What is a Jew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Posted by Pindar
My position has been membership is irrelevant without belief.
Of course! If I ask someone: "Do you believe in religion X" and they say "Yes". I believe them. Their statement is sufficient.
I think your confused. What you wrote doesn't fit with what I posted. Religion is a system. As such it can be studied, discussed, ignored what have you. To be a practitioner one has to believe in the religion. To know whether someone believes they can be asked. The answer is verification.

---

You state below in your post that the answer might be a lie, we don't know that. This means that you can practice the religon without believe in it. Further this means that a practitioner of a religion might be a part of the religion in question in order to participate in the system.
With your own logic, this means that a religions practicioners not necessarily have to have the belief you claim is crucial for a practitioner to be a part of a religion. Your position seems like a contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not sure what the pronoun is referring to. I don't know if you are trying to say Chinese and Iraqi law create height, belief or both. Regardless, this is not correct. Coercion is not belief.

---

How do you know the answer on the question is due to belief or coercion ?

You are back on your height argument again. I thought we where finished with that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Please try and focus on what I write. Religiosity is tied to belief. To know whether one believes they can be asked.

---

Membership in a religion is not based on belief. In order to be a part of a religion you have to go through a series of symbolic gestures or simply be born in to it.
You equal the word religious with having faith and that is not what we are discussing here. A jew is a jew if he is born from a jewish mother. It has been stated before by others in this thread. The child is a jew regardless if it have any faith or not. Also it will not even get a question if it have any faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You don't. If someone wants to lie they can.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If someone wants to lie or deceive they can. It does not change the basic rubric that practitioners are defined by belief. Someone who lies by saying they believe in religion X can be reasonably considered a believer regardless of the reality. Whether I or any one else know the truth isn't really a factor. If after so many years that same person came forward and said: "I didn't really believe and still don't" then one simply knows they are not a believer of religion X and that's OK too.

---

With your logic you make the assumption that all members of a religion are believers. This assumtion is not the same as you have to believe to be a member of a religion.
Pindar you have to give this one up. Reality is not what you want it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My good fellow. Recall your position, you said the Indonesian Constitution says: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". The focus is on this foundational legal document not the legal system in general. I have provided the Indonesian Constitution. No such statement exists. This mistake is indicative of a general pattern. You seem to want to argue things beyond the actual issue at hand.

---

I have been signing a form, stating that I belong to one of the approved religions, before I am allowed to reside in Indonesia.
Yes, as a tourist you don't get the question hence it's incorrect to say that you have to believe if you are entering Indonesia.

The laws in Indonesia is sometimes strange. For example, in the provinces of Kalimantan you are not allowed to have anything with a pressure higher than 1 bar. It's a very old law created to stop home made liqour production. There are heaps of strange laws. I closed down a factory with that law as an excuse.

Another old law I used my self in court, which took everyone with surprise, was the law that says that a foreign citizen residing in Indonesia need to have a travel permit if he leaves the community to go to another community. With this I could refuse appear in a corrupt local court and forced the case to appear in Jakarta, which was less corrupt (and they knew me) and I won the case.

I do have problems coming up with the legal text in English. I have the Indonesian text here in a book in front of me. Anyway, I don't expect you to have the faith in me and accept that I am answering your question truthfully, therefore I lack the evidence...... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

You state below in your post that the answer might be a lie, we don't know that. This means that you can practice the religon without believe in it. Further this means that a practitioner of a religion might be a part of the religion in question in order to participate in the system.
With your own logic, this means that a religions practicioners not necessarily have to have the belief you claim is crucial for a practitioner to be a part of a religion. Your position seems like a contradiction.

---

The position I have taken is that religiosity is tied to belief. Belief means the subject asserts the reality of some X. A lie is a willed act, a deception. If someone lies about their religious belief: saying they believe when in fact they do not, that means they actually lack belief and have therefore failed to met the conditions for religiosity. Therefore, on a formal level the statement: "religiosity is tied to belief" maintains its integrity. Now, being able to verify a person's belief is a separate matter. As I mentioned before, religion is not science. For practical purposes asking someone their stance is deemed sufficient. Having a final method that eliminates all possibility for error does not exist. One might add the same is the case for science: it can never be definitive, but this does not mean one cannot take a position on some matter i.e. believing a person when they say they believe in religion X or believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

Quote:

---

How do you know the answer on the question is due to belief or coercion ?

