Amaleq13

Exactly. The reason why you would not consider that person to be a genuine member has been my point throughout this tangent.

Yes but I wasn't trying to be a smartass.

I would think it obvious I was asking you to explain why only "most".

Why are you "imagining" it when I've been presenting it throughout this tangent discussion!!! I've been repeatedly trying to get you to defend your claim that someone who didn't accept the core beliefs of a particular religious movement should still be considered a member even if they gave every outward appearance!! :banghead:

Exception to what? I'm getting the impression you think someone can attend a church, enact all the rituals of the church, and engage in all the same behaviors as other members of the Church and somehow not be considered "deceptive".

If so, can you explain how?

I really don't think you do but I don't know how I can improve your understanding. I've already done my best but I feel like I'm trying to explain a tautology.

Wars have been fought over that question throughout history.

I understand but you don't appear to understand the difference between an analogy and an explanation. In what meaningful sense is a person a Catholic if they don't, for example, believe that Jesus rose from the dead? In what meaningful sense is a person a Catholic if they don't believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary?

These are statements of faith that members repeat every Sunday.

Why doesn't that person qualify as "intentionally deceptive"?

If they don't, how are they not being "intentionally deceptive"?

Which statements from the Apostles Creed have no clear meaning?

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Because the idea that your dead relative bothered to place the requirement in her will hoping you would become a member of her party despite not accepting what it stands for is idiotic.

You still didn't answer the question!!!!

Do you think, by "membership", she meant for you to pretend to believe in what her party stood for or do you think she meant for you to genuinely believe in her party? Don't let my previous response above influence your decision.

J-D

The reason why I would consider a person not to be a genuine member in such a case is because the concept of a deliberate attempt to deceive people into believing something presupposes that the thing you are trying to deceive them into believing is not true.Abuse?Which I did.But you did not, to begin with, explicitly refer to the possibility of conscious fraud. There are reasons apart from conscious fraud why people might participate in a religious movement without accepting its core beliefs. They might find the experience of participation emotionally rewarding and decide to disregard any intellectual problems for that reason. Or they might not know what the core beliefs are. Or they might disagree about what the core beliefs are.See above.

By 'exception', I meant that those cases that do involve deliberate deception are an exception to the general principle that somebody who participates in the activities of a religious movement can be described as a member of it.Well, perhaps I don't understand. I think I do. But I suppose it's not worth arguing about directly.True, but that doesn't change the point I was making. If anything, it reinforces it.Firstly, not every Catholic goes to church every Sunday. Secondly, although it's a trivial point, I don't think it would be that hard for somebody to go to church and refrain from actually joining in any communal recitation. But thirdly, and most importantly, people can say the words without meaning. They might regard the act of recitation as purely symbolic. They might participate in a communal activity without reflecting on its meaning.

Also, they might have non-standard ideas about the meaning of the words. People could have different ideas, for example, about what it meant to say that Jesus 'rose from the dead'.If they have no intention to deceive anybody. See above.What is meant by describing God as 'the Father Almighty'? What is meant by describing Jesus as 'his only Son' and 'our Lord', or by saying that he was 'conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit'? What is meant by 'the communion of saints'?Not to me. See below. (I don't think I said she was a relative, did I?)I don't think she meant either. I think she meant for me to be a member of the party, something which, in my view, is defined without reference to my beliefs.

Now, you may not believe that that could be important to anybody. But in that case, it's obvious that you don't know much about the history of my party.

French Prometheus

The coins minted in Baylon about the same year give the name of "the King":



So we have a Babylonian document that says that the king died that year (323 BCE) and we also have a coin minted in Babylon around the same year, that reads "of King Alexander".

Ergo...

Amaleq13

Yes, being deceptive, in general, presupposes that the one's appearance is not true. You haven't done much besides define "deception" here.

It is deceptive to give a false appearance.

If one attends a church, enacts all the rituals of the church, and engages in all the same behaviors as other members of the Church one is certainly giving the appearance of also accepting the core beliefs upon which the church is founded but, if one does not actually accept those beliefs, that appearance can only be described as "deceptive".

No, a question intended to eliminate what appeared to be a legitimate explanation for your confusion.

Yes but, apparently, only after pretending to be confused.

None of the above changes the fact that their appearance of conformity to the group is not genuine but superficial. They are acting like the others but they don't actually believe in the tenets upon which the group was founded.

I do not disagree that people can have other reasons for hanging around people who share a specific set of beliefs. What I disagree with is the notion that simply hanging around with them qualifies them as being genuine members of the group. Certainly those who did share those beliefs and specifically gathered together because of those shared beliefs would not consider such individuals to be genuine members.

To my knowledge, weekly attendance is strongly encouraged across denominations but is not considered a core belief.

They are standing outside the group watching them reaffirm the shared beliefs upon which the group was founded. They are not, therefore, joining the group. I would hope even you would agree that one must join a group to be considered a member.

Then the appearance they are cultivating is deceiving and you would, correctly, not consider them an actual member.

Right, it could mean he obtained a flower from Jerry Garcia's band.

You are not a member so your lack of clarity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that every point of this crede is explained as part of the process of becoming a member. They are specifically told what it means and specifically asked to publicly declare their acceptance of it.

You have rejected both of the offered definitions of "member" in her mind but you haven't offered one to replace them. You simply repeated your dislike for the notion that the authenticity of one's beliefs is relevant to whether one should be considered an actual member of a group founded upon on a specific set of beliefs. Rather disingenuous, really.

It seems that you have no rational justification for this reaction just as you have no rational criticism of the criterion but, despite that, you appear intent on continuing to defend your belief. I've read enough to conclude that continued effort to explain this to you would be a waste of time because you will continue to hold to your clearly inadequate definitions regardless of what I say and continue to rely on analogies rather than actual explanations. :wave:

J-D

An appearance can easily be deceptive without being intentionally deceptive, an important distinction.I was talking about your use of the word 'smartass'. You weren't suggesting that if I was being a smartass it would be a legitimate explanation for my confusion, surely? So what was it if not abuse?No pretence. I was a little confused. But I took a guess at the most probable explanation of what you said.I know that you disagree. You've made that abundantly clear. But I don't find that reiteration makes your disagreement any more persuasive.As I mentioned previously, the most common way for somebody to become a member of a religious group is to be born into it. I'm not sure whether that can be considered 'joining'.No, I was not so definitive. I would not regard as genuine members people who are engaging in intentional deception--after all, it's safe to say that they don't regard themselves as genuine members. I would not necessarily say the same about somebody who was cultivating an appearance that was unintentionally deceptive.Have you never heard of people who want to place metaphorical/symbolic interpretations on the supposed supernatural aspects of Christianity, including the resurrection?They may be offered a specific explanation, but I don't believe those explanations are meaningful. It is possible to make a public declaration of belief in a meaningless statement, but it is not possible actually to believe in the truth of a meaningless statement, even if you have been deceived into believing that it is meaningful. (Note that this is probably another example of unintentional deception, with those responsible for propagating the deception themselves self-deceived.)More abuse.

I haven't said anything about dislike of your notions, only that I disagree with them.

As for the definition of membership of my political party, I would define a member, formally, as a person who has been listed in the official membership records of the party in compliance with the party rules.I still think that you don't understand what I'm saying, which is a pity. It may be my fault or it may be yours, but it's a pity either way.

J-D

Another example of membership.

Is the statement 'Country X is a member of the United Nations' logically equivalent to the statement 'Country X believes in the founding principles of the United Nations'? I think not.

Amaleq13

No.

It was intended to inform you that I wasn't being a smartass when I asked the question.

When you have no rational justification, there is no difference.

That isn't the definition I requested. :banghead:

I'm not convinced you understand what you're saying.

:wave:

J-D

Well, I wasn't being a smartass either. But I didn't see any particular need to deny it. Why did you? Nobody accused you of being a smartass, did they?Confirming what I said before, that I have not succeeded in getting you to comprehend my position. Which, as I said before, may be my fault or may be yours.I constructed a hypothetical example relating to membership of my political party. You said, in the context of a discussion of that hypothetical example, that I had rejected definitions of what member meant in 'her' mind (thus referring to somebody with no existence outside my hypothetical example) without providing an alternative. So I offered an alternative definition, in line with the words of your request, in the context in which they appeared. If what you said is not what you meant (which can happen to the best of us), you could have clarified by saying 'what I was asking is what definition you would give for ...', specifying context as necessary. Unless, of course, some tragic infirmity prevents you from so doing.I'm beginning to suspect that you don't understand what you're saying.

spin

J-D came into this thread making statements such as:

This is a disguised form of

I believe a version that denies the existence of pre-Pauline Christianity is both less attested in evidence or less plausible.

It also carries a number of assumptions:

1. there is evidence for a pre-Pauline christianity;
2. there is more plausibility for a pre-Pauline origin of christianity;
3. there is the some need to deny a pre-Pauline christianity.

An earlier statement of J-D's idea is

Simplicity which doesn't deal with the evidence is not simplicity, but superfluousness.

J-D has since attempted to do without Jesus altogether in order to get his variety of christianity back before Paul. However, no-one disagrees that Paul got ideas from earlier sources. This is the nature of the development of religious thought. But in the continuum of religious thought we can usually say that at a particular point a form of religion is distinguishable, or at least we have evidence that by that point it had already manifested itself, as in the case of gnosticism.

What is left of a christianity if we remove its central figure? This puts J-D into a quandary. He has been trying to take the high ground, arguing about evidence and plausibility (as can be seen by his statements quoted here), though recently both have gone out the window in his efforts regarding a Jesusless christianity prior to Paul, a position which is not only without evidence but also seems plain implausible.

We know Paul went off and set up his own religion amongst the gentiles, a religion which according to him was not dependent on ideas around prior to his vision. We don't know anything about a religion that we can call a form of christianity before that.


spin

spin

The principles of the United Nations existed before Country X joined. To be meaningful with your argument, you need an analogy here where that prior existence wasn't the case.


spin