Chris Weimer

You could start with Jacob Neusner.

J-D

To you, evidently. You seem to have some difficulty coming to terms with the possibility that what seems ridiculous to you may not seem ridiculous to somebody else.I'm not sure what it means to describe somebody as a member of a faith. But I do say that it's possible to be a member of an organisation--including a religious organisation--while not in agreement with its officially stated doctrines.Possibly, depending on other factors.I agree that when people use a word in a way which is different from the way everybody else uses it, the result is confusion.

But using the word 'Christian' to refer to somebody who participates in a Christian church does not seem to me to be different from the way everybody else uses it.But that's precisely the point. In the given example, espousal of principles is questioned, but affiliation with the party is not questioned, because it's presupposed.

Just as, in the classical example, the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' questions motives, but presupposes and does not question the fact of beating.'Do you really accept the core beliefs of the party you claim you belong to?' is a good question, and so is 'How can you say you belong to a party when you don't accept its core beliefs?'. But the assertion 'You can't belong to a party if you don't accept its core beliefs' is over-simplified and over-generalised.You don't have to believe that I 'still' think that, because I never thought that. I never said that, either.

However, if you point to the-Republican-Party-as-it-is-today and ask historians and political scientists (and trivia buffs, too, come to think of it) 'When was this party founded?' they will answer '1854', implicitly confirming that they regard the term 'this party', as applied to 'the-Republican-Party-as-it-is-today', as equally referring to 'the-Republican-Party-as-founded-in-1854'.English is my first language. If your point does not depend on literal interpretation, does that mean that you accept that the US Republican Party as it is today is the same party as the one founded in 1854 in a literal sense, but a different party in a figurative sense?Yes, I see that.No, I don't, I see that too.I don't see why your persistent affirmations should count for more than my persistent denials.How do you think you'd go in court trying to evade your legal obligations by saying that they were undertaken by a significantly different person of the same name? How do you think a political party would go in court trying to evade its legal obligations by saying that they were undertaken by a significantly different organisation of the same name?I would expect most people to understand fairly easily the sense in which I am a different person from the person I was ten years ago. But I would also expect most people to understand fairly easily the sense in which those two different persons are nevertheless the same person. Even psychologists. If I get a chance, I'll ask one.When I ask a question, I usually do so in the hope of eliciting an answer. If the question succeeds in eliciting an answer, I don't regard that as evidence that it is flawed. Probably the reverse.Let me take again the example of the political party of which I am, in fact, a member.

It has a legal identity, with various ramifications. It has a body of members, whose names are on record. It has a physical address. It has a Web presence. It has bank accounts. It has an established structure of committees and officeholders, in accordance with formal written rules. It has a body of parliamentary representatives.

All these things have changed over the course of its history. For example, none of the original members are still on the rolls (all being dead). But all these things have changed gradually and incrementally, remaining nearly the same from one day to the next, with substantial change visible only over long periods of time.I can't imagine why a court would ever care about my party membership. But if it did, how else would you expect the matter to be settled?

Let's say, for example, that somebody had left me a bequest in her will, payable only on the condition that I still be a member of the party. Do you really think, if that came to court, that the court would want me examined about my political beliefs?Irrelevant to what? It seems to me to touch on the central point.

Amaleq13

That is because I undertand the meaning of words and what you suggest appears to me to render words meaningless. Perhaps if, instead of simply repeating yourself, you offered an explanation of what "member" or "belong" mean if one can be "member" or "belong" to a movement even if they don't accept the core beliefs of that movement, I might find it less ridiculous.

Then you have no basis upon which to argue against my position. :huh:

I'm offering what appears to be an entirely reasonable definition of "a member of a faith" and you reject it without any good reason (none offered so far) and without any alternative?

I understand that you believe this to be true but I am only interested in whether you can justify it with a rational argument. It seems to me to render the term "member" essentially meaningless to suggest they don't share the fundamental beliefs that serve to differentiate that movement from every other.

I agree. It is more analogous to focus on individual subgroups of Christianity. Each group differentiates itself from the others with unique beliefs. If you don't accept the group's uniquely identifying beliefs, in what meaningful sense can you be considered to belong to the group?

Again, repeating this is less helpful than attempting to defend it with a rational argument. In what meaningful sense can you "belong" to a party if you don't accept the core beliefs of that party?

People do that all the time though it is primarily intended to influence one's sentence. If a persuasive enough case for significant and fundamental change to the individual can be made to a judge, it can succeed.

How about the court of public opinion when a party member explains why the current party should not be held accountable for what was done under the same name in the past (eg slavery, racist policies)? Happens all the time, amigo.

The change is significant and what has remained static is superficial.

I've already explained how two different reasons for the request would involve two different responses so it is clearly important for you to "imagine" a specific reason for your example.

Absent explicit instructions, one would hope it would be evident to the judge that the deceased wanted her money to go to someone who did more than simply carry the right card in his wallet and genuinely represented the values of her party.

If I was your lawyer, however, I would try to argue that an up-to-date membership card was all that was necessary so you could get the case on a semantic technicality.

It seems to me that this is precisely the basis of your entire position and precisely why I consider it specious.

Gamera

Proof positive that Elvis died in 322 BC.

J-D

I thought I had done this, implicitly. I shall try to be more explicit.

In the case of a political party such as the one I belong to, or any other organisation with comparably formal written rules, 'membership' or 'belonging' normally means complying with the requirements for membership explicitly stated in the rules.

With less formally organised movements, that definition doesn't apply. However, in general, I would consider that somebody who participates in the activities of a movement can be said to 'belong' to it.Emphasis.

I didn't mean 'I'm not sure what MEMBERSHIP of a faith means', I meant 'I'm not sure what membership of a FAITH means'. And up to this point I hadn't said anything about faiths. You had just introduced that concept into the discussion for the first time, I think.See above. Also, see below.On the face of it, in the absence of other relevant evidence, I would assume that somebody who goes to church at a Catholic church belongs to the Catholic church, that somebody who goes to church at an Orthodox church belongs to the Orthodox church, that somebody who goes to church at a Pentecostal church is a Pentecostalist, and that somebody who goes to church at a Presbyterian church is a Presbyterian. Do you think most of the people who go to church understand the points of doctrinal difference between churches? I don't. I once had a Christian tell me explicitly, when I asked him about this, that the different official doctrinal positions of the different Christian churches were not a factor in deciding which one he attended.See above. Also, see below.Affecting the sentence, possibly. But that's not what I was talking about. The fact that you have experienced personal change will not get you out of your contractual obligations in court. Nor will it change the court's view that you have an obligation not to break the criminal law, although it may affect the different matter of the court's views about how to deal with you if you fail to meet that obligation.And does it work? In any case, I asked about what would happen in court. Please put those goalposts back.Recently, I renewed acquaintance with some people I hadn't seen for over twenty years. Did they say: 'I don't know you, although you have a superficial resemblance to somebody I knew a long time ago'? No. Nor did I have that sort of reaction to them. Of course they had changed. But they were still the same people that I knew all those years ago.OK, here we go ...You reckon? You reckon that in an actual court of law somebody who had extensive formal written documentation on their side would lose the case to somebody who had none? If so, you have a different sense of what courts of law are like from what I do. But I suppose there's no definitive way of settling the point until such a case actually does get into court. Which leaves us, as far as I can see, with you continuing to believe that my position is unsustainable and me continuing to believe that your position is unsustainable.I hope, however, that I have at least succeeded in conveying to you some impression of what my position actually is.

spin

Doh! Proof positive that one can get a law degree from a cornflake packet. And at least my statement is based on some evidence.


spin

Amaleq13

Even if you learned that they didn't actually believe in the tenets of the movement?

I was using "a faith" in the sense of a system of religious belief.

But why do you stay "on the face of it" when I've been repeatedly adding more information (ie lack of faith in the core beliefs)?

I agree that someone pretending to be Catholic might be mistaken for an actual Catholic if you didn't know them better but it seems to me to render "Catholic" meaningless to suggest one can qualify without faith in the tenets of the Church.

If he wasn't a "confirmed" member, this isn't relevant. I'm not talking about just hanging around and listening to the sermon.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It bears no resemblance to anything I wrote. I specifically said "Absent explicit instructions". It would appear that you missed the point.

The deceased left money dependent upon your "membership" in the political party.

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?

J-D

At least in most cases, yes.I don't understand how somebody can be a member of a system of religious belief. That sounds like a category mistake to me.I say 'on the face of it' because I can conceive of the possibility of additional information changing my view. But the additional information you refer to is, by itself, insufficient to do so (although it does increase uncertainty and offer justification for further inquiry).If somebody said to me 'Yes, I go to a Catholic church, but I'm not really a Catholic, I'm only pretending to be one', then I would accept that that person was not a Catholic. But if somebody said to me 'I don't necessarily accept all the official tenets of the Catholic Church, but I still consider myself to be a Catholic and I attend a Catholic church and participate in church activities as a Catholic', then I might desire more information but I would not consider that I could simply dismiss that person's claim to be a Catholic.I have no idea whether he had ever been confirmed or not, but I think this works in quite well with my point. If a particular church has a rule that you have to go through the ritual of 'confirmation' in order to be considered a member, I would accept that rule as determinative on questions of membership. But note this: such a rule defines membership by behaviour (the ritual), not by belief. And it only works if a church does have such a formal rule. I don't suppose that it's necessary that every church have such a rule.I'm talking about a case where one side supports its claim with extensive formal written documentation in the form of the party's rules and membership records, and the other side (the case you're arguing) has only philosophical considerations of the kind you've been talking about. Do you really think a court would consider that the latter outweighed the former? I don't.When you said 'absent explicit instructions', I assumed that you meant that the deceased had left no written explanation of how 'membership' of the party was to be determined for the purposes of the will. And in the absence of any such explanation, ...... I would expect any court to hold that 'membership' of the party is given its definition by the written rules of the party.

Amaleq13

Even if you learned that they were only pretending to believe in the movement, you would still consider them to be a member of the movement? And what do you mean by "most cases"?

It seems to me that your definition of "member" is incapable of differentiating between those who genuinely believe in the tenents of a movement and those who are only pretending to believe and that means your definition is inadequate.

Do you think that people who do support the tenets of a particular religious movement consider people who only pretend to support those tenets to be genuine members of their movement?

The same way they can be a member of a religious movement since the phrases are essentially synonymous. One typically becomes a member of a particular system of religious belief by publicly declaring that one accepts the tenets of the system. To my knowledge, most Christian sects refer to this ceremony as one's "confirmation" as in you are a confirmed member.

Are you starting to see why it is so obvious to me that the authenticity of one's acceptance of those tenets is crucial to defining one as a member?

Yet I had already given you that additional information but you did not incorporate it into your response.

I agree that more information is needed. What tenets are and are not accepted? What tenets does the Church declare must be accepted? That a person continues to consider themselves a Catholic even though they don't actually believe in the tenets of the faith suggests only that they are deluding themselves. It does not suggest we should alter what it means to be a Catholic to suit their lack of faith. That renders "Catholic" meaningless with regard to one's faith and, since "Catholic" is a descriptor specifically based on one's faith, the problem should be apparent.

You can describe yourself as sharing the beliefs of a particular religious system without actually sharing those beliefs? You're still trying to sell an oxymoron, amigo.

You are simply mistaken here. According to my knowledge/experience, part of every confirmation ceremony is a public recitation of the tenets of the faith. In addition and also according to my knowledge/experience, every congregation repeats that public recitation of the tenets of the faith every Sunday and "I believe..." is how that recitation starts. The collection of publicly repeated tenets are typically referred to as a crede.

Again, obviously "yes" if the point of the requirement is to establish more than just the appearance of membership but actual support of the tenets of the party.

... I would expect any court to hold that 'membership' of the party is given its definition by the written rules of the party.[/QUOTE]

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what a court might do though I believe courts try to establish the intent of an individual's will in such circumstances. I asked what you think is the reasonable conclusion. Please don't dodge this question but give it some serious consideration. It goes to the very heart of what is wrong with your definition.

J-D

No, if I learned that somebody's participation in the movement was a conscious pretence, I would not consider them to be a member of the movement. For maximum clarity, I would probably express this by saying something like 'that person is not a genuine member of the movement'.You asked me whether English is my first language. I'm tempted to ask you the same question. Do you really not know what 'most cases' means?

In this instance I used the expression 'in most cases' largely because I was imagining precisely the possibility you have just explicitly referred to, of intentional deception, and I considered that it would constitute a legitimate exception to my general statement.No, I have just said that I consider cases of intentional deception to constitute an exception.No, I don't consider that they are.On the contrary, the most common way for somebody to become a member of a religion is to be born into it.I understood your position a long time ago. I just don't agree with it.I think you're wrong there. Let me quote my precise words: 'the additional information you refer to is, by itself, insufficient to do so [that is, change my view]'. For clarity, I say now explicitly that I can conceive of the possibility of additional information changing my view, but the particular additional information you had referred to at that point was insufficient to do so. You can see above the sort of additional information that would change my view: if I knew that somebody was perpetrating an intentional deception, for example.You frame the question in the form 'what tenets does the Church declare must be accepted?' But through whose mouth does the Church speak? Officially, I know, through the mouth of the Pope. But suppose the hypothetical case in which acceptance of a particular tenet is considered essential by the Pope, but this view is not shared by the overwhelming majority of members of the Church. In such a case, it seems from what you have argued up till now, you would say that only the minority who agree with the Pope are really Catholics, and the rest have ceased to be Catholics, whether they know it or not. I would take a different view.No, I didn't say that. I said that you can describe yourself as being a member of a religious organisation without necessarily subscribing to all the official tenets of that organisation. I can see that if I accepted your position, this statement would translate directly into an oxymoron like the one you suggest. But I don't accept your position. That's the point.So, people have to say certain things. But do they believe what they say? In my observation, formal Christian creeds contain statements with no clear meaning. If a statement has no clear meaning, it is not possible for somebody to believe it. Maybe people believe that they believe the statements, but that doesn't mean that they really believe them. Would it help if I illustrated this with an example?But how do you know that is the point? All this amounts to is that if we accept your position, it logically follows that we accept your position.Not only do I think that a court would take the position I described, but I think that it would be the reasonable position to take.