---

If someone answers after having a gun put to their head I would consider that coercion.

Quote:

---

Membership in a religion is not based on belief. In order to be a part of a religion you have to go through a series of symbolic gestures or simply be born in to it.
You equal the word religious with having faith and that is not what we are discussing here. A jew is a jew if he is born from a jewish mother. It has been stated before by others in this thread. The child is a jew regardless if it have any faith or not. Also it will not even get a question if it have any faith.

---

I laid out initially three possible options regarding Jewry: race, culture, religion (meaning a belief system). Now if you argue one is a Jew from birth, that is a fixed status. Their will or behavior is not a factor. The only way to hold that view is to argue "Jew" equals race. The problem is there are black, white, yellow, and brown Jews. There is no racial standard one can appeal to. The whole notion of race is actually a bogus category. One is left with a racist position without support and a claim that probably tells more about the speaker than the subject he would label.

Quote:

---

With your logic you make the assumption that all members of a religion are believers. This assumption is not the same as you have to believe to be a member of a religion.

---

I haven't made an assumption. I have made an assertion. The assertion is "religiosity is tied to belief". Absent belief there is no religiosity. Without religiosity, no attending label has meaning.

Quote:

---

I have been signing a form, stating that I belong to one of the approved religions, before I am allowed to reside in Indonesia.
Yes, as a tourist you don't get the question hence it's incorrect to say that you have to believe if you are entering Indonesia.

I do have problems coming up with the legal text in English. I have the Indonesian text here in a book in front of me. Anyway, I don't expect you to have the faith in me and accept that I am answering your question truthfully, therefore I lack the evidence......

---

Regardless the oddities of Indonesian law, the Constitution does not say: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". That was the point. ~:grouphug:

For ethnic clarity sake, perhaps add in "Hebrew Jew" to symbolize an ethnic Jew - other Jews would be belief or culture inspired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

For ethnic clarity sake, perhaps add in "Hebrew Jew" to symbolize an ethnic Jew - other Jews would be belief or culture inspired.

---

Ethnicity is cultural. If one wants to allow some space for this. I would think deferring to the appropriate region would suffice. For example: Ukrainian Jews, or Ethiopic Jews or Moroccan Jews. This way a religious community can be identified along with its ethnic diversity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The position I have taken is that religiosity is tied to belief. Belief means the subject asserts the reality of some X. A lie is a willed act, a deception. If someone lies about their religious belief: saying they believe when in fact they do not, that means they actually lack belief and have therefore failed to met the conditions for religiosity. Therefore, on a formal level the statement: "religiosity is tied to belief" maintains its integrity. Now, being able to verify a person's belief is a separate matter. As I mentioned before, religion is not science. For practical purposes asking someone their stance is deemed sufficient. Having a final method that eliminates all possibility for error does not exist. One might add the same is the case for science: it can never be definitive, but this does not mean one cannot take a position on some matter i.e. believing a person when they say they believe in religion X or believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

---

You return to religiosity. To make it more clear do you agree or disagree with my position that To be a member in a religion your faith is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If someone answers after having a gun put to their head I would consider that coercion.

---

So you assume that everyone with a gun to their head can't believe in God ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I laid out initially three possible options regarding Jewry: race, culture, religion (meaning a belief system). Now if you argue one is a Jew from birth, that is a fixed status. Their will or behavior is not a factor. The only way to hold that view is to argue "Jew" equals race. The problem is there are black, white, yellow, and brown Jews. There is no racial standard one can appeal to. The whole notion of race is actually a bogus category. One is left with a racist position without support and a claim that probably tells more about the speaker than the subject he would label.

---

The attempt to put me in a racist category is low, much lower than what one would expect from you Pindar.
I maintain that jews are members of a religion and that they can be born in to the religion, just like many other religions. The race here is not even on the table, so just stop that speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I haven't made an assumption. I have made an assertion. The assertion is "religiosity is tied to belief". Absent belief there is no religiosity. Without religiosity, no attending label has meaning.

