Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, but what I meant was this: Judaism started as a cult and has lasted this long and is called mainstream religion. If a modern day cult lasts the same amount of time, would it be a valid religion like judaism or christianity.

halonachos wrote:Okay, but what I meant was this: Judaism started as a cult and has lasted this long and is called mainstream religion. If a modern day cult lasts the same amount of time, would it be a valid religion like judaism or christianity.

Help me out here, how did Judaism start as a cult?

GG

It started as a small group of people, it came after many polytheistic religions and zoroasterism. The romans thought that the jews were crazy for believing in a guy named god.

Except that you can trace it back to Noah right? Thats 6,000 yrs old. Maybe I'm confusing the Hebrews with Judaism, I'm not very up to date on Judaism, I admit.

EDIT: I guess to be more precise the Hebrews started with Jacob who became Isreal right?
GG

Not sure either, but going for a vague concept and not definitive answers.

Could just say religion x and religion y for example instead of real religions.

Uri Lee wrote:
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.

A postmodernism, how I loathe thee. Yes, sanity is a social construct. However, social construction is essential to the human condition. The fact that something exists only in such a fashion does not change the fact that it might be compulsive, or useful, only the precision with which any given person can hope to judge someone according to that thijng.

generalgrog wrote:Except that you can trace it back to Noah right? Thats 6,000 yrs old. Maybe I'm confusing the Hebrews with Judaism, I'm not very up to date on Judaism, I admit.

EDIT: I guess to be more precise the Hebrews started with Jacob who became Isreal right?
GG

I thought it was Isaac and Ismael. One would go on to found the Hebrew tribes and the other the Arab tribes. Off the top of my head I can't real which was which. It's all connected of course.

There is a difference between what, for a lack of a better term, I'll call tribal religion and transfer religions. Tribal religion is an integral part of a groups identity and in essence has always been with them, like the Hebrews and Judiasm or the Navajo and their beliefs. A transfer religion isn't bound to ethnic identity (nearly as often, this is a big world after all). While there was some debate early in Christianity about whether a believer needed to convert to Judiasm before becoming a Christian (Jesus was Jewish after all) that eventually was a no and now it is spread all over the world. Judiasm on the other hand doesn't really seek converts and whether they can take converts at all is debated, depending on the level of orthodoxy. Tribal religions don't start out as we tend to think of the term cult but transfer religions do. Christianity started out as the Cult of Jesus. It wasn't really all the loved early on and had to endure persecution. Now it is one of a handful of dominant idealogies/faiths and tends to marginalize the newer ones. This isn't meant to lend credence to the Moonies or Scientology or to equate them with Christianity, either. I'm just pointing out that not all religions start in the same way, ie a cult in the normative use.

dogma wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:
Since, sanity/insanity are just labels for whether an observer judges someones thought processes to fall into the accepted norm/or not, neither can truly exist, except in ones mind as a judgment.

A postmodernism, how I loathe thee. Yes, sanity is a social construct. However, social construction is essential to the human condition. The fact that something exists only in such a fashion does not change the fact that it might be compulsive, or useful, only the precision with which any given person can hope to judge someone according to that thijng.

You loathe me?......nice! You're the one who pidgeon-holed me, but I wouldn't expect anything better, since such behaviour is drilled into many societies from a very early age. So I will thank you, for you have just reinforced my final point:
When you say that social construction is 'essential' to the human condition, I will use a hypothetical example, that if a human being spends most, or even all of his life isolated from any social constructions, that he may be less of a human being in your judgement, than one who is conditioned by a surrounding society? Or is it just that social construction is essential to human contitioning, in order to establish a pyramidic distribution of power and wealth, and a so called 'order' that ensures the stability and acceptance of such a structure?
Any one who fails to meet the accepted standards of norm, is pidgeon-holed, as if the nominalization descrbes their identity, then what they actualy say needs no more discrediting! thus the status quo is preserved.
I do agree, however, that my stated views,could be interpreted as'postmodernistic', and I am happy to have them labelled as such, but such labels do not adequatley describe my identity, just one of my behaviours(thought being fundamentaly the behaviour of my synapses).

