favorite color of Indonesians as equally correct.

Quote:

Again a rather long fetched analogy. The science in question is to analyse the writings and the human behavior that made text written. That is why we have social science. It is the real world we are talking about.

Creationism rests on the claim there was a creative force: God, who brought things to be. You will recall your own wikipedia example of the standard definition. As a science this view requires proof that this Being exists and that the creative act was His doing. Writings do not equal a proof. They may equal a belief, but belief is not verification.

Quote:

The two great religions have taken some writings as a base in their system. The bible was not written in order to create Christianity. The old formal system you refer to was philosophy and they did not have access to the methods today used in your definition of science.
Further more, your thesis on science origin is based on writings, which you already discarded as evidence of any significance. With your view on archeology, we can't even prove that Aristotles actually did exist at all. Your hardline view falls on your own thesis.

You have missed the point. The point is chronological. A secular approach to knowledge predates both Christianity and Islam: therefore one cannot claim a pattern where religion 'evolved' into a secular model.

I don't discount writings, but treat them as they are: written material. In a historical context this is not definitive, but may be suggestive. This is the case with all science given it operates off of induction. Thus, if we have multiple references to a Jesus in Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius etc. it is not unreasonable to assume a fellow with that name did exist. The same would apply to other historical figures. The more as opposed to less period documentation that exists assists any such conclusion. Now going from that marker to saying this Jesus was in fact the Christ is a different proposition. Claims about Messiahship involve metaphysical notions that a text cannot answer. The same applies to notions about God. Because something was written about Deity does not mean Deity then exists: only that something was written on the topic and possibly believed by the writer.

Quote:

Once again, I disagree. Any country in Europe had it's population oppressed and with religion as the determinator of the power structure. With modern views, the Crusaders would have been seen as insurgents and terrorists, brainwashing and forcing innocent people in to horrible deeds......

Questions of oppression are different from claims the Crusaders were drafted. Crusaders couldn't be insurgents: they came from Europe to the Middle East. I think you word you want is invader or conqueror.
07-04-2005, 02:36
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I know, and I'm sure you would defend with equal fervor any law stating green as the national favorite color of Indonesians as equally correct.

As a matter of fact, green is seen a Islams color here and muslims are assumed to like green better for that reason. Maybe you are a rectionary muslim after all..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Creationism rests on the claim there was a creative force: God, who brought things to be. You will recall your own wikipedia example of the standard definition. As a science this view requires proof that this Being exists and that the creative act was His doing. Writings do not equal a proof. They may equal a belief, but belief is not verification.

Not at all. When the old testamente was written, people did not know anything about aliens or had any ideas on intelligent design. Again you assume a reference base from today applied on people several milleniums ago. Further more, what proof do we have that Aristotle existed ?
Writings are documentation on events, research and sightings. Work needs to be done to understand the writings and put them in to a realistic context. We have to understand the people that wrote a text in order to really understand the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

You have missed the point. The point is chronological. A secular approach to knowledge predates both Christianity and Islam: therefore one cannot claim a pattern where religion 'evolved' into a secular model.

I don't discount writings, but treat them as they are: written material. In a historical context this is not definitive, but may be suggestive. This is the case with all science given it operates off of induction. Thus, if we have multiple references to a Jesus in Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius etc. it is not unreasonable to assume a fellow with that name did exist. The same would apply to other historical figures. The more as opposed to less period documentation that exists assists any such conclusion. Now going from that marker to saying this Jesus was in fact the Christ is a different proposition. Claims about Messiahship involve metaphysical notions that a text cannot answer. The same applies to notions about God. Because something was written about Deity does not mean Deity then exists: only that something was written on the topic and possibly believed by the writer.

Being Christ doesn't mean that there is a metaphysical notion. Michael Jackson is not a deity, even if many believe so. Neither is Bush or was Mao. They did/still exist and their writings will be around for a very long time.
The whole Messias culture doesn't necessarily have to have a metaphysical base, you assume so and in there our opinions differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Questions of oppression are different from claims the Crusaders were drafted. Crusaders couldn't be insurgents: they came from Europe to the Middle East. I think you word you want is invader or conqueror.

Being drafted is a form of oppression, so is taxation. You are forced to do something against your will. Period.
07-04-2005, 09:38
Pindar

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

As a matter of fact, green is seen a Islams color here and muslims are assumed to like green better for that reason. Maybe you are a rectionary muslim after all.....

Maybe.

Quote:

Not at all. When the old testamente was written, people did not know anything about aliens or had any ideas on intelligent design. Again you assume a reference base from today applied on people several milleniums ago. Further more, what proof do we have that Aristotle existed ?

Creationism isn't a product of the Old Testament. It is a product of the 20th Century (basically) and is a direct attempt to cast Christian teaching about a Divine creative act into scientific terms. It fails.

We have no 'proof' that Aristotle existed.

Quote:

Writings are documentation on events, research and sightings. Work needs to be done to understand the writings and put them in to a realistic context. We have to understand the people that wrote a text in order to really understand the text.

I agree.

Quote:

Being Christ doesn't mean that there is a metaphysical notion.

Christ is derived from the Greek rendition of the Hebrew for Messiah. The Messiah in Christian terms is the Son of God and Divine: a member of the Trinity. He took on HImself the collective sins of all mankind, rose from the dead of His own accord and will descend from Heaven to cast Judgement on the earth. This is metaphysical.

Quote:

Being drafted is a form of oppression, so is taxation. You are forced to do something against your will. Period.

Back to the point: religions don't draft.
07-04-2005, 13:04
bmolsson

Re: The Ultimate Poll!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Maybe.

:bow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Creationism isn't a product of the Old Testament. It is a product of the 20th Century (basically) and is a direct attempt to cast Christian teaching about a Divine creative act into scientific terms. It fails.

Sigh....

Creationism according to Genisis is far older than 20th century. The more realistic evolutionary creationism is of 20th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

We have no 'proof' that Aristotle existed.

:bow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

I agree.

:bow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Christ is derived from the Greek rendition of the Hebrew for Messiah. The Messiah in Christian terms is the Son of God and Divine: a member of the Trinity. He took on HImself the collective sins of all mankind, rose from the dead of His own accord and will descend from Heaven to cast Judgement on the earth. This is metaphysical.

Messiah means king..... A king is the son of God. I have shaked hand with more than one king in my life and they didn't feel metaphysical at all, except maybe the Sultan of Brunei....... ~D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pindar

Back to the point: religions don't draft.

From Wikipedia:
Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad.

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page