---

So one can not be a member of a religion without having the belief ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Regardless the oddities of Indonesian law, the Constitution does not say: "one must believe in God to live in Indonesia". That was the point. ~:grouphug:

---

That was not the point at all. I said that entry in to Indonesia required you to be a member of 5 approved religions. I was proven wrong for entry, since the religion issue only comes up for residency. Maybe some reading of some older posts would be in order....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

You return to religiosity. To make it more clear do you agree or disagree with my position that To be a member in a religion your faith is irrelevant.

---

I agree a nation could pass a law saying all citizens are members of religion X. My point is any such legislation would be meaningless as the critical ingredient of any such membership is belief.

Quote:

---

So you assume that everyone with a gun to their head can't believe in God ??

---

I assume anyone with a gun put to their head and told to answer a certain way is being coerced.

Quote:

---

The attempt to put me in a racist category is low, much lower than what one would expect from you Pindar.
I maintain that jews are members of a religion and that they can be born in to the religion, just like many other religions. The race here is not even on the table, so just stop that speculation.

---

Your reaction is misplaced. I am not making a trivial personal attack. I am explaining that Jew status from birth implies a fixed standing. It is fixed because the status is independent of any choice or behavior of the individual. This position would follow the "Jewishness is a race" position. Now this is a view that is not simply the domain of Nazis or other nasty groups. I think many Jews assume this same view. The "a Jew is any born of a Jew mother" is an example. This is an old explanation used within Jewry. I think it is a flawed view. Not only because logically it begs the question, but because it is basically a racist position. As I mentioned early on, I think many oppressed groups assume the language of their oppressors. Therefore if a Jew (or yourself, or any other person) took a "Jew is a race" position, I think it reflects more on the preconceptions of the subject than the object itself: meaning they are buying into a larger, and I think flawed, understanding. I think of the three possible categories to place Jewry in, race is the most problematic. It is problematic because the idea of race is a bankrupt notion. Race is more of a social construct. It isn't really a viable category. I hope that is clear. ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

So one can not be a member of a religion without having the belief ?

---

Not if the word is to have any independent meaning.

Quote:

---

That was not the point at all. I said that entry in to Indonesia required you to be a member of 5 approved religions. I was proven wrong for entry, since the religion issue only comes up for residency. Maybe some reading of some older posts would be in order....

---

You were wrong about entry into Indonesia. You are also wrong about the Constitution. As far as older posts, note:

In response to my post 182: " Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing."

Post 187: "Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing..."

Then there are:

Post 174: "However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution..."

Post 170: "There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God."

Game-set-and-match! :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I agree a nation could pass a law saying all citizens are members of religion X. My point is any such legislation would be meaningless as the critical ingredient of any such membership is belief.

---

Well, it is done and it has been present for most country in the world where a state religion has been used. But I guess all those nations where wrong.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I assume anyone with a gun put to their head and told to answer a certain way is being coerced.

---

You admit the assumption, now change the gun with being a part of the family, allowed in to school and getting a civil servant job. You will pretty soon have taken away most of the free will we have around a religious society. Which leads to the fact that all faith is forced upon.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your reaction is misplaced. I am not making a trivial personal attack. I am explaining that Jew status from birth implies a fixed standing. It is fixed because the status is independent of any choice or behavior of the individual. This position would follow the "Jewishness is a race" position. Now this is a view that is not simply the domain of Nazis or other nasty groups. I think many Jews assume this same view. The "a Jew is any born of a Jew mother" is an example. This is an old explanation used within Jewry. I think it is a flawed view. Not only because logically it begs the question, but because it is basically a racist position. As I mentioned early on, I think many oppressed groups assume the language of their oppressors. Therefore if a Jew (or yourself, or any other person) took a "Jew is a race" position, I think it reflects more on the preconceptions of the subject than the object itself: meaning they are buying into a larger, and I think flawed, understanding. I think of the three possible categories to place Jewry in, race is the most problematic. It is problematic because the idea of race is a bankrupt notion. Race is more of a social construct. It isn't really a viable category. I hope that is clear. ~:grouphug:

---

So the jews are wrong about themselves.

My position is that more or less all religions have most of their members born in to the religion. For some reasons you don't find muslims in Utah and Lutherans in Mekka. Being a member of a religion is NOT a race, it's still a religion.

