What is a Jew

[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]

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.

[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.