What is a Jew

[Pindar]

Oke, please tell me how the earth was created and how humans was put upon it......

On my confusion, legends through history was never believed in nor accepted during they lives, I just accept that sacrifice for the better good.....

Neither of these answers will effect your non-Muslim status.

[bmolsson]

dont you mean WERE put on it
dont you mean WERE never believed
dont you mean THEIR lives


????????
eye booze
drinky drinky

I sure do.....

[bmolsson]

Neither of these answers will effect your non-Muslim status.

I am a muslim and I have documentation to prove it.....

I still want to hear how you, as a believer, consider the earth history.

[Pindar]

I am a muslim and I have documentation to prove it.....

Sorry your not. You claimed Muslim status to marry and duped those who consider Islam meaningful in the process. An Atheist-Muslim is an oxymoron. Sorry swammy.

I still want to hear how you, as a believer, consider the earth history.

I consider the earth's history historically.

[bmolsson]

Sorry your not. You claimed Muslim status to marry and duped those who consider Islam meaningful in the process. An Atheist-Muslim is an oxymoron. Sorry swammy.

I don't have any documentation saying I am an Atheist, hence I can't be an oxymoron. And I do consider Islam being meaningful, as a base for the Pancasila powerstructure in the Indonesian democracy. So you are wrong.

I consider the earth's history historically.

I sense a reluctance to stand up for your faith. What are you afraid off ? Ending up being called swammy ??

[Pindar]

I don't have any documentation saying I am an Atheist, hence I can't be an oxymoron. And I do consider Islam being meaningful, as a base for the Pancasila powerstructure in the Indonesian democracy. So you are wrong.

Can't be a Muslim if you don't belive in Allah, but you can be the swammy. I wont take that from you.

I sense a reluctance to stand up for your faith. What are you afraid off ? Ending up being called swammy ??

What do you mean? I answered your question.

Did you mean: how was the earth created? I don't know how it was created.

[bmolsson]

Can't be a Muslim if you don't belive in Allah, but you can be the swammy. I wont take that from you.

The empirical evidence says something totally different. My faith is metaphysical, while the documents are physical. Therefore I am scientifically a muslim.......

What do you mean? I answered your question.

Did you mean: how was the earth created? I don't know how it was created.

So you are not a Christian ??

[Pindar]

The empirical evidence says something totally different. My faith is metaphysical, while the documents are physical. Therefore I am scientifically a muslim.......

Are you saying you have faith?

So you are not a Christian ??

I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Christ.

[bmolsson]

Are you saying you have faith?

Sure I have, and plenty of it. Not as recommended though....

I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Christ.

Ok, how was earth created according to your Christian faith ?

[Pindar]

Sure I have, and plenty of it. Not as recommended though....

What does this mean? You told me previously you didn't belive in Allah.

Ok, how was earth created according to your Christian faith ?

Don't know, there isn't a definative explanation.

[bmolsson]

What does this mean? You told me previously you didn't belive in Allah.

This means that I have a high quantity of faith directed elsewhere than Allah. Purely empirical that is.....

Don't know, there isn't a definative explanation.

Explanation made in the Bible and by Christian scholars is rather definative. Don't you believe in that God created earth ???

[Sigurd]

LOL! This is actually a bit funny…

“To know what to ask is already to know half." –Aristotle

The ability to ask the right question is a skill that is very much underrated. If you ask the right question straight off then you are more likely to get the right answer first time.
Who and how gives two completely different answers…

[Pindar]

This means that I have a high quantity of faith directed elsewhere than Allah. Purely empirical that is.....

thus, your a secularist and not a Muslim.

Explanation made in the Bible and by Christian scholars is rather definative. Don't you believe in that God created earth ???

See Sigurd's reply

[bmolsson]

thus, your a secularist and not a Muslim.

Nope, the documentation says muslim and not secularist.

See Sigurd's reply

I want your reply.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope, the documentation says muslim and not secularist.



I want your reply.

This is like watching a stranded goldfish fight a grizzly to the death.

[bmolsson]

This is like watching a stranded goldfish fight a grizzly to the death.

