What is a Jew

[bmolsson]

No, I argued, as I already pointed out, faith (belief) is relevant for understanding devotion. The religious system is distinct.

Maybe devotion, but it's not relevant to understand religion as a system.

According to you and the metaphysical, how can you say that a religious system is distinct ??

Religion cannot be secular and what is secular is not religion. Neither of these points involve any kind of fundamentalism.

The reality of today is far more secular than when the largest religions was developed. Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.

The failures of Islam to instill any devotion amongst Indonesians is irrelevant to the more basic issue of devotion. If one is Muslim according to a legal category that is a contrivance of the nation, not a standard at large. Whatever changes are going on in Indonesia does not effect this basic point.

Empirical data shows that you are wrong. The majority of muslims today are not muslims due to devotion, but due to birth and affiliation.

[Sigurd]

Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.

This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…

[Pindar]

Originally Posted by bmolsson
Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.

This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…

That's what I've been trying to flush out.

[bmolsson]

That's what I've been trying to flush out.

Not at all. You keep on getting back to faith and the deity....

[bmolsson]

This is an interesting notion and could kick off a whole new discussion.
What is your meaning of the word fundamentalism? There are a few definitions out there…

A fundamentalist is a person that only want to see the letters of the written and is inable to see the meaning in a perspective.

Several milleniums ago, human society where built up on a power structure, which was based on appointment from a higher power or deity. This made it possible for the human race to develop a distance between the leading personalities without any direct contacts with the subjects. This was a must since information distribution as we know it today did not exist.
This society researched it's origin as well as other subjects of interest. There was no modern scientific traditions and this reasearch was based on what was at hand at that time.
The religion was the only political and economical structure in place and also "science" was included there. All collected knowledge was written down in texts that later was seen as "holy".

I argue that a theory, like creationism, based on these holy texts should be treated as a theory and the holy texts should be analyzed as results from the collected knowledge at the time. Several modern scientific reasearch has been made on these texts, for example there are proof that Jesus actually has lived, based on archelogical findings.

Pindar refute this on the basis that the holy texts have a metaphysical appeal, they claim there is a deity. I argue that this is irrelevant since people didn't know anything else at the time and the metaphysical appeal is only "noise" on the findings.
Further more, I argue that the deity mentioned, in fact can be a physical being present at the time. Alien, different human or similar are possibilities that should not be ignored.

Further down in the discussion, Pindar argue that religion is nothing without it's faith. People belonging to a religion do believe in a metaphysical appeal that can be found in the "holy texts" and teachings of the religion.
I argue that this is not at all the reality. People belong to their respective religions due to birth and affiliation. A child is taught to believe, it's only a "tool" to align the individual in to the power structure.

In fact one of the basic conditions for democracy to function is that everyone in the society have similar values and understandings. If not, you get a civil war on your hands, which we have seen even in a great nation like US.

So bottom line, Pindar has taken a fundamentalistic view on religion and refuse to see beyond the faith and metaphysical appeal, since he claim that it is the fundamental pillar of the religions.

[Pindar]

A fundamentalist is a person that only want to see the letters of the written and is inable to see the meaning in a perspective.

This is different than your earlier reference to fundamentalism from wikipedia. So, a fundamentalist is any who take a literal position? Is that your view?

Several modern scientific reasearch has been made on these texts, for example there are proof that Jesus actually has lived, based on archelogical findings.

There is no archeological "proof" Jesus lived.

Pindar refute this on the basis that the holy texts have a metaphysical appeal, they claim there is a deity.

Further down in the discussion, Pindar argue that religion is nothing without it's faith. People belonging to a religion do believe in a metaphysical appeal that can be found in the "holy texts" and teachings of the religion.

So bottom line, Pindar has taken a fundamentalistic view on religion and refuse to see beyond the faith and metaphysical appeal, since he claim that it is the fundamental pillar of the religions.

It's interesting to see how you characterize my view. Actually, my stance is:

Creationism is not science, because it does not meet the standards of a science. Two examples are: it makes a metaphysical appeal, it lacks a verification schema.