Your "race" explanation is a creation to fit your argumentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not if the word is to have any independent meaning.

---

So that is a NO ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You were wrong about entry into Indonesia. You are also wrong about the Constitution. As far as older posts, note:

In response to my post 182: " Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing."

Post 187: "Indonesian Constitution: The phrase is not missing..."

Then there are:

Post 174: "However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution..."

Post 170: "There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God."

---

The first article in Pancasila says so. The laws of immigration as well as the domestic laws lists the 5 approved religions. The ministry of religion decree instructions on it. There are some local laws as well determining rules on conversion and intermarriage. Currently there are several scholars on trial for preaching for a not approved form of Islam in Indonesia, based on the laws above. They have tried to use these laws on Abu Bakar Bashyir to silence his terrorism ambitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

Game-set-and-match! :book:

---

Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, it is done and it has been present for most country in the world where a state religion has been used. But I guess all those nations where wrong.....

---

Quite right. Law cannot create belief. To assume it can is to misunderstand the nature of law.

Quote:

---

You admit the assumption, now change the gun with being a part of the family, allowed in to school and getting a civil servant job. You will pretty soon have taken away most of the free will we have around a religious society. Which leads to the fact that all faith is forced upon.....

---

So, the argument here is that because one can conceive of coercion then all faith is in fact coerced? This doesn't follow. It is logically incoherent. Whatever pressures may or may not exist, or whatever oppression may or may not exist: belief remains subject dependant.

Quote:

---

So the jews are wrong about themselves.

---

Those Jews who believe Jewry is confined to a race, yes: they are wrong. As I mentioned before: there are black, white, brown and yellow Jews. This alone would mean the notion is incoherent. Further, my position is that race as a category is deeply flawed as there doesn't seem to be any race exclusive traits that can be identified.

Quote:

---

My position is that more or less all religions have most of their members born in to the religion. For some reasons you don't find muslims in Utah and Lutherans in Mekka. Being a member of a religion is NOT a race, it's still a religion.

---

Actually, there are several lovely mosques in Utah.

If you say someone is born into a faith, you need to consider fully what that means. For example if a Muslim couple had a child, and the child was given up for adoption, for whatever reason and whisked away to another place where the adopting couple is Catholic: is the baby still Muslim? What if the child grew up a devout Catholic and actually become a priest, is the young man still Muslim? What if the man, rose in the ecclesiastical ranks to one day be pronounced the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope then a Muslim? I think this illustrates in simple terms the flaws in the thinking.

Quote:

---

Your "race" explanation is a creation to fit your argumentation.

---

I don't think so. I haven't suggested any odd definitions of race. Race is taken to be a non-chosen part of identity: something one has from birth to death. It is considered physically set. This is different from culture and beliefs that are constructs and thus changable.

Quote:

---

So that is a NO ?

---

Yes, that would be a no.

Quote:

---

The first article in Pancasila says so. The laws of immigration as well as the domestic laws lists the 5 approved religions. The ministry of religion decree instructions on it. There are some local laws as well determining rules on conversion and intermarriage. Currently there are several scholars on trial for preaching for a not approved form of Islam in Indonesia, based on the laws above. They have tried to use these laws on Abu Bakar Bashyir to silence his terrorism ambitions.

---

Are you saying this Pancasila is the Constitution? If so, again, I appeal to the text: where in the text does it say: "one must believe in God to live in the country"? I mentioned before I am not concerned with lesser legal views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.

---

No I don't. I can't see why the fact on a religion like Judaism is going to be "defeated" by your word games. Jews are jews, regardless if they have the faith or not, not because I say so, because they say so themselves.
They have been oppressed enough and have their own right to their own identity.....

Note: Sarcasm intended....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quite right. Law cannot create belief. To assume it can is to misunderstand the nature of law.

---

Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

So, the argument here is that because one can conceive of coercion then all faith is in fact coerced? This doesn't follow. It is logically incoherent. Whatever pressures may or may not exist, or whatever oppression may or may not exist: belief remains subject dependant.