Uri Lee wrote:You loathe me?......nice!

No, he loathes postmodernism.


This person who lives all alone and is "unconditioned", how did they raise themselves from infancy alone? Even if it is a baby alone in the woods the only way it is surviving is if at least one person picks it up and raises and trains it. It will still be learning acceptable modes of behavior and how to cope with a group dynamic, even if that group is just two. No man is an island. Even if he leaves and goes off alone in the middle of no where everything he does will be based on what was learned, in some fashion, by the other. How useful would it be to let people who are dangerously mentally ill run around and hurt themselves and others? If one of them hurt killed or killed a loved one of yours are you just going to shrug and say "well he only seems dangerous and insane to me, no need to be concerned"? For that matter why put anyone in jail. I don't care if some guy robs a store 10 states over. Doesn't effect me from perspective. They might have really needed it so it was actually the right thing, so it should be allowed. Who are we to decide what is ok and what isn't?

Uri Lee wrote:
You loathe me?......nice! You're the one who pidgeon-holed me, but I wouldn't expect anything better, since such behaviour is drilled into many societies from a very early age. So I will thank you, for you have just reinforced my final point:

Ahtman wrote:
No, he loathes postmodernism.

True statement.

Also, I haven't peidgeon-holed anything. You are clearly arguing from the perspective of a postmodernist. This doesn't mean you are a postmodernist, but for the purposes of argument I can only address you as such. You could potentially float an entirely separate line of argumentation tomorrow, and I would address that one in an entirely different fashion.

Uri Lee wrote:
When you say that social construction is 'essential' to the human condition, I will use a hypothetical example, that if a human being spends most, or even all of his life isolated from any social constructions, that he may be less of a human being in your judgement, than one who is conditioned by a surrounding society?

Such a human being is nearly impossible. In fact, I might argue that without the benefits provided by society (technology, language, etc.) it is fully impossible. In order for a human being to be completely isolated from social construction his parents would have to be killed within a few years of his birth. Then the now orphaned and helpless child would have to survive alone in the wild without any knowledge or technical advantages.

Uri Lee wrote:
Or is it just that social construction is essential to human contitioning, in order to establish a pyramidic distribution of power and wealth, and a so called 'order' that ensures the stability and acceptance of such a structure?

Even animals are conditioned by their environment. This includes members of their own species. This conditioning is required for survival to be anything beyond an exercise in chance. We might be able to do away with social construction, but the mortality rate would be so high that its doubtful our species would survive.

Keep in mind what you're actually discussing when you say social constructions are unimportant. I noted this above, but it bear spelling out. Language, technology, science, logic, and religion are all social constructions. It is the human ability to utilize social force in order to shape the larger environment which makes us such amazingly adaptive creatures.

Uri Lee wrote:
Any one who fails to meet the accepted standards of norm, is pidgeon-holed, as if the nominalization descrbes their identity, then what they actualy say needs no more discrediting! thus the status quo is preserved.

Yes, they are labeled. And yes, the label does describe their identity given its apparent presentation. However, it does no implicitly limit their identity as appearances can be deceiving, and alternate contexts can allow for new insight into any given person's position.

Uri Lee wrote:
I do agree, however, that my stated views,could be interpreted as'postmodernistic', and I am happy to have them labelled as such, but such labels do not adequatley describe my identity, just one of my behaviours(thought being fundamentaly the behaviour of my synapses).

Of course I didn't actually reference your identity, only your argument. Though I would never actually incorporate the espoused philosophy of anyone still living into their identity, as such positions can change markedly in a short period of time.

In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.

Ahtman wrote:
No, he loathes postmodernism.

I loathe it?
I loathe you?

Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!

Uri Lee wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
No, he loathes postmodernism.

I loathe it?
I loathe you?

Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!

Yes, because in London typos never happen.

dogma wrote:
In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.

Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)

lol, bye

Uri Lee wrote:

dogma wrote:
In any case, I imagine you've taken a few too many gender theory classes as that is the only discipline where postmodernism is still in vogue. In that arena it has quite a few valid points, given the significance a person's gender has on their psychological evolution.

Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)

lol, bye

(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw) =s whatever you want it to be (lawyer math).

Uri Lee wrote:

I loathe it?
I loathe you?

Two very different meanings, to me anyway! But I thank you for your insight into the "American" language, since I've only ever been taught to understand English!

Interesting. You seem to lack reading comprehension. Here is the exact quote:

dogma wrote:
A postmodernism, how I loathe thee.

The typo is present in the first word. The 'A' was intended to be 'Ah'.

The rest is quite clear given the presence of a comma, and not a period. 'Thee' refers to the subject of the sentence which is 'postmodernism'.

Is it strictly precise English? No, because 'thee' is generally used to denote a person. However, it is both grammatically correct and aesthetically useful.

Wow we have now officially reached the point in the thread we are starting to debate grammer!!

KUDOS!!

Isn't this some kind of thread milestone when this point is reached?


GG

Uri Lee wrote:
Gender theory classes are a concept I am unfamiliar with, but mathematics however is.
Why don't you rearrange the following simple equation to make 'u' the subject:
(at)squared=(u/Tw)(u/Tw)

lol, bye

Was that equation the result of conditioning, or did you come up with it all by yourself?

u=(Tw)(at)

I'm a fundamentalist Christian. And contrary to what most people (or at least, most internet goers) seem to think, I am not a hateful bigot who bashes people over the heads with my Bible.

In fact, I'm almost the complete opposite. I will have a conversation with someone about my faith, but only in person. It's simply too easy to misconstrue the meaning of words over the Interwebs, and phone conversations are little better.

Anyway. I gave up arguing about religion over the web a long time ago. It's just a subject that people get ridiculously passionate about, and one that I think ought to be avoided.

Welcome Brother Andrecus, I agree that most of the time it's a bad idea to talk about religion on the internet, because it usually devolves into petty arguments. However this thread has been remarkably well behaved, with the occasional flareup, but then it dies down to people actually talking respectfully again. (Frazz gets a lot of credit for that)

I have been kind of staying out of most of the discussion lately, because I don't really have much interest in philosophical ideas, but when I see something that I feel needs to be addressed I will chime in. Afterall internet people need to hear truth as well as non internet people.

By the way I'm a born again Christian.


GG

Uri Lee wrote:u=(Tw)(at)

Hahaha, you sure showed him. Man, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. It's a great thing you came to this thread to share your particular brand of wisdom and argument style.

And you are a 30-something adult too? Amazing, I haven't seen humor so great since my early teen years.

Uri Lee wrote:u=(Tw)(at)

As much as you might like to believe basic algebra escapes the majority of people in the world, it doesn't. You aren't privy to some great, esoteric truth. Hell, you aren't even exceptionally witty. Not even in the delightfully pithy English sense.

If you could come up with a mathematical equation which expressed the hilarity that is Benny Hill, then you might have something.

Speaking of me
Modquisition on:
A reminder polite conversation is required on this thread. If you cannot post without insulting another member, a religion or nonbelief therein, then simply observe the thread and do not post.

In this instance-UriLee and Dogma, lets cool it down and remember, even comments not intended to be insulted can be seen so. I will send friendly PM's to this effect as well.

dogma wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:u=(Tw)(at)

As much as you might like to believe basic algebra escapes the majority of people in the world, it doesn't. You aren't privy to some great, esoteric truth. Hell, you aren't even exceptionally witty. Not even in the delightfully pithy English sense.

If you could come up with a mathematical equation which expressed the hilarity that is Benny Hill, then you might have something.

Sorry, even the revered Einstein couldn't have possibly done that imho, Benny Hill has never been funny!

Uri Lee wrote:

dogma wrote:

Uri Lee wrote:
Sorry, even the revered Einstein couldn't have possibly done that imho, Benny Hill has never been funny!

Them's fighten' words boy. Choose your weapon-wet noodle or kazoo?

Oh wait, back to the actual topic.