Religious devotion can only be meaningful or properly understood through belief. If someone doesn't actually believe in religious precept they are not religious. For example a Muslim is someone who believes in the Five Pillars of Islam.

On fundamentalism: your old definition (the wikipedia def.) didn't apply as it was centered on sectarian movements. You've introduced another definition so I'll wait to see if I understand your view before I comment.

[bmolsson]

So, a fundamentalist is any who take a literal position? Is that your view?

Yes, I would say that is close enough for my view in this discussion.

There is no archeological "proof" Jesus lived.

From google

Another google

Creationism is not science, because it does not meet the standards of a science. Two examples are: it makes a metaphysical appeal, it lacks a verification schema.

You know my stand: Creationism is a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not central for the theory. The verification scheme is the documentation found on human behavior through history.

Religious devotion can only be meaningful or properly understood through belief. If someone doesn't actually believe in religious precept they are not religious. For example a Muslim is someone who believes in the Five Pillars of Islam.

Your definition of religious is not a prerequisite for being a member of the religions in question. You confuse faith with membership.

[Pindar]

Yes, I would say that is close enough for my view in this discussion.

OK, is this a pejorative? Any who believe Jesus is the Christ is a fundamentalist?

From google

Another google

I don't usually consider the contents of records as archeology proper. I consider such as a historical claim or documentation. Perhaps you combine the two.

You know my stand: Creationism is a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not central for the theory. The verification scheme is the documentation found on human behavior through history.

I know. It is unconvincing. Science has never worked in or aspired to the metaphysical as it lacks concrete data. A literary device is not a proof. At best it reflects the belief of the writer. If someone wrote they saw Deity that does not constitute the event occurred.

Your definition of religious is not a prerequisite for being a member of the religions in question. You confuse faith with membership.

Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.

[bmolsson]

OK, is this a pejorative? Any who believe Jesus is the Christ is a fundamentalist?

Nope. Only if he refuse to see anything else being developed in his religion. Also it's not unique to Christianity. I have several friends here with your views, but they are muslims, buddhist and hindu. All my jewish friends are very secular, don't seem to do believe at all. Still jewish and proud of being so.

I don't usually consider the contents of records as archeology proper. I consider such as a historical claim or documentation. Perhaps you combine the two.

Not really, I am just more objective than you.

I know. It is unconvincing. Science has never worked in or aspired to the metaphysical as it lacks concrete data. A literary device is not a proof. At best it reflects the belief of the writer. If someone wrote they saw Deity that does not constitute the event occurred.

Never had any intention to convince you of the perfection of Creationism. I just want you and everyone else to see on it with objectivity and some respect. What people, all our ancestors, have worked with, believed in and documented, deserves this respect and objectivity IMHO.

Religious is an adjective. It is a reflection of a subject's mental state. It is not subject to legal judgment.

I disagree. A reality check will show you something else.

[Pindar]

Maybe devotion, but it's not relevant to understand religion as a system.

I think you've gotten confused on my basic position. I gave you a definition of religion. That definition did not include faith. Religion as a system is distinct from belief in that system. If someone allies themselves with a religious view, my position is that can only be meaningful if they actually believe in the religion they claim adherence to. Thus, a Christian is one who believes in Christianity (that Jesus is the Christ and savior of mankind), a Muslim is one who accepts the five Pillars of Islam (including the Shahada: there is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet), and a Jew is one who believes in the tenets of Judaism ( i.e. the Torah).

The reality of today is far more secular than when the largest religions was developed. Inability to evolve is a clear sign of fundamentalism.

Yes, the world is more secular, but this doesn't mean religion is secular. They are mutually exclusive positions. Note the way the word was defined when it first appeared in English in 1846: Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter".

Empirical data shows that you are wrong. The majority of muslims today are not muslims due to devotion, but due to birth and affiliation.

So, you are saying there is a study where the world's Muslim community stated they didn't actually believe in Islam, but accepted the status "Muslim" because it was assigned them by their state? What is this study? Assuming such actually exists, Why would you consider this compelling? If a state passed a bill where everyone's favorite color was declared to be green and such was the case from birth does that mean everyone sees green as their favorite color? The point is that regardless of any legal action, it cannot reach to the heart of man. There are certain categories and labels that can only be applied by the subject.