---

Not that is not the argument. You could conclude that I am arguing that all religion is coerced in a way or another. My whole point is that religions are not based on faith, they are only using it as an argument for their power structure.
So my position has nothing to do with belief or faith. My position is based on the reality of today and in history.
Even though, since history and reality has nothing to do with this, according to you, I guess I have no more arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Those Jews who believe Jewry is confined to a race, yes: they are wrong. As I mentioned before: there are black, white, brown and yellow Jews. This alone would mean the notion is incoherent. Further, my position is that race as a category is deeply flawed as there doesn't seem to be any race exclusive traits that can be identified.

---

You are the one that brings race in to this discussion, not me. I don't understand why you do so either, but I will not make any conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, there are several lovely mosques in Utah.

If you say someone is born into a faith, you need to consider fully what that means. For example if a Muslim couple had a child, and the child was given up for adoption, for whatever reason and whisked away to another place where the adopting couple is Catholic: is the baby still Muslim? What if the child grew up a devout Catholic and actually become a priest, is the young man still Muslim? What if the man, rose in the ecclesiastical ranks to one day be pronounced the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope then a Muslim? I think this illustrates in simple terms the flaws in the thinking.

---

The problem you are describing is treated as a "rebirth" in most religions. Also to note, conversion is not accepted in most religions. It is seen as a serious crime and have created more wars and sectarian conflicts than you and I can imagine. Actually it is here the "honor murders" comes in play.
Surely "honor murders" and sectarian conflicts are flaws, but they are sadly enough facts that can not be ignored. Religions are in many things flawed and irrational, but that is not really the discussion.
Bottom line, religions are a political system used to create a power structure, often based on oppression, and it has no interest what so ever in your logics, as long as it doesn't serve their purpose.
I am really surprised that an educated man like you don't know this ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't think so. I haven't suggested any odd definitions of race. Race is taken to be a non-chosen part of identity: something one has from birth to death. It is considered physically set. This is different from culture and beliefs that are constructs and thus changable.

---

I didn't say that you suggested an odd definition of race. I have no problems with what you say above either. I did say that you used race to fit your line of argument. Wouldn't surprise me if it also was an attempt to drag the whole discussion in to racist debate, which I would consider be low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes, that would be a no.

---

:bow: No further comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you saying this Pancasila is the Constitution? If so, again, I appeal to the text: where in the text does it say: "one must believe in God to live in the country"? I mentioned before I am not concerned with lesser legal views.

---

A correct translation would be "The people of Indonesia must believe in one God only." There are whole books written on the subject.
The critics are having a problem with this since Buddism and Hinduism is allowed religions as well, beside Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism.
The communist party was banned in 1965 due to they had atheism written in their program. Around 500,000 where murdered due to this during this time as well. But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....

---

There is no "e" at the end of my name.

I don't have a science, but I do understand science.

More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.

Quote:

---

My whole point is that religions are not based on faith, they are only using it as an argument for their power structure.

---

Power structure could be interpreted as ecclesiastical or political authority. Regardless, of which you are thinking of there are simple counter-examples which I have given before: one, Christian Anchorites. These are hermits that are not tied to any organization or state. Two, Hindu forest ascetics: like their Christian counterparts these mystics have no connection to any of organized body.

Quote:

---

So my position has nothing to do with belief or faith. My position is based on the reality of today and in history.
Even though, since history and reality has nothing to do with this, according to you, I guess I have no more arguments.

---

I am happy to discuss history. The two examples just given are historical. I am also happy to discuss reality. The reality is religion is based on belief. This is demonstrated not only in the rise of most religious movements, but also in conversions, and the devotions of practitioners world wide. Now, you are not a believer, and your exposure to faith appears based on meeting a standard so you could wed. It appears you think that because religion was simply a means for you, it is the same for others. This is a mistake.

Quote:

---

You are the one that brings race in to this discussion, not me. I don't understand why you do so either, but I will not make any conclusions.

---

I brought race into the discussion because it is relevant to the thread which is determining Jew status. Race has been a common way of understanding Jewry. Your own view seems to parallel that position if you hold that Jewishness is something from birth.

