Trying to have a logical convo with a fundamentalist.

[Thalassa]

I haven't heard of any other religions that made a deliberate point to convert foreigners to their native religion, which is often based on their ancestry. So their "Gods" are their ancestors, but they don't really worship them in the Christian sense most of us today are familiar with. I put it in question form because I wasn't sure if there were other religions outside the Abrahamicsphere that are explicit in converting and assimilating foreigners, they do seem pretty unique in this regard.

I thought the hunter-gatherer scenario was to kill the men and children and poach the women? Know of any good anthropology where I can learn more? Isn't Trivers famous for in/out group dynamics?

Come to think of it, do Jews even actively try to convert and assimilate people into Judaism and regard anyone who doesn't as going to a hell or suffering etc.? Maybe it's just Christianity/Islam.

They don't go around to convert others, but they call themselves the Chosen people and there are Jewish people living in the United States who are strongly opposed to the current political activities of Jewish Israel upon their Islamic neighbors, so....

 

[Alwar]

They don't go around to convert others, but they call themselves the Chosen people and there are Jewish people living in the United States who are strongly opposed to the current political activities of Jewish Israel upon their Islamic neighbors, so....

Well, Israel is a nation-state so I wouldn't expect Jews to support Israeli policies anymore than my own family supporting say, the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany just because we are ethnic German. I know there have been cases of conversions to Judaism throughout history due to low populations. I just haven't seen or heard of Rabbi's on the street corner preaching the Tora like you do with those hardcore Baptist types.

 

[simulatedworld]

I said, take charge, to have power over. Not convert.
Your point is mute.

Come on now--is it really fair to speak derisively of his point like that, when the point is clearly incapable of even speaking up to defend itself?

 

[Alwar]

I think I misread his post as saying all religions have a doctrine of imperial expansion. Leave me alone meanies, I am drinking beer, which is required of me by Wodan or else I won't get into Valhalla.

 

[Thalassa]

Well, Israel is a nation-state so I wouldn't expect Jews to support Israeli policies anymore than my own family supporting say, the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany just because we are ethnic German. I know there have been cases of conversions to Judaism throughout history due to low populations. I just haven't seen or heard of Rabbi's on the street corner preaching the Tora like you do with those hardcore Baptist types.

My point was that Israel is a fundamentally Jewish country and they're doing things to persecute Arab-Muslim people. So, you see, my point is that intolerance apparently occurs in Judaism just like in Christianity and Islam, and I mentioned that Jews in other countries don't approve of it to illustrate that I'm not just being prejudiced against Israel or Judaism myself. Because I'm not.

Judaism isn't a religion with intense need to convert others, no, but it's got it's dark side, too, believe me.

I don't know if religion in general is ever the problem. The problem seems to come with the way certain individuals or sects practice that religion. For example, I am nothing like those fundamentalist Baptists, just like all Muslim people are not involved in the Taliban.

 

[Thalassa]

Come on now--is it really fair to speak derisively of his point like that, when the point is clearly incapable of even speaking up to defend itself?

And besides, the word is "moot" not "mute."

 

[EcK]

And besides, the word is "moot" not "mute."

Let's hear your french shall we.

 

[Thalassa]

Let's hear your french shall we.

Bonjour, monsieur. Comment-allez vous?

This thread has officially become silly.

 

[Alwar]

My point was that Israel is a fundamentally Jewish country and they're doing things to persecute Arab-Muslim people. So, you see, my point is that intolerance apparently occurs in Judaism just like in Christianity and Islam, and I mentioned that Jews in other countries don't approve of it to illustrate that I'm not just being prejudiced against Israel or Judaism myself. Because I'm not.

Judaism isn't a religion with intense need to convert others, no, but it's got it's dark side, too, believe me.

I don't know if religion in general is ever the problem. The problem seems to come with the way certain individuals or sects practice that religion. For example, I am nothing like those fundamentalist Baptists, just like all Muslim people are not involved in the Taliban.

Yes I see your point, my bad. I think it was Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" that mentioned some Christian group in the States that is trying to breed a red cow to bring to Israel or maybe it was in Israel but funded by this group because it justifies some prophecy in the Torah, and Jews find these people suspicious because they act like they really care about them but it's just a means to bring about the end of the world or some crap.