[bmolsson]

I think you've gotten confused on my basic position. I gave you a definition of religion. That definition did not include faith. Religion as a system is distinct from belief in that system. If someone allies themselves with a religious view, my position is that can only be meaningful if they actually believe in the religion they claim adherence to. Thus, a Christian is one who believes in Christianity (that Jesus is the Christ and savior of mankind), a Muslim is one who accepts the five Pillars of Islam (including the Shahada: there is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet), and a Jew is one who believes in the tenets of Judaism ( i.e. the Torah).

I am not confused at all. I just disagree with you.

Yes, the world is more secular, but this doesn't mean religion is secular. They are mutually exclusive positions. Note the way the word was defined when it first appeared in English in 1846: Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter".

I didn't say religion was secular. Further more, secularism is actually a view of tolerance. The need of a system without a power structure appointed by a deity, formulated secularism. You could argue that secularism is a product of modern nationbuilding with multiple societies integrated in the same society.
A secular society can be a theocracy, as long as the participation in the leading religion is not made mandatory.

So, you are saying there is a study where the world's Muslim community stated they didn't actually believe in Islam, but accepted the status "Muslim" because it was assigned them by their state? What is this study? Assuming such actually exists, Why would you consider this compelling? If a state passed a bill where everyone's favorite color was declared to be green and such was the case from birth does that mean everyone sees green as their favorite color? The point is that regardless of any legal action, it cannot reach to the heart of man. There are certain categories and labels that can only be applied by the subject.

No, I did say that there is a study of Indonesias muslim community, where a majority of the muslims don't believe in a deity. Islam is not equalled with the belief in the deity in this study.

In regards to your color example, it's exactly what I am trying to say. The society tells everyone at brith that the green color is the favorite, everyone is taught to believe so, but not all do actually agree with this. Since the favorite color is not of importance to them as individuals, they accept the fact and participate in the society anyway.

The heart of man is not what is the most important for most people. Food, family, the flock, etc are far more important for the individual to survive and live a good life than faith in a deity or a favorite color.

[Pindar]

In regards to your color example, it's exactly what I am trying to say. The society tells everyone at brith that the green color is the favorite, everyone is taught to believe so, but not all do actually agree with this. Since the favorite color is not of importance to them as individuals, they accept the fact and participate in the society anyway.

Let's work with this model. If under this situation the government tells person A their favorite color is Green and they actually claim Orange is their favorite: what is their favorite color? Who is right?

If person B is told green is their favorite color and they are indifferent, is green really their favorite color?

If person C is told green is their favorite color and they claim: "yes, green is my favorite color" is the final determination based on the government dicta or the person's statement?

The heart of man is not what is the most important for most people. Food, family, the flock, etc are far more important for the individual to survive and live a good life than faith in a deity or a favorite color.

It would seem that would depend on the person. Those who commit their lives to a cause may disagree. Those who die for a cause would seem to also disagree.

[bmolsson]

Let's work with this model. If under this situation the government tells person A their favorite color is Green and they actually claim Orange is their favorite: what is their favorite color? Who is right?

The government is right and they have the Patriot act to back it up.

If person B is told green is their favorite color and they are indifferent, is green really their favorite color?

Since they have a green T-shirt, they still belong to the team.

If person C is told green is their favorite color and they claim: "yes, green is my favorite color" is the final determination based on the government dicta or the person's statement?

They are patriotic, which is something good in societies based on religion.

It would seem that would depend on the person. Those who commit their lives to a cause may disagree. Those who die for a cause would seem to also disagree.

The people who disagree dies or goes to Gitmo, so they don't really count, do they......

[Pindar]

The government is right and they have the Patriot act to back it up.



Since they have a green T-shirt, they still belong to the team.



They are patriotic, which is something good in societies based on religion.



The people who disagree dies or goes to Gitmo, so they don't really count, do they......

You should have taken my post seriously. It would have helped you break free from your dogmatic chains.

[bmolsson]

You should have taken my post seriously. It would have helped you break free from your dogmatic chains.

I think that favorite colors as an analogy is not to take me seriously, hence the response.....