Quote:

---

The problem you are describing is treated as a "rebirth" in most religions. Also to note, conversion is not accepted in most religions. It is seen as a serious crime and have created more wars and sectarian conflicts than you and I can imagine. Actually it is here the "honor murders" comes in play.
Surely "honor murders" and sectarian conflicts are flaws, but they are sadly enough facts that can not be ignored. Religions are in many things flawed and irrational, but that is not really the discussion.
Bottom line, religions are a political system used to create a power structure, often based on oppression, and it has no interest what so ever in your logics, as long as it doesn't serve their purpose.
I am really surprised that an educated man like you don't know this ??

---

Conversion exists in most religions. This idea of "rebirth" does not: at least not in the sense you seem to be using it. A child born to a Muslim couple and adopted and raised Catholic hasn't undergone any rebirth. Physically the child is the same. Emotionally and intellectually there does not appear to be any prior stance so there is no "re", no prefix, to apply.

Regarding conversion: conversion is accepted by most religions. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism all accept conversion. Islam also accepts conversion. Now there is a penchant in Islam about leaving once in the faith: nasty business about killing heretics, but this has no standing in the West where I know several former Muslims who have embraced other faiths.

Religions cannot be considered simply political. I have given two counter-examples above.

Quote:

---

I didn't say that you suggested an odd definition of race. I have no problems with what you say above either. I did say that you used race to fit your line of argument. Wouldn't surprise me if it also was an attempt to drag the whole discussion in to racist debate, which I would consider be low.

---

I don't understand this later part of the post. Race has been a featured point of the thread from the beginning. It is one of the possible ways of understanding Jewry.

Quote:

---

A correct translation would be "The people of Indonesia must believe in one God only." There are whole books written on the subject.
The critics are having a problem with this since Buddhism and Hinduism is allowed religions as well, beside Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism.
The communist party was banned in 1965 due to they had atheism written in their program. Around 500,000 where murdered due to this during this time as well. But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:

---

I checked two versions of the Indonesian Constitution. Example 1 Example 2 Both read:

Chapter 11 Article 29

1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.

2. The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.


Point 1) seems clearly to refer to the government and the direction of national law. It does not refer to individual belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar
Unfortunately Master Bmolsson doesn't realize he has already ceded the field.


No I don't. I can't see why the fact on a religion like Judaism is going to be "defeated" by your word games. Jews are jews, regardless if they have the faith or not, not because I say so, because they say so themselves.
They have been oppressed enough and have their own right to their own identity.....

---

Your reply doesn't match my post. Your positional failures have nothing to do with Judaism's success.

Jews are Jews, but it is not just a circular concept. It has real meaning. Determining that meaning was the point of the thread. My position is that the only consistent understanding is tied to belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Ok, then we have that settled. bmolsson and all the nations with state religion through history are wrong and Pindare the Great is right.
And I assume that is based on your science as well.....

---

Quote:

---

But of course this is all irrelevant with Pindar logic...... :bow:

---

Bitter sarcasm and little snide attacks are no substitute for good arguments, and no honour sprouts from such course of action.

That is not the way of greatness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

Bitter sarcasm and little snide attacks are no substitute for good arguments, and no honour sprouts from such course of action.

That is not the way of greatness.

---

I am sorry. It was not my intention. I have to admit that the race insinuation made me a bit dissappointed on Pindar, hence the sarcasm. Will not happen again.... :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There is no "e" at the end of my name.

I don't have a science, but I do understand science.

More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.






Power structure could be interpreted as ecclesiastical or political authority. Regardless, of which you are thinking of there are simple counter-examples which I have given before: one, Christian Anchorites. These are hermits that are not tied to any organization or state. Two, Hindu forest ascetics: like their Christian counterparts these mystics have no connection to any of organized body.



I am happy to discuss history. The two examples just given are historical. I am also happy to discuss reality. The reality is religion is based on belief. This is demonstrated not only in the rise of most religious movements, but also in conversions, and the devotions of practitioners world wide. Now, you are not a believer, and your exposure to faith appears based on meeting a standard so you could wed. It appears you think that because religion was simply a means for you, it is the same for others. This is a mistake.



I brought race into the discussion because it is relevant to the thread which is determining Jew status. Race has been a common way of understanding Jewry. Your own view seems to parallel that position if you hold that Jewishness is something from birth.