 

[EcK]

Bonjour, monsieur. Comment-allez vous?

This thread has officially become silly.

 

[simulatedworld]

And besides, the word is "moot" not "mute."

Yep, that was the joke...

 

[Thalassa]

 

[EcK]

silence, food

 

[professor goodstain]

I don't bother arguing with fundamentalists of any kind, Christian or otherwise.

That's how they become fundamentalists, nobody bothers to challenge them

 

[Wild horses]

The problem you have here is that religion is not logical and neither does it pretend to be. Faith is a totally illogical concpet because to truely have faith you have to have it without any evidence and even inspite of opposing evidence to truely be able to say that you have it at all. You can discuss spiritual matters in such a way; different languages... one being of the spiritual(French say) and the other being intelectual( Italian for instance) That conversation will never work out!

 

[EcK]

The problem you have here is that religion is not logical and neither does it pretend to be. Faith is a totally illogical concpet because to truely have faith you have to have it without any evidence and even inspite of opposing evidence to truely be able to say that you have it at all. You can discuss spiritual matters in such a way; different languages... one being of the spiritual(French say) and the other being intelectual( Italian for instance) That conversation will never work out!

The issue is not physics nobel class maths and logics, it's internal congruence.

If somebody tells you 1+1 equals 2, then it's logic
If a man tells you he loves you, then he's expressing feelings.

Now if somebody tells you he wants you to be happy, then slaps you, then tell its your fault when you didn't do or think anything to provok that. Then it's just not congruent, and that's the issue with religions I know of and cross pathes with in my everyday life.

It's fine not always to go for the logical explanation, but being self contradictory is another thing altogether.

 

[Blank]

2 + 2 = 5. Know how?

Doublethink.

 

[Usehername]

EDIT: ALso, if a Christian would like to step forward to argue about how Christianity is logical, feel free.

Firstly, Christianity requires one to believe in an omnipotent being, it requires one to believe in the resurrection of a man who was simultaneously God; here, you must note the word "believe." Jesus talks about faith. Hold this thought in tension while you proceed.

Secondly, Biblical texts and teachings are flooded with references to the importance of each of the realms of life: physical, spiritual, social, and intellectual. You're imposing one of the many types of epistemological criterion into the other realms of life beyond the intellectual, which is an illogical act. You're the one with explaining to do.

Christianity is not logical unless one also nurses their spiritual self, as well as the social and physical selves. Because though the religion holds internal logic it isn't logical unless one values and explores their selves beyond the intellectual. Christians that are Christians on their own volition, or healthy, will have nurtured all of these dimensions of self. Growing in this religion requires one to hold their confusion or disrespect for an aspect of the religion in suspension, until they develop along and understand more of the nuances (whether they understand spiritually, intellectually, socially or physically).

Many great thinkers were Christians; the religion does not exclude those with superior intelligence. It simply excludes those who lack the motive to delve into the faith sufficiently in mostly the spiritual and intellectual realms.

Interesting fact that might help colour your perception of Jesus' teachings on the "turn the other cheek" verses:
Turning the other cheek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blank]

I heard a fucking brilliant argument about the Holy Trinity:

God, like water can exist in different forms to accomplish different purposes. For water, there's solid, liquid, gas - ice, water, and steam, and for God, there's God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

It was really surprising, and well-put. Still didn't make me believe in Christianity though.

 

[EcK]

Christianity is not logical unless one also nurses their spiritual self, as well as the social and physical selves. Because though the religion holds internal logic it isn't logical unless one values and explores their selves beyond the intellectual.

See, i don't agree here. I never noticed christianity to have some identifiable internal logic. There's a very clear wall between the teachings and observed behavior and the teachings are often lacking congruence. There's also no clear way to identify which teachings will be used as they appear and which will be considered to be metaphorical.

And last but not least, there's no way to know what principles are used to judge which rule is to be applied and which rule is to be dismissed. Yet, the religion always uses for example, their holy books or some other reposits of the religious teachings AS the moral compass to be used to identify the principles to follow.

This is paradoxical. And absurd.

I just see no way anybody could honestly defend such a cyclic reasoning.