What is a Jew

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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......

[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.

[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.....

[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]

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

Mental states are not legally controlled. The disregard for the analogy could and would equally apply to your own perspective on religion equalling a legal status. You cannot have it both ways.

Nope. Only if he refuse to see anything else being developed in his religion.

Based on this answer: I don't understand you definition. You equate fundamentalism with literalism. If someone accepts that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, as it states in the New Testament, that would be based on a literal reading.

All my jewish friends are very secular, don't seem to do believe at all. Still jewish and proud of being so.

Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.

Not really, I am just more objective than you.

I don't think you understand what objective means. It is not the same as dogmatic. In a scientific setting it would refer to following the evidence, or its lack in this case, to a conclusion. You have failed to meet that standard. Sorry.

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

My respect is irrelevant. The point is science has a base meaning. That meaning constrains its usage.

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



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

You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiousity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity.

[The Wizard]

The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity. It is this character that has preserved Jewish identity in the diaspora, and this character of Judaism also came to be because of this situation. It is this that makes the matter of being a Jew a complicated thing.

Myself, I am a Jew. According to conservative and progressive Jews, that is. Orthodox Jews would not call me a Jew, because my father is a Jew and not my mother. Yet my father has a Dutch father himself, while his own mother was a "pure" (excuse the term; there is a lack of better terms so my hand is forced) Jewess, with both a Jewish mother and father. So, what is he? A full-blooded Jew or just as much a Jew as I am?

If we go with the latter, I would be less a Jew, since my father would only be 50% Jewish and my mother is Dutch, so that would make me 25% Jewish.

Confusing, no? Nevertheless, I have learned Hebrew and have been accepted as a Jew by the American (and Israeli) Jews at the synagogue on Aruba. I've not done my Bar Mitsvah yet, and not sure if I ever will (or even if I still can).



~Wiz

[Sigurd]

I’ll just butt in here since I seemed to have fuelled this discussion. It is my experience that when two opposing sides are at Remi, it calls for mediation with a third party.

I asked for a definition of fundamentalism because the wording of the statement that I first quoted sparked my interest (the notion that a religious stance is fundamentalistic because it does not evolve).
Historically the notion fundamentalism was first used in Protestantism early in the 20th century by a group of conservative members of a few protestant denominations as a counter to a modernisation tendency of the denominations in question.
In this bmolsson is somewhat right.
They published a publication called “The Fundamentals“, where they laid down 5 doctrines that they considered fundamental to their faith.
They were: The virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, the substitutional atonement and the literal and physical second coming of Christ.
Today this term is used in a derogatory way to describe a fringe religious group or extremists.
It does however have a precise denotation: The returning to the defining or founding principles of the religion.
This is consequently a reaction to modernism which bmolsson calls evolve.
Hence fundamentalism is an active movement and implies taking action against an attempt at modernising a religion.

I would say Fundamentalism is a sign of a dead religion (I might take some FLAK for that statement).
The Deist religions out there, which are many, do not believe in revelation and hence is left to their own judgements with their only point of reference; a book compiled by the enemy.
The only choice they have is making this book infallible, because with out it they have nothing. They have hamstrung their other supporting pillars by deeming them heretic.
Originally Christianity was based on the revelatory element which encompassed change at a moments notice (ref. Peter and converting gentiles).
Often heavenly messengers brought the new doctrines and rites. Whenever a change occurred confirmation was required and given. Hence a religion based on the revelatory element is in fact not dead and could evolve at any moments notice.
It can not sustain any fundamentalists or modernists as these would be in opposition with the current status.


I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.
Here in Norway 90% of the population is Lutheran. A very large percentage have not the faintest clue what that involves. They faithfully baptise their children, send their youth to confirmation, their young adults to church for marriage and burry their old in sanctified Lutheran ground. Very few know what they are supposed to believe in; the trinity, the virgin birth etc…

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

[bmolsson]

Mental states are not legally controlled.

Sure they are. The definition of an adult is based on mental state. There is a big portion of the legal system as well as health care system pointing out peoples mental state and health in a legal point of view. I am very suprised that you of all can't see this.....

I don't understand you definition.

It's ok, I still like you....

Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.

It's called reality. It's not always as we want it to be, hence a lot of fanatic muslims trying to bomb the majority in to your way of thinking.

I don't think you understand what objective means. It is not the same as dogmatic. In a scientific setting it would refer to following the evidence, or its lack in this case, to a conclusion. You have failed to meet that standard. Sorry.

I failed to be objective ? Don't think so...

You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......

My respect is irrelevant.

Noted.

You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiousity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity.