Conversion exists in most religions. This idea of "rebirth" does not: at least not in the sense you seem to be using it. A child born to a Muslim couple and adopted and raised Catholic hasn't undergone any rebirth. Physically the child is the same. Emotionally and intellectually there does not appear to be any prior stance so there is no "re", no prefix, to apply.

Regarding conversion: conversion is accepted by most religions. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism all accept conversion. Islam also accepts conversion. Now there is a penchant in Islam about leaving once in the faith: nasty business about killing heretics, but this has no standing in the West where I know several former Muslims who have embraced other faiths.

Religions cannot be considered simply political. I have given two counter-examples above.





I don't understand this later part of the post. Race has been a featured point of the thread from the beginning. It is one of the possible ways of understanding Jewry.





I checked two versions of the Indonesian Constitution. Example 1 Example 2 Both read:

Chapter 11 Article 29

1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.

2. The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.


Point 1) seems clearly to refer to the government and the direction of national law. It does not refer to individual belief.





Your reply doesn't match my post. Your positional failures have nothing to do with Judaism's success.

Jews are Jews, but it is not just a circular concept. It has real meaning. Determining that meaning was the point of the thread. My position is that the only consistent understanding is tied to belief.

---

Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:

:stop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:

---

:medievalcheers:

man, hes good
if i actually disagreed with pindar, i dont know what i would do

probably stay in college for 15 more years and then send him a letter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:

---

"Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well or about the divine to people who are restricted by their concepts?"

Alas, I have failed to free you from your shackles.

Go in peace. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I am sorry. It was not my intention. I have to admit that the race insinuation made me a bit dissappointed on Pindar, hence the sarcasm. Will not happen again.... :embarassed:

---

Thus you redeem yourself with this, and you glimpse the shine of greatness. :bow:

Quote:

---

Pindar, I am sorry. I know for a fact that my position is the reality, but can't argue with your lingustic skills. Also the fact that the moderators already interacted, I hereby give up the discussion. ~:grouphug:

---

Doh… :stunned:

My comment was “interaction”, and that is partly the reason you give up!?!

Nobody ever told you to stop. I was not the judge in this contest. I don’t have any more jurisdiction in Backroom, my realm is now in Rome MP where there is nothing to do. ~D I just stated my opinion that you were pwned.

Which, in itself, is no shame at all; Pindar-sama is practically unbeatable in debates. He is the person that could proverbially spoke the devil into setting himself on fire.

You should practice your exits more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voigtkampf

You should practice your exits more.

---

Why ? After all I am a frog...... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Why ? After all I am a frog...... :bow:

---

:frog:

Quote:

---

I don't have a science, but I do understand science.

More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.

---

I just had to say.

A law which stated you must change your beleif's or we burn you alive at the steak, Kind of had a controll over beileif.

So Law can controll beleif.

This thread seems like a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Me:
More to the point, law cannot control belief. It does not have the power to do it. If you believe this is possible then you should be able to explain the physiological/ psychological process how the passing of some legislation can overcome the psyche and will of men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

I just had to say.
A law which stated you must change your beleif's or we burn you alive at the steak, Kind of had a controll over beileif.
So Law can controll beleif.

---

---

Hello Just A Girl Im Probably ShambleS,

You seem to be raising a legal issue. I don't think you have thought through your comment. Consider, a law is passed just like you describe: belief X or you burn. Now if we have some -X believer and the authorities come to him and say. "Do you believe X?" "We've heard you don't" Our -X believer could simply lie. An edict, regardless of content, cannot change the psyche. The
-X believer could lie to save his skin, or have an epiphany and embrace X but the law itself cannot create the belief.

Consider a stronger example from what you gave. The law demands not only belief but some physical demonstration of belief: say all must be baptized into the Government's faith. Even here individuals may say they believe X and are even baptized but remain non-believers in their heart. Two simple historical examples are Jews in Spain, from the late 15th Century, who outwardly embraced Christianity, but remained closet Jews and Japanese Christians from the early 17th Century who were forced to physically demostrate their rejection of their religion (the fumie was used where suspected Christians were to step on pictures of Christ or other religious paraphernalia to demonstrate their rejection or disbelief) but nonetheless remained closet Christians all the way through to the Modern Era.

The "Jews" have the rather exceptional position of a people who have survived and thrived for so long as to be identified by many characteristics. As a student of history, I deeply respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This thread seems like a long time ago.



Hello Just A Girl Im Probably ShambleS,

You seem to be raising a legal issue. I don't think you have thought through your comment. Consider, a law is passed just like you describe: belief X or you burn. Now if we have some -X believer and the authorities come to him and say. "Do you believe X?" "We've heard you don't" Our -X believer could simply lie. An edict, regardless of content, cannot change the psyche. The
-X believer could lie to save his skin, or have an epiphany and embrace X but the law itself cannot create the belief.

Consider a stronger example from what you gave. The law demands not only belief but some physical demonstration of belief: say all must be baptized into the Government's faith. Even here individuals may say they believe X and are even baptized but remain non-believers in their heart. Two simple historical examples are Jews in Spain, from the late 15th Century, who outwardly embraced Christianity, but remained closet Jews and Japanese Christians from the early 17th Century who were forced to physically demostrate their rejection of their religion (the fumie was used where suspected Christians were to step on pictures of Christ or other religious paraphernalia to demonstrate their rejection or disbelief) but nonetheless remained closet Christians all the way through to the Modern Era.

---

But physically opressing people from preforming the rituals accosiated with their beileifs is still Controlling beleif.
Pagans are a good example of Lwaws controlling religion.

Although there are still some. Most were converted thanx to laws making paganism punishable by death.

I'm curious as to why do you're so interested in this topic Pindar? I mean, do you see a problem with the basic and primary correlation between the concept "jew" and the religion "judaism", to me there's nothing to argue, or investigate here, the "jew" is a practioner of judaism. Now if we go to the canons of this religions, and exclusively looking at it from the point of view of the respective religious institutions, once a christian, always a christian, once a jew, always a jew, so the two categories don't seem exclusive to me. I wonder why they appear exclusive to you (refering to your first post).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

But physically opressing people from preforming the rituals accosiated with their beileifs is still Controlling beleif.
Pagans are a good example of Lwaws controlling religion.

Although there are still some. Most were converted thanx to laws making paganism punishable by death.

---

No, physically oppressing people as in proscribing what rituals they may perform impacts behavior not belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'm curious as to why do you're so interested in this topic Pindar? I mean, do you see a problem with the basic and primary correlation between the concept "jew" and the religion "judaism", to me there's nothing to argue, or investigate here, the "jew" is a practioner of judaism. Now if we go to the canons of this religions, and exclusively looking at it from the point of view of the respective religious institutions, once a christian, always a christian, once a jew, always a jew, so the two categories don't seem exclusive to me. I wonder why they appear exclusive to you (refering to your first post).

---

Hello,

I'm not so interested in this topic, but I do think its interesting how some use and understand the term. As I mentioned in the first post there appear to be three basic standards: Jew as a racial designate, Jew as a ethnic designate and Jew as a religious designate. I think the first two are incoherent for the reasons I described. I think the third is the only way to understand Jewish status in a coherent way.

I don't understand your last two sentences. I will say: there is no "once a Christian, always a Christian". Christian standing is tied to belief. If someone is raised Christian but then opts for Islam they are Muslim not Christian. This holds for as long as they profess loyalty to said system. Similarly, if being Jewish is to be a believer in the tenets of Judaism then that belief is an essential aspect of the designation. It's absence would mean the label losses meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

I'm not so interested in this topic, but I do think its interesting how some use and understand the term. As I mentioned in the first post there appear to be three basic standards: Jew as a racial designate, Jew as a ethnic designate and Jew as a religious designate. I think the first two are incoherent for the reasons I described. I think the third is the only way to understand Jewish status in a coherent way.

I don't understand your last two sentences. I will say: there is no "once a Christian, always a Christian". Christian standing is tied to belief. If someone is raised Christian but then opts for Islam they are Muslim not Christian. This holds for as long as they profess loyalty to said system. Similarly, if being Jewish is to be a believer in the tenets of Judaism then that belief is an essential aspect of the designation. It's absence would mean the label losses meaning.

---

mother of god, i love you. welcome back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

mother of god, i love you. welcome back.

---

:kiss2: