CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
DixyCrat, thanks again for offering some articles and studies to support your claims. Allow me to address some of them.
Meyer, John. W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.
I don't see how this one supports the idea of faith, myth, or ceremony as being valuable in any way other than supporting the institution itself that spawned them. This paper is an empirical study of those things and how they form and affect an organization. The paper quite clearly places institutional beliefs in opposition to scientific or otherwise practical pursuits:
It might argue that some emergent ceremonial practices can provide structure and longevity, but also warns of impracticality and inefficiency. I would also point out that this paper seems much more deeply interested in secular or at least more general institutions such as government bodies, law, business and other bureaucracies, although its observations could naturally apply to any organization. I have to conclude you did not read or did not fully understand this paper because it undermines you.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48:147-160.
I won't go into great detail with this one because it's similarly narrow in scope. It specifically addresses organizational bureaucratization and homogenization almost entirely in the context of business: its language is that of management, finance, hiring, and production. It does posit that homogenization may emerge from institutionalized rational demands and that diversity and divergent organizational behavior may be valuable, but may also introduce dysfunction. Again this does nothing for you.
I'll skip ahead.
Karel Weick- 1976, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems." Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19.
Please identify for me how faith or religious institutions represent loosely coupled systems and how that relates to the context of educational systems in this paper. Interestingly, the author even explicitly recommends some empirical approaches (or the development of some) to investigate loosely coupled systems, despite the challenges he identifies in that venture. Your argument that faith and its structural representations help predict human behavior would seem to exclude it immediately from having anything to do with this research. The whole point of organized religion is to produce a tightly coupled system.
I've scanned the rest and they all seem equally irrelevant, even if some are very interesting in sociological terms. I strongly suspect that you didn't read a word of these, or you are misrepresenting them as supporting the direct value of faith. Perhaps you meant to argue that myth and ceremony provide structure, longevity, and diversity to organizations, which is an actual point supported by these articles. That may be true, but all we can conclude about religion from this is that it is very well-engineered to endure and maintain control over its members. These articles cannot be used to comment on religious validity or the global utility of faith, and in fact strongly oppose the idea that baseless belief is anything but impractical.
Maybe you also you meant to say that studying institutionalized belief or the organizational structures of religion -- in essence, employing psychology and sociology -- might grant some insight into human behavior, a point which I never opposed.
Meyer, John. W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.
I don't see how this one supports the idea of faith, myth, or ceremony as being valuable in any way other than supporting the institution itself that spawned them. This paper is an empirical study of those things and how they form and affect an organization. The paper quite clearly places institutional beliefs in opposition to scientific or otherwise practical pursuits:
It might argue that some emergent ceremonial practices can provide structure and longevity, but also warns of impracticality and inefficiency. I would also point out that this paper seems much more deeply interested in secular or at least more general institutions such as government bodies, law, business and other bureaucracies, although its observations could naturally apply to any organization. I have to conclude you did not read or did not fully understand this paper because it undermines you.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48:147-160.
I won't go into great detail with this one because it's similarly narrow in scope. It specifically addresses organizational bureaucratization and homogenization almost entirely in the context of business: its language is that of management, finance, hiring, and production. It does posit that homogenization may emerge from institutionalized rational demands and that diversity and divergent organizational behavior may be valuable, but may also introduce dysfunction. Again this does nothing for you.
I'll skip ahead.
Karel Weick- 1976, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems." Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19.
Please identify for me how faith or religious institutions represent loosely coupled systems and how that relates to the context of educational systems in this paper. Interestingly, the author even explicitly recommends some empirical approaches (or the development of some) to investigate loosely coupled systems, despite the challenges he identifies in that venture. Your argument that faith and its structural representations help predict human behavior would seem to exclude it immediately from having anything to do with this research. The whole point of organized religion is to produce a tightly coupled system.
I've scanned the rest and they all seem equally irrelevant, even if some are very interesting in sociological terms. I strongly suspect that you didn't read a word of these, or you are misrepresenting them as supporting the direct value of faith. Perhaps you meant to argue that myth and ceremony provide structure, longevity, and diversity to organizations, which is an actual point supported by these articles. That may be true, but all we can conclude about religion from this is that it is very well-engineered to endure and maintain control over its members. These articles cannot be used to comment on religious validity or the global utility of faith, and in fact strongly oppose the idea that baseless belief is anything but impractical.
Maybe you also you meant to say that studying institutionalized belief or the organizational structures of religion -- in essence, employing psychology and sociology -- might grant some insight into human behavior, a point which I never opposed.
Last edited:
I think that we are discussing the larger issue of religion and politics.
Personally, I'm a Christian constitutionalist.
I visited Liberty Hall recently and and it really struck me how far we've deviated from the constituition.
I vore my conscience and will continue to as long as I'm free to do so.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,342
- 32,889
- 136
Good for you. Now the "Christain constitutionalist" part. Can you identify Christ in the Constitution?
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
Your moral indignation, while endearing, does not require a religious basis. I don't see why you are holding it as a badge. If you insist on using abortion as a talking point, what prevents you from building your argument exclusively in the context of science and the Constitution? I should think they would be sufficient. God, as usual, is useless.
Am I supposed to be able to?
I am a Christain, and I support the US Constitution.
Is that clearer?
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,342
- 32,889
- 136
That is a good question. What would it mean to your faith in Christ or to your support of the Constitution if you couldn't?
We live in a secular country and not a theocracy. It just so happens that our founding fathers were influenced by Judeo-Christian thought and valued individual freedom, including freedom of religion.
To suggest that my political partipation can't be infuenced by my Christian faith is frankly ridiculous.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I think it is misguided to think you can vote to overrule the Constitutional rights of another person -- rights that you will continue to enjoy yourself. It's hypocritical, really, but I don't think you realize it.
Are you against idolatry, based on your religious beliefs? Would you vote to ban idolatry?
Your "scientific understanding" is highly suspect.
{snip}
To say that abortion a Constitutional right, is quite a stretch, in my opinion.
If you want to worship idols, that's your right. Go right ahead.
I think that my scientific understanding is sound,
Last edited:
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
So I'll point out something here that no one else has, but I got into a big discussion with Doc about.
That is Jesus historically can not be proven to be real.
That's it. There is no physical, empirical, or first hand accounts of him. None at all.
The earliest known manuscript so far found is a piece of papyrus that dates damn near 200 years after he supposedly died by a decedent of a disciple of one of the supposed original disciples. That the first reference to him period. Which if you are following is a THIRD HAND ACCOUNT. That cannot be take as true of anything.
Then take into account that oldest "bible" ever found that contains a collection of references to Jesus is only 1200 years old, and is RADICALLY different that what any bible you can find today.
Then go off the fact that damn near all Christians believe in these so called modern bibles as the "truth" because it was originally written by people with no scientific training, living in mud houses and smoking who knows what back then; to only be written by every person with a politcal and power hungry agenda to control masses of people.
Did you know the older images of Jesus portrayed him as blond, beardless, short haired, and white? And all images of Jesus are supposed to be based off a supposedly Arabian decent man in the middle east? Now he's portrayed as a hippy all because of a the fake shroud of turin which has been proven to be false as it was something the Templars made as a demonstration of what old burials may have been like? Now everyone in modern times runs around with images of a hippy that, if the man existed, never ever ever looked liked? Yet one of the commandments of Christians is to bear no false idols, but what the hell do they pray to when the stare at this bearded, long haired, guy? Wow talk about hypocrisy.
What is even more funny is then telling Christians that Jesus is not his name and neither is Christ. That Christ is old greek for "annoited one" as it is a title, and if anything was close to his name was Yeshua of Nazereth. Which should have been translated to Joshua, but one biblical translation got sloppy with the name.
So the entire basis of Christianity following a man, historically speaking, never existed, using an image of this dubious persona that should never fit, chanting a name that isn't even his, and then claiming it all to be 100 percent true? You want me to follow that?
I haven't even BEGUN to scratch the surface of the actual bible yet and the supposed "morality" teaching given there in. Yay for slaves, yay for beating down your wife, yay for stoning other people, yay for other things like raping, pillaging, and being a douche bag to your fellow man. All while at the same time saying that all that is preached in the bible is goodness and love your fellow man. If that is all that needs to be taught why do it in so many words? Oh, but then we have the 10 commandments, which is a jewish thing really and not a Christian thing speaking practically. Or is it 11 commandments or is it 12? Why? Because different sects of Christians and Jews add and combine different ones.
Oh but let's look at these so called commandments. About half of which deal with loving only god and are not reflection of morales to your fellow man. The other half are rules that have been around in humanity much longer than Christians or Jews. They can be found in much older civilizations and older religions. So to spout out that the Bible is fount of all morales and without it humans would not have morality is complete crap which is something Christian love to continually do.
Damn, I'm tired of typing this out. I could literally be here for weeks talking about this and you know what? It doesn't effing matter. I doubt I'll ever convince a true believer of anything because of the circular logical pattern that their mind works around. I'll let Cerpin argue more as he seems to have much more patience with idiots than I do.
That is Jesus historically can not be proven to be real.
That's it. There is no physical, empirical, or first hand accounts of him. None at all.
The earliest known manuscript so far found is a piece of papyrus that dates damn near 200 years after he supposedly died by a decedent of a disciple of one of the supposed original disciples. That the first reference to him period. Which if you are following is a THIRD HAND ACCOUNT. That cannot be take as true of anything.
Then take into account that oldest "bible" ever found that contains a collection of references to Jesus is only 1200 years old, and is RADICALLY different that what any bible you can find today.
Then go off the fact that damn near all Christians believe in these so called modern bibles as the "truth" because it was originally written by people with no scientific training, living in mud houses and smoking who knows what back then; to only be written by every person with a politcal and power hungry agenda to control masses of people.
Did you know the older images of Jesus portrayed him as blond, beardless, short haired, and white? And all images of Jesus are supposed to be based off a supposedly Arabian decent man in the middle east? Now he's portrayed as a hippy all because of a the fake shroud of turin which has been proven to be false as it was something the Templars made as a demonstration of what old burials may have been like? Now everyone in modern times runs around with images of a hippy that, if the man existed, never ever ever looked liked? Yet one of the commandments of Christians is to bear no false idols, but what the hell do they pray to when the stare at this bearded, long haired, guy? Wow talk about hypocrisy.
What is even more funny is then telling Christians that Jesus is not his name and neither is Christ. That Christ is old greek for "annoited one" as it is a title, and if anything was close to his name was Yeshua of Nazereth. Which should have been translated to Joshua, but one biblical translation got sloppy with the name.
So the entire basis of Christianity following a man, historically speaking, never existed, using an image of this dubious persona that should never fit, chanting a name that isn't even his, and then claiming it all to be 100 percent true? You want me to follow that?
I haven't even BEGUN to scratch the surface of the actual bible yet and the supposed "morality" teaching given there in. Yay for slaves, yay for beating down your wife, yay for stoning other people, yay for other things like raping, pillaging, and being a douche bag to your fellow man. All while at the same time saying that all that is preached in the bible is goodness and love your fellow man. If that is all that needs to be taught why do it in so many words? Oh, but then we have the 10 commandments, which is a jewish thing really and not a Christian thing speaking practically. Or is it 11 commandments or is it 12? Why? Because different sects of Christians and Jews add and combine different ones.
Oh but let's look at these so called commandments. About half of which deal with loving only god and are not reflection of morales to your fellow man. The other half are rules that have been around in humanity much longer than Christians or Jews. They can be found in much older civilizations and older religions. So to spout out that the Bible is fount of all morales and without it humans would not have morality is complete crap which is something Christian love to continually do.
Damn, I'm tired of typing this out. I could literally be here for weeks talking about this and you know what? It doesn't effing matter. I doubt I'll ever convince a true believer of anything because of the circular logical pattern that their mind works around. I'll let Cerpin argue more as he seems to have much more patience with idiots than I do.
Last edited:
kitchiku
Senior member
- Nov 6, 2009
- 277
- 1
- 81
Now I know where you are coming from. Essentially this is not christianity nor religion per se but having faith? or in the case of religion, believing in something that is not yet proven to exist?
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
The SCOTUS decided that it is. The only reason politicians keep dangling the carrot of an abortion ban in front of you is to keep you voting against your own interests.
But you're against idolatry like you're against abortion. Why wouldn't you vote to ban it like you would to ban abortion?
You think wrongly.
To me, denying that there was a historical Jesus is like denying the holocaust. Sure, you can do it, but it makes you look awfully silly.