We are talking about religion here. The substantive. Being religious has nothing to do with being a member of a religion. A child can't legally be consent until after a certain age, meaning that children can't be religious, which is incorrect in more or less all religions.
Don't turn this in to a English language discussion, that is just so low. You know exactly what I mean.

[bmolsson]

I think Sigurd Fafnesbane got my position fairly correct. Thanks...

[GoreBag]

I've found it more convenient to refer to Jews as followers of Judaism, and Hebrews as the ethnic group (sic). While most Hebrews are Jews, not all Jews are Hebrews. These are my 2 cents.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......

Pindarbot never said that he could "prove" that Aristotle lived using archaeology. You, however, said that there was "archaeological proof" that Jesus lived. There is historical evidence that both lived, but nothing that could scientifically "prove" it one way or the other.

bmolsson, you seem to not really like to subscribe to pre-established definitions, but rather create your own. We have all discussed how difficult human comminication would be if people all created their own definitions in their heads rather than obey an ever-evolving lexicon. Proof was the key word here and Jesus' life cannot be "proven" using archaeology at this time.

[bmolsson]

Pindarbot never said that he could "prove" that Aristotle lived using archaeology. You, however, said that there was "archaeological proof" that Jesus lived. There is historical evidence that both lived, but nothing that could scientifically "prove" it one way or the other.

I argue that the historical proof we have says that both actually lived. What can not be proved is if Jesus was a God or a son of one.

bmolsson, you seem to not really like to subscribe to pre-established definitions, but rather create your own. We have all discussed how difficult human comminication would be if people all created their own definitions in their heads rather than obey an ever-evolving lexicon. Proof was the key word here and Jesus' life cannot be "proven" using archaeology at this time.

Which pre-established definitions am I not subscribing on ? What have I created on my own ?
The key is your word ever-evolving lexicon. I am trying to see things differently and with objectivity.
For example religion; It's a fact that most people belonging to the large religions today are not actually religious per Pindar's definition. Would this make them less members of the religion. No. Here we have the disagreement. Actually a scientific survey of people being religious and members of the religion would show my thesis correct.

I must say that I am a bit surprised over you telling me that I am creating my own definitions. My intentions is nothing more that open up the mind of Pindar towards reality.

[Pindar]

The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity.

As I noted in my initial post: I think this is one common way of claiming Jewish identity. The problem as I see it is there isn't one single Jewish culture. Ethiopian and Russian ethnicity is different for example.

[Pindar]

I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

I agree many may identify with a particular faith without knowing anything about that faith. This may very well be due to a cultural inheritance or tradition. My point is: it is improper to apply the label Jew, Christian or any other faith to a person if there is no belief. If some belief exists: i.e. Muhammad was God's prophet or Jesus is the Christ or Jews are the Covenant people etc. then even without a formal adherence or devout practice the label still has some meaning. Without any supporting belief the label is void.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
Mental states are not legally controlled.

Sure they are. The definition of an adult is based on mental state. There is a big portion of the legal system as well as health care system pointing out peoples mental state and health in a legal point of view. I am very suprised that you of all can't see this.....

Actually in the U.S., Japan and other nations, whose legal systems I have some experience with, Adult status is determined by age. Legal judgments on mental status have to do with culpability. Neither of these positions attempt to control the metal state of the subject. Indeed no one argues the law can control mental states.

Posted by Pindar
Proud of being something they don't believe at all? This is a non sequitur.

It's called reality. It's not always as we want it to be, hence a lot of fanatic muslims trying to bomb the majority in to your way of thinking.

You are saying that stating that belief is a fundamental component of religious status is a terrorist notion and terrorists are killing people who don't agree?

I failed to be objective ?

Yes. You seem to define a number of things according to criteria that is peripheral to the subject at hand.

You claim that Aristotle lived and created a more secular sceintific approach. You prove this point based on writings and documentation, which you discredit me from using to make my points. Prove to me with natural science that Aristotle lived and have a secular theory predated the old testamente. I am all ears......

You are referring to the other thread. You did not understand my post in the other thread it appears. I did not claim any proof about Aristotle. I did state that historical data is suggestive. Suggestive is not definitive. There is no 'proof' that Aristotle or Jesus lived. There are historical records noting these people lived. I stated that such historical data (the more the better) means it is not unreasonable to assume they did, in fact, live. Now a statement about Jesus does not equal a proof of His Divinity. It may indicate the writer believed this was the case, but belief is not a proof. I took this same stance with your references to Biblical texts: that someone wrote down a creation account may mean the writer believed what he wrote: God created the temporal realim, but this does not equal a proof. That is the point.

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


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

Pindar: You disagree that religious is an adjective? Check a dictionary.
You disagree that religious applies to mental states? You disagree that religiosity is not bound by legal dicta? See the green analogy. The law can no more force one to believe a thing than it can force one accept a favorite color. Your position rests on an absurdity.

We are talking about religion here. The substantive. Being religious has nothing to do with being a member of a religion. A child can't legally be consent until after a certain age, meaning that children can't be religious, which is incorrect in more or less all religions.
Don't turn this in to a English language discussion, that is just so low. You know exactly what I mean.

You stated you 'disagree' I don't know if this is to the whole prior post or a part. I responded with replies to each possible disagreement as I understood it. I do have to guess what you mean sometimes.

I agree that being religious may not mean being a part of a formal religion, but I also believe that being part of a formal religion does mean one is involved in some degree of religiosity and that religiosity has a belief component. Thus the one is a subset of the other.

Consent prior to formal membership is a fundamental component of major tracts of Protestantism. Consent is also the defining stance regarding sin in Catholic and Orthodox traditions (though Catholic teaching also has the notion of Original sin). Jewish teaching also ties sin to consent: meaning a willful act. In short: I would agree babies aren't religious.

[bmolsson]

Actually in the U.S., Japan and other nations, whose legal systems I have some experience with, Adult status is determined by age. Legal judgments on mental status have to do with culpability. Neither of these positions attempt to control the metal state of the subject. Indeed no one argues the law can control mental states.

A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....

You are saying that stating that belief is a fundamental component of religious status is a terrorist notion and terrorists are killing people who don't agree?

For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.

Yes. You seem to define a number of things according to criteria that is peripheral to the subject at hand.

Similar to what I think of your arguments, but I am to polite to use it....

You are referring to the other thread. You did not understand my post in the other thread it appears. I did not claim any proof about Aristotle. I did state that historical data is suggestive. Suggestive is not definitive. There is no 'proof' that Aristotle or Jesus lived. There are historical records noting these people lived. I stated that such historical data (the more the better) means it is not unreasonable to assume they did, in fact, live. Now a statement about Jesus does not equal a proof of His Divinity. It may indicate the writer believed this was the case, but belief is not a proof. I took this same stance with your references to Biblical texts: that someone wrote down a creation account may mean the writer believed what he wrote: God created the temporal realim, but this does not equal a proof. That is the point.

So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......

Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......

Knowledge is always a hard nut to crack. We don't know if God created the temporal realim. We do know that it exist and that the only known record on how life was created says it was created by a God. Some parts of this thesis have alternatives today and tomorrow maybe more will have it. Furthermore we don't really know how to define a God. Walk on water, fly and slapping flashes is not longer something only a God can do, who knows what we all can do in the near future..........

You stated you 'disagree' I don't know if this is to the whole prior post or a part. I responded with replies to each possible disagreement as I understood it. I do have to guess what you mean sometimes.

I agree that being religious may not mean being a part of a formal religion, but I also believe that being part of a formal religion does mean one is involved in some degree of religiosity and that religiosity has a belief component. Thus the one is a subset of the other.

Consent prior to formal membership is a fundamental component of major tracts of Protestantism. Consent is also the defining stance regarding sin in Catholic and Orthodox traditions (though Catholic teaching also has the notion of Original sin). Jewish teaching also ties sin to consent: meaning a willful act. In short: I would agree babies aren't religious.

I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.

[Pindar]

A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....

Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.

For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.

I don't know what Muslim terrorist groups you are thinking of. Most I know of focus on political ends, not mental states.

So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......

Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.

There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.

Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......

Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.

I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.

I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say.

My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.

You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.

As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.

[bmolsson]

Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.

Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.

There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.

This logic seems a lot like mine....

Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.

Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.

I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say.

My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.

You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.

As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.

I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.




This logic seems a lot like mine....



Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.



I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?

[Pindar]

The state forces us to a mental state. Taxes to help others, drafts to defend our selves and in jury duty to judge others.

The imposition of civil duty doesn't compel a particular mental state. It does compel certain actions however.

This logic seems a lot like mine....

If you want to argue that there are old texts that speak of Deity then we have no issue. This is certainly the case. If you want argue that those texts constitute a proof of God's existence then I would disagree. This is the central issue with trying to argue that a "social science" appeal can somehow bring a definitive result to the question of Deity.

Nobody does research on divinity because they are afraid of the results.

Actually lots of people do research on Deity, just not the kind you hope for the reason being: it is not logically possible.

I understand. It takes many years of meditation to reach a higher level of understanding. Just keep on searching and you will find the truth.

Thanks for your understanding. I feel a little better knowing you care. Do I need to shave my head?

[Pindar]

jeez - talk about devolution of argumentative ability
what happened to the time when you argued rationally and listened to opposing opinions?

bmolsson has transcended logic.