'philosophy:From the Greek philo, meaning "love of," and sophia, meaning "wisdom," philosophy is literally a love of wisdom. In practice, it is the pursuit of understanding the human condition-how, why, and what it means to exist or to be.'
I find it interesting to hear that some fundamental believers of religion have no interest in philosophy, so by very definition, have no interest in the pursuit of wisdom, at least by any logical means.
I wonder, and am open to hear, what may be the explaination for this?

Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.

But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.

GG

Uri Lee wrote:'philosophy:From the Greek philo, meaning "love of," and sophia, meaning "wisdom," philosophy is literally a love of wisdom.

Sophia can also be translated as knowledge, so the literal translation is 'love of wisdom and knowledge'. the last few hundred years have seen the knowledge element emphasized, so most people will define the word as 'the love of knowledge', or 'the love of knowledge, and its application'.

Uri Lee wrote:
In practice, it is the pursuit of understanding the human condition-how, why, and what it means to exist or to be.'

The why question is generally regarded as theological territory.

Uri Lee wrote:
I find it interesting to hear that some fundamental believers of religion have no interest in philosophy, so by very definition, have no interest in the pursuit of wisdom, at least by any logical means.
I wonder, and am open to hear, what may be the explaination for this?

Its worth pointing out that what one person regards as philosophy is not necessarily representative of the discipline. For example, Thomas Aquinas was both a philosopher and a theologian, and much of his work incorporates elements of both traditions. So it would be possible to have an interest in Aquinas, and still regard yourself as being uninterested in philosophy.

That little technicality aside: I think the real reason for your observation is the popular assumption that philosophy is tacit to Atheism. This is not the case, but given the popularity of men like Dennet, Dawkins, and Harris (the last two are abysmal philosophers btw) one can be forgiven for reaching such a conclusion in the absence of study.

Also, there tends to be a sense in which the devout avoid anything which isn't 'holy' in the course of guiding their decision making. You end up with people that live by the Bible, the word of their clergy, and their own experience; dismissing everything else as useless, or academic.

generalgrog wrote:Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.

But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.

GG

Philosophy will tell you what truth is. However, it will not tell you how you fit into that truth, or whether or not such a truth can be useful to you. For example, say you're taking a test which only 5% of people will ever pass. The truth is that you probably won't pass, and that your effort is likely going to be wasted. This truth is not useful as it is likely to further constrict you overall chance of success due to the phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecy. As such, you turn to irrational statements in order to delude yourself into belief. For some people these statements involve God, for others they involve unproven, personal prowess. The specific nature of the statement doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the delusion modifies the truth in order to make it aesthetically palatable.

The funny thing is that this is an entirely rational process. Given your objective of passing the test you have every reason to be irrational. This fact escapes the majority of contemporary philosophers in their consideration of God.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Because philosophy is not necesarily the pursuit of truth. From what I understand of it, it is more about expanding knowledge and intellectualism. Nothing wrong with that at all and I admit that I may have a misunderstanding of what philospohy is.

But I think I am correct when I say that philosophy may bring you to some truth/enlightenment, it doesn't automatically mean that you will. That's why I prefer to focus on the the Word of God.

GG

Philosophy will tell you what truth is. However, it will not tell you how you fit into that truth, or whether or not such a truth can be useful to you. For example, say you're taking a test which only 5% of people will ever pass. The truth is that you probably won't pass, and that your effort is likely going to be wasted. This truth is not useful as it is likely to further constrict you overall chance of success due to the phenomena of self-fulfilling prophecy. As such, you turn to irrational statements in order to delude yourself into belief. For some people these statements involve God, for others they involve unproven, personal prowess. The specific nature of the statement doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the delusion modifies the truth in order to make it aesthetically palatable.

The funny thing is that this is an entirely rational process. Given your objective of passing the test you have every reason to be irrational. This fact escapes the majority of contemporary philosophers in their consideration of God.

But couldn't you also delude yourself into thinking it's a delusion? I.E. you create your own version of truth and live by those principals, disregarding what the real truth is?

Uh-Oh..I've entered into philosophy.

This is another reason why I don't really like engaging in philosophical arguments because there are too many what if scenarios. LOL


GG

edited for typos