It's actually the crunch of a very long discussion.

Pindar believes in God and old testament, but don't see Creationism as a theory worth looking at. He judge that people belonging to a religion are not really members to the same religion if they don't fit a construct invented at the beginning of the very religion, this regardless the fact that most member of the religion actually do it the other way around.

On the other side we have bmolsson, that doesn't believe in God, have a documentated membership in a religion, since he is a part of the society requiring this membership. Furthermore, he doesn't believe in Creationism, but argue that it's a theory built on findings in literature, human behavior and social patterns, and therefore needs to be respected as a possibility.

Pindar is a religious person that refuse to see the evolution of religion and it's role in society. He also mocks the result of the evolution and judge peoples be or not to be based on the fundamentalistic view that if you don't believe in the metaphysical deity, you can not be a part of any religion.

As a metaphore, better than yours above, this is the race between the rabbit and the turtle. The rabbit is for sure the fastest, but not really interested in the race. The turtle keeps on working itself towards the goal without looking back or think of how it looks during the race. In the end, reality and objectivity wins.......

[Pindar]

It's actually the crunch of a very long discussion.

Pindar believes in God and old testament, but don't see Creationism as a theory worth looking at. He judge that people belonging to a religion are not really members to the same religion if they don't fit a construct invented at the beginning of the very religion, this regardless the fact that most member of the religion actually do it the other way around.

My goodness!

"A light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehendeth it not".

Nothing you describe above reflects my views. I haven't said anything about Creationism's worth. If someone wants to believe in Creationism bully for them. I simply pointed out it is not science and shouldn't be considered as such since it doesn't meet the criteria of science.

I have said nothing about any original intent clause for religiosity. I have argued that belief is a necessary condition to identify with a faith. I have also argued that the belief must be the base tenets that distinguish that faith from anything else in the world. For example: one can't say because they believe in their stamp collection they are therefore Muslim.

On the other side we have bmolsson, that doesn't believe in God, have a documentated membership in a religion, since he is a part of the society requiring this membership.

We have already determined that under the Indonesian Constitution with its religious freedom clause there is no requirement to be Muslim.

Pindar is a religious person that refuse to see the evolution of religion and it's role in society. He also mocks the result of the evolution and judge peoples be or not to be based on the fundamentalistic view that if you don't believe in the metaphysical deity, you can not be a part of any religion.

This is also a mischaracterization. A Christian by definition recognizes an 'evolution' in religion. This is expressed by the canon itself: the Old and New Testaments. I have said nothing that precludes a faith from change, but change doesn't mean the complete erasure of what allows the movement to be identified. There must be some base continuity so as to identify the thing: otherwise one is talking about two different objects.

I have never argued that belief in Deity is a qualifier for religion. I have argued that belief in Allah is a qualifier to be Muslim. This is based on the Shahada the first principle of Islam.

My position is simple: words and concepts have a base meaning and one is not a liberty to change them to mean anything they want: a book is not the planet Jupiter.

[King of Atlantis]

I have not read nearly this whole argument,wondered why people were still arguing about what a jew was , but i agree with Pindar on every point he just made.


I see why he is getting so many votes as best debater

[Kanamori]

a book is not the planet Jupiter.

Yes, but for how long?

[bmolsson]

Nothing you describe above reflects my views. I haven't said anything about Creationism's worth. If someone wants to believe in Creationism bully for them. I simply pointed out it is not science and shouldn't be considered as such since it doesn't meet the criteria of science.

You did not agree that it was a theory. You claimed it was a pure metaphysical fantasy.

I have said nothing about any original intent clause for religiosity. I have argued that belief is a necessary condition to identify with a faith. I have also argued that the belief must be the base tenets that distinguish that faith from anything else in the world. For example: one can't say because they believe in their stamp collection they are therefore Muslim.

You said that the faith is a prerequiste for a person to be a member of a religion. I disagree. Stamp collections is a new argument in the debate.

We have already determined that under the Indonesian Constitution with its religious freedom clause there is no requirement to be Muslim.

There is a requirement in the Indonesian constitiution that you have to believe in God.

This is also a mischaracterization. A Christian by definition recognizes an 'evolution' in religion. This is expressed by the canon itself: the Old and New Testaments. I have said nothing that precludes a faith from change, but change doesn't mean the complete erasure of what allows the movement to be identified. There must be some base continuity so as to identify the thing: otherwise one is talking about two different objects.

That is not how I read your comments on Islam and a range of other religions.

I have never argued that belief in Deity is a qualifier for religion. I have argued that belief in Allah is a qualifier to be Muslim. This is based on the Shahada the first principle of Islam.

Which is not the case in islam here in Indonesia. The faith can not be quantified and can therefore not be a qualifier in reality. I am sure that is scientific.....

My position is simple: words and concepts have a base meaning and one is not a liberty to change them to mean anything they want: a book is not the planet Jupiter.

I have never argue otherwise. On one hand you argue that faith is metaphysical and can't be quantified. On the other hand you claim that it's a qualifier to be a part of a very much real society as a religion.
You have to make up your mind and not turn things in to something that makes you happy for the moment. There is a world out there you know....

[Pindar]

Bmolsson,

Your reply telling me my position is flawed. I have never argued faith is metaphysical fancy or any other view you put forward. My position is and has been what I posted. To repeat:

-Creationism is not science.

-Belief is a necessary condition for religiosity.

-Religious systems have a core meaning that identifies and distinguishes them.

a) In the case of Islam this would be the Five Pillars the first of which is:
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" (the Shahada).
b) Muslim identity would require agreement with the "A".



-Tangent: There is nothing in the Indonesian Constitution that requires belief in God. Note: Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution

(1). The state shall be based upon belief in one god.
(2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.

There is nothing that states one must believe in God.

[bmolsson]

Your reply telling me my position is flawed. I have never argued faith is metaphysical fancy or any other view you put forward. My position is and has been what I posted.

So what have you argued that faith is then ?

-Creationism is not science.

I have claimed that Creationism is a theory based on social science. You introduced creationism as science. Do you disagree with that Creationism is a theory based on social science ?

-Belief is a necessary condition for religiosity.

And how do you quantify belief ? It's impossible to use a metaphysical belief as a condition for something earthly, freely based on your own views.
Reality is that faith is irrelevant to somebody being a member of a religion or not.
Surely you can bring it all down to an issue in the English language and claim that being religious is not the same as being a member of a religion. You usually do so.

-Religious systems have a core meaning that identifies and distinguishes them.

a) In the case of Islam this would be the Five Pillars the first of which is:
"There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" (the Shahada).
b) Muslim identity would require agreement with the "A".

The symbolism you are talking about is not the core of a religion seen from scientific view. The pillar you describe can not be proven or quantified, hence it's only a symbol. US is not what it is because of it's flag.

-Tangent: There is nothing in the Indonesian Constitution that requires belief in God. Note: Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution

(1). The state shall be based upon belief in one god.
(2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.

There is nothing that states one must believe in God.

The first article of Pancasila:
Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa

The state is actually the people. As mentioned, it has been tested in court already. You have to believe in God to reside on Indonesian soil.

[Pindar]

So what have you argued that faith is then ?

For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.

I have claimed that Creationism is a theory based on social science. You introduced creationism as science. Do you disagree with that Creationism is a theory based on social science ?

I don't know any advocates of Creationism who claim it as a social science. Regardless, social science, if it is a science as the label would seem to indicate, must have a verification schema. For Creationism this would be verification of a Creator. This doesn't exist. It is not science.

(I have explained this multiple times)

And how do you quantify belief ?

The assertion by a subject of the reality of some X.

The symbolism you are talking about is not the core of a religion seen from scientific view. The pillar you describe can not be proven or quantified, hence it's only a symbol. US is not what it is because of it's flag.

Religion isn't science.

The first article of Pancasila:
Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa

The state is actually the people. As mentioned, it has been tested in court already. You have to believe in God to reside on Indonesian soil.

I don't know what the Indonesian there means, but if you want to argue the translation of the Indonesian Constitution is wrong please do so. The translation I provided does not say "one must believe in God". Aside from the problem of the text itself there are two obvious difficulties with your view: 1) practical: you don't believe in God and are living in Indonesia. 2)fromal: I'm sure there are Buddhists in Indonesia that probably have actual Temples or some organized structure. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The government does nothing to these Buddhists. Your position fails.

Now I think the crux of your argument is that religion is a legal category. You claim that since you have a card of some sort that identifies you as Muslim you are therefore Muslim regardless of your real views on God. I do not doubt you have some such card. My point is that law does not have the power to determine this status: even in the face of actual legislation. Law can assign culpability but cannot determine reality or belief. For example: if Indonesia decided to pass a law that said all Indonesians are 7ft. tall and even marked that on personal I.D.s it wouldn't change people's height. The same is the case with belief, as I mentioned before: if Indonesia passed a law saying all Indonesians' favorite color was Green, it wouldn't make it so. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore irrespective of any law passed religion is a product of a persons' belief.

[bmolsson]

For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.

More word games ? What are you afraid off ?

I don't know any advocates of Creationism who claim it as a social science. Regardless, social science, if it is a science as the label would seem to indicate, must have a verification schema. For Creationism this would be verification of a Creator. This doesn't exist. It is not science.

(I have explained this multiple times)

No, you are avoiding the question.
Creationism is a theory based on social science.

There are no need to cerify the existence of a deity as the creator. In the theory of evolution, you don't have to verify where the origin of life is.
Creationism theory is trying to explain where earth and life comes from, not if there is a creator or not.

The assertion by a subject of the reality of some X.

So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.

Religion isn't science.

But anthropology is.

I don't know what the Indonesian there means, but if you want to argue the translation of the Indonesian Constitution is wrong please do so. The translation I provided does not say "one must believe in God". Aside from the problem of the text itself there are two obvious difficulties with your view: 1) practical: you don't believe in God and are living in Indonesia. 2)fromal: I'm sure there are Buddhists in Indonesia that probably have actual Temples or some organized structure. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The government does nothing to these Buddhists. Your position fails.

My position doesn't fail. The Indonesian constitution might fail though. I didn't write the Pancasila and it has been widely critized for it's flaws on Buddhism and Hinduism (both accepted religions). Furthermore, faith can't be quantified so you can't really be prosecuted as long as you belong to a religion. No religion will test or try to quantify your religion here in Indonesia, since it's scientifically impossible, so regardless you faith, you can be a member of one of the 5 accepted religions.
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, regardless if Pindar likes it or not.

Now I think the crux of your argument is that religion is a legal category. You claim that since you have a card of some sort that identifies you as Muslim you are therefore Muslim regardless of your real views on God. I do not doubt you have some such card. My point is that law does not have the power to determine this status: even in the face of actual legislation. Law can assign culpability but cannot determine reality or belief. For example: if Indonesia decided to pass a law that said all Indonesians are 7ft. tall and even marked that on personal I.D.s it wouldn't change people's height. The same is the case with belief, as I mentioned before: if Indonesia passed a law saying all Indonesians' favorite color was Green, it wouldn't make it so. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore irrespective of any law passed religion is a product of a persons' belief.

You are wrong.

First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.

If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.

If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.

With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.

So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are wrong.

First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.

If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.

If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.

With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.

So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong.

I, personally, disagree.
In my own opinion after following the arguement, I believe that you are the one who is wrong. However, I do believe that you may have trumped Pindar's point about Indonesians being 7 feet tall. At the same time, I am not sure that the point that you were refuting was damaging to Pindar's superior arguement at all.

[bmolsson]

I, personally, disagree.
In my own opinion after following the arguement, I believe that you are the one who is wrong. However, I do believe that you may have trumped Pindar's point about Indonesians being 7 feet tall. At the same time I am not sure that the point that you were refuting was damaging to Pindar's superior arguement at all.

Well, I didn't write the Indonesian constitution so if you think that Pindar is superior to the Indonesian constitution, I have no problems.....

[Pindar]

Posted by bmolsson
So what have you argued that faith is then ?


Good Guys:For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.

Bmolsson:More word games ? What are you afraid off ?

I don't understand this reply. You asked what faith is and I answer. Why is this a word game?

No, you are avoiding the question.
Creationism is a theory based on social science.

There are no need to cerify the existence of a deity as the creator. In the theory of evolution, you don't have to verify where the origin of life is.
Creationism theory is trying to explain where earth and life comes from, not if there is a creator or not.

This is old ground. You do need to make sure you understand Creationism before you post note: Creationism The position is tied to the existence of a God.

So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.

Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.

But anthropology is.

The study of man. This usually means various cultures.

My position doesn't fail. The Indonesian constitution might fail though. I didn't write the Pancasila and it has been widely critized for it's flaws on Buddhism and Hinduism (both accepted religions). Furthermore, faith can't be quantified so you can't really be prosecuted as long as you belong to a religion. No religion will test or try to quantify your religion here in Indonesia, since it's scientifically impossible, so regardless you faith, you can be a member of one of the 5 accepted religions.
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, regardless if Pindar likes it or not.

This is incoherent. You posted the Indonesian Constitution states: "one must believe in God". I have shown you the actual text. It does not say this. I have also given the example of Buddhism which is a non-theistic religion. You admit that Buddhism is recognized in Indonesia, but then say one has to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This makes no sense given the above.

First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.

If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.

If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.

With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.

So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong.

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again: law cannot create mental states. Belief is a mental state. Therefore the law cannot create belief. Religion is tied to belief therefore law cannot create religious status.

Note: skin color alone didn't determine slave status in the U.S. There were free Blacks in the U.S. even while there was slavery in the U.S.

[Pindar]

Well, I didn't write the Indonesian constitution so if you think that Pindar is superior to the Indonesian constitution, I have no problems.....

It's not a question of writing the Constitution as much as understanding it.

[bmolsson]

I don't understand this reply. You asked what faith is and I answer. Why is this a word game?

No you did not answer what faith is.

This is old ground. You do need to make sure you understand Creationism before you post note: Creationism The position is tied to the existence of a God.

I have and in Wikipedia you can also read: God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Here we come to the crunch in our discussion. Creationism includes evolutionary creationism as well as intelligent design. The creator does not have to be what traditionally is seen as God. The force needed to create life has through times been assumed to be a deity, that in your belief assumed the form of Jesus Christ.
If you question the definition of God and the definition of 6 days, apply social science and try to understand why people in history worked this out, further more apply any other scientific knowledge and see behind the theory of creationism. Surely this will give a lot of more questions, but it doesn't require a traditional God and it does deserve respect to be further researched.

In the same discussion about religion, you refuse to see beyond the old definitions you find in a dictionary. If you want to give it another name, fine, but as it is now, there is no other name for it. What is religion beyond faith ? And what is creationism beyond the classical God ?

Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.

And how much is that ?

The study of man. This usually means various cultures.

Does that include religions ?

This is incoherent. You posted the Indonesian Constitution states: "one must believe in God". I have shown you the actual text. It does not say this. I have also given the example of Buddhism which is a non-theistic religion. You admit that Buddhism is recognized in Indonesia, but then say one has to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This makes no sense given the above.

Yes, it is incoherent, but it is how it is written. I never argued that it makes sense, just how it actually is. When it was written, they didn't know better, just as with any other religious texts. Society have evolved and our understanding is today superior to our ancestors.

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try again: law cannot create mental states. Belief is a mental state. Therefore the law cannot create belief. Religion is tied to belief therefore law cannot create religious status.

Note: skin color alone didn't determine slave status in the U.S. There were free Blacks in the U.S. even while there was slavery in the U.S.

Since when did height become a mental state ?

I know that law cannot create belief or any other mental state. That is why I argue that the mental state and belief is irrelevant in a modern society and in modern religions.
If you argue that I have to believe in God to be a muslim, you have argued that my mental state can be quantified. The pillar in Islam that legislates me having the faith can never be enforced. That is why you are wrong.

[bmolsson]

It's not a question of writing the Constitution as much as understanding it.

You seems to forget that there are people behind the constitution and understanding them would make you understand the constitution better. Once again you seem to forget the people and their reality.