What is a Jew

[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.