Here's a good book by a former atheist who is an attorney and investigative journalist.
http://www.christianbook.com/journa...310242109/pd/242109?event=AFF&p=1011693&#curr
Here's a good book by a former atheist who is an attorney and investigative journalist.
http://www.christianbook.com/journa...310242109/pd/242109?event=AFF&p=1011693&#curr
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
Yes. I take issue with delusional positive belief, especially when it has such sweeping influence. Christianity and Islam just happen to be painted with the biggest targets for me due to the number of adherents.
Are you suggesting that the SCOTUS never made a bad decision? Is it possible that they made a bad one in this instance?
I'm failing to see the connection between idolatry and abortion. Can you elaborate?
Where am I scientifically wrong?
Last edited:
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Oh and one other thing about science as a religion...
Yes science has assumptions and same with math that it rely upon. But to claim that because science uses assumptions that require some degree of faith to be true does not make it a religion. I'll use this analogy.
I have faith that my gardener is the best gardener I have ever found. He has done the best work I've ever seen and I will continue to hire him for that outstanding work.
My assumptions are that my gardener is the best and that he will continue to be the best. Why are these assumptions even they are based off empirical evidence I can see and measure? Because there may come a time and place he doesn't do the outstanding work he has done in the past. At which time, my previous claim is now false.
The difference is that science recognizes what assumptions are and re-addresses things once held as true that have no been shown to be less true or even completely false. Good science then uses new empirical evidence to revise previous assumptions.
Religion on the other hand, doesn't.
Yes science has assumptions and same with math that it rely upon. But to claim that because science uses assumptions that require some degree of faith to be true does not make it a religion. I'll use this analogy.
I have faith that my gardener is the best gardener I have ever found. He has done the best work I've ever seen and I will continue to hire him for that outstanding work.
My assumptions are that my gardener is the best and that he will continue to be the best. Why are these assumptions even they are based off empirical evidence I can see and measure? Because there may come a time and place he doesn't do the outstanding work he has done in the past. At which time, my previous claim is now false.
The difference is that science recognizes what assumptions are and re-addresses things once held as true that have no been shown to be less true or even completely false. Good science then uses new empirical evidence to revise previous assumptions.
Religion on the other hand, doesn't.
PhoKingGuy
Diamond Member
- Nov 15, 2007
- 4,685
- 0
- 76
If thats the case then what about Buddah, Allah, Shiva, etc etc etc. They all have a reason and much history backing them to exist as well.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
WTF? no, it is not ANYTHING like denying the holocaust.
The holocaust has empirical evidence, with photos, physical objects, bodies that can be dug up, first hand accounts, witnesses, and tons of data to support it happened.
What does Jesus have? Something written as third hand accounts WELL after he supposedly died. And even then the original documents found during the time frame of 200 years mainly have his name as a mere footnote as most of them talk about the actions of the Christians themselves during that time. We don't get a "full story" accounting until damn near 800 years later.
Lack of evidence = no proof he existed. That's science for you.
Oh and mass belief does not count as evidence. Thank you try again.
CoinOperatedBoy
Golden Member
- Dec 11, 2008
- 1,809
- 0
- 76
If your religion instructs you to oppose abortion, so too does it instruct you to oppose idolatry. In fact, abortion is never mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but idolatry is certainly condemned. I think the question before you is: If you are a Christian and therefore believe you must adhere to Biblical morality, are you compelled to politicize this anti-idolatry stance? If not, why not? And how does it differ from the issue of abortion?
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
The point he was making is that other religions, that Christian will claim as false, have many more accounts of their so called deity avatars on earth than Jesus will ever have. Unless you count the millions of plastic idols of a false image of a man that most likely never existed in the first place as "mounting" evidence by sheer numbers of people that believe.
On what basis do you see there's no evidence or proof that Jesus existed?
I just pointed you to a book by an former atheist who is trained as an attorney and investigative journalist who says there is.
Maybe you should pick up the book.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,342
- 32,889
- 136
You won't find such a suggestion in my statements. If you find your faith contradicts the Constitution which shall prevail?
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Read it. His whole point at the end is that if soo many people believe it, something has to be true about it.
Which is the stance I've read with most others that have written similar books.
I said historical speaking and using the scientific method, there is no known way to prove that Yeshua existed, baring someone finding at least ONE written first hand account, or an account of the man himself.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter