That Lady Was So Fast She Killed Herself

[Pooky]

Research on social capital entities, especially religion, are very difficult to fully test without error. First, there is the endogenous aspect of this. More specifically, is it possible that some component of the social capital religious outlets provide are also a part of the dependent variable (i.e. "a healthy society") rather than a cause of the dependent variable? Second, have they controlled for all external factors? Third, the causality may be in reverse, a healthy society may produce religion. Most importantly, how can you experimentally, even if hypothetically, test such an idea? I do agree that perhaps religion does have a positive impact on society, but the means of testing and the nominal issue are likely unresolved in each of those author's works.


I don't know if this is the old testament or not, but it looks sketchy to me:

While its true that Derkhiem's studies on the subject are debated still, his theories do still merit consideration. "Suicide" for example, its still taught in schools today (as in the concepts and conclusions derived from the study). You're also correct that different authors had much different views of how religion is involved with society; notably Marx and Weber.


That's from the story of Jacob (Genesis 32, Old Testament for those that don't know). The "man" he wrestled with was an angel of God, as referenced by the name "Israel" and "Peniel" (or "Penuel" depending on the translation.)

[Yugl]

While its true that Derkhiem's studies on the subject are debated still, his theories do still merit consideration. "Suicide" for example, its still taught in schools today (as in the concepts and conclusions derived from the study). You're also correct that different authors had much different views of how religion is involved with society; notably Marx and Weber.

You're going to have to link the article or at least provide the title (Since I have access to sites such as jstor, it shouldn't be an issue) before I can fully grasp your statement with regards to suicide. My concerns were ones of generic concern in any social science experiment, but heavily deter from conclusions on entities such as social capital. Religion is a bit more specific which is good since experimentation control becomes slightly easier than having to account for all forms of social capital. That said, it's entirely possible that he meets these concerns in his article.

That's from the story of Jacob (Genesis 32, Old Testament for those that don't know). The "man" he wrestled with was an angel of God, as referenced by the name "Israel" and "Peniel" (or "Penuel" depending on the translation.)

That was just my joke for the thread. I just found it ironic how that's exactly what I would expect a secretly gay guy to do. That said, I understood the Israel reference, but not the Penuel reference (I don't read the book).

[oldoldman]

I expected more from this thread.

[Jaybar]

It's missing someone...but who...

[Eratosthenes]

Except it does. You just take them for granted.

Example?

[Pirian]

What I find funny is that same statement can be true when talking about the law as well. We have an entire branch of government dedicated to interpreting historical documents and their meaning to society today.

It's funny, but has nothing to do with what I said or further whatever point you were trying to make.

[kuronosan]

Because it obviously expresses the basic beliefs before the new testament (herp derp), but the vast majority of Christian study is based in the new testament.

Even just being anecdotal, I went to sunday school when I was little, my grandparents did "devotions" every night for their entire lives, I remember sermons, blah blah blah... never about the old testament.

In fact I'd say 99.999999999% of shit ever talked about in any religious studies I've ever seen was directly gospel.

The only shit out of the old testament that's really commonly used for teaching in modern Christianity is select psalms.

Except I have read both the old and new testaments, being that I am/was Catholic, and neither of them have anything to do with each other.
-
As a matter of fact, Christ taught the Hebrew religion. Believers in Christ are the ones who raised Christianity, which only took root after he died.

Note how up until Christ's death, there was no talk of coming back from the dead or homosexuals being damned to all eternity, or any sort of supernatural nonsensical bullshit. It was all metaphorical.

The foundation of all Christian belief lies in the Old Testament. Only radical assholes like this dumb bitch SWEAR by the gospel and only listen to the Gospel.

Modern Christianity revolves around the New Testament when Jesus taught the Old. That is laughable, at best.

Going to Sunday school isn't shit. Go to Church every Sunday (and sometimes Wednesdays) and you'll hear the same stuff over and over. They read only the gospels and letters from Paul, preceded by readings from the Old Testament.

Yet the people that read the bible always quote Corinthians, Ephesians, and all the other letters from Paul. Most Christians these days only know one Gospel line by heart - John 3:14 (For God so loveth the world he gaveth his only son).

Reading the bible is supposed to be spiritually educational and enlightening. To most people, it's actually the word of God telling them to do hateful shit.

So again. Nowhere in the Old Testament will you ever see God coming down and saying "Kill ye a homosexual, for sodomy is nasty and so is vaginal rubbing." yet in the New Testament you DO see Jesus tell everyone "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

So why then, is Paul advocating such idiotically bigoted behavior?

Derp derp yourself, Plow. Read the bible moar.

old testament homosexuality

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah were towns that were destroyed, yes, because of sexual deviance. It did not, however, specify that they were committing homosexual acts. It was their sexual deviance in general and their whore-like behavior which caused them to 'fall from favor' in the eyes of the Lord.

Interestingly enough, you don't see many mention that after they escape the city, Lot's daughers end up raping him and having his babies because he was a drunk and they were afraid his family line would end with them. Yet he alone was saved by the angels. Yea. The same angels that rained down brimstone on the aforementioned cities.

It's not inaccurate or even wrong to state that all Christian belief is based off of the Old Testament. Just because you don't hear of it anymore doesn't mean shit. Christians talk less and less of the Old Testament because honestly the New Testament holds more relevance to their cause and is more convenient to discuss. After all, who wants to talk about things that prove they're full of shit?

For that matter, Christians always run around crying "Adam and Eve" and yet they never account for how they populated the Earth through incest (after all, if God only made Adam and Eve, where did Cain and Abel's babies come from?).

[Pooky]

You're going to have to link the article or at least provide the title (Since I have access to sites such as jstor, it shouldn't be an issue) before I can fully grasp your statement with regards to suicide. My concerns were ones of generic concern in any social science experiment, but heavily deter from conclusions on entities such as social capital. Religion is a bit more specific which is good since experimentation control becomes slightly easier than having to account for all forms of social capital. That said, it's entirely possible that he meets these concerns in his article.

Suicide (1897) basically concluded that Protestants had a higher suicide rate than Catholics due to stronger social ties; however as you noted there are obvious errors with the methodology of the study. Yet despite those errors, its still taught in schools and has still influenced modern sociological ideas.

That was just my joke for the thread. I just found it ironic how that's exactly what I would expect a secretly gay guy to do. That said, I understood the Israel reference, but not the Penuel reference (I don't read the book).

Peniel/Penuel is Hebrew for Face of God.

It's funny, but has nothing to do with what I said or further whatever point you were trying to make.

So religion has no credibility because its open to interpretation, but the law is credible even though it too suffers the same defect? Just found the logic interesting, that's all.

[Pirian]

So religion has no credibility because its open to interpretation, but the law is credible even though it too suffers the same defect? Just found the logic interesting, that's all.

You realize that is not the same defect right? I feel like you're trolling me here, come on. The law can't be interpret by just anyone, and even when it is there is a whole system built around it so that interpretation is scrutinized and looked over, and overturned if deemed inaccurate. Religion does not have this process. It can be interpret by anyone and anyone's opinion can be added to the flow. No to mention, I don't think the Church has ever admitted a mistake on their part. How can they when their word is the word of God, and God is infallible.

[Yugl]

Example?

For instance, the formulas you learn when you first start physics. You don't go out and test each of those formulas on your own. You take them and adhere to them because someone told you they were right. Another example would be the assumption that all things operate under the same laws. You assume that if an experiment yields X results that you've controlled for *every* possible element in the environment. You also assume that these results will replicate themselves in any similar scenario. By doing so, you blindly choose to believe that just because something happened before that it will happen again. Moreover, you place belief in your existing scientific knowledge (Formulas, knowledge about interfering elements, and so forth). All sciences start with an assumption and continue from there. Continued belief in these assumptions and the repetition of outcomes form of the basis of a blind belief.

In fact, think about physics prior to quantum mechanics (I believe that's the right one). Prior to this, people believed that they had completely solved all mysteries until the issue of light/release of energy issue emerged. Since then, you see a shift and correction in the laws of physics. However, prior to this you see a blind attachment to the non-quantum mechanical laws (Newton?), which as I understand, had some slight errors.

You may be tempted to suggest that this correction in ways led to self-correction and that disproves science as a blindly followed entity. However, what really happened was that the science (physics in my example) *itself* changed, and with it, the scientists. Such a result would be expected of an entity that demands its followers to jump forth blindly. I'm going to assume the greatest difference between religion and science lies in *who* changes the coarse of the entity. Religious leaders (i.e. a small elite), as I understand it, are responsible for deciding when religion changes. On the other hand, the entire scientific community (I'm guessing, I don't know who actually changes the book officially) is involved in this decision, so it appears as if there is no blind belief, but in fact, there is.

You realize that is not the same defect right? I feel like you're trolling me here, come on. The law can't be interpret by just anyone, and even when it is there is a whole system built around it so that interpretation is scrutinized and looked over, and overturned if deemed inaccurate. Religion does not have this process. It can be interpret by anyone and anyone's opinion can be added to the flow. No to mention, I don't think the Church has ever admitted a mistake on their part. How can they when their word is the word of God, and God is infallible.

It is the same defect. The rules of religion aren't to be interpreted by anyone as they please, but people do it anyways. For instance, the passage I posted as a joke could be interpreted as permitting gays to exist. However, as others have responded, that is not how they were meant to be interpreted. The NRA does the same when it interprets the 2nd amendment. You want to know the real difference between religion and the law? The law has power. There is no formal power within the church to "punish" someone for acting on misinterpretations of the bible. However, there are formal punishments for those whom misinterpret the constitution and act in a manner that violates it (Lets say the NRA weren't organized and didn't get its way in court).\

You're right that the gravitation towards infallibility is stronger on religions side, but the law has a similar problem as well. Many of the times, laws will not be seen as "wrong", but rather outdated. Moreover, the lack of compensation for those wronged by the state may be seen as a means of avoiding fault. Think about the people who were punished for a crime, but then that crime gets overturned. Some people have to send habeas corpus in order to resolve the issue. In other cases, the courts simply don't change the law because of the potential backlash from those who were convicted under the original law (Think about changes to drug law). Neither of these support the notion that courts willingly accept fault.

[Pooky]

Except I have read both the old and new testaments, being that I am/was Catholic, and neither of them have anything to do with each other.
-
As a matter of fact, Christ taught the Hebrew religion. Believers in Christ are the ones who raised Christianity, which only took root after he died.

Note how up until Christ's death, there was no talk of coming back from the dead or homosexuals being damned to all eternity, or any sort of supernatural nonsensical bullshit. It was all metaphorical.

The foundation of all Christian belief lies in the Old Testament. Only radical assholes like this dumb bitch SWEAR by the gospel and only listen to the Gospel.

Modern Christianity revolves around the New Testament when Jesus taught the Old. That is laughable, at best.

Going to Sunday school isn't shit. Go to Church every Sunday (and sometimes Wednesdays) and you'll hear the same stuff over and over. They read only the gospels and letters from Paul, preceded by readings from the Old Testament.

Yet the people that read the bible always quote Corinthians, Ephesians, and all the other letters from Paul. Most Christians these days only know one Gospel line by heart - John 3:14 (For God so loveth the world he gaveth his only son).

Reading the bible is supposed to be spiritually educational and enlightening. To most people, it's actually the word of God telling them to do hateful shit.

So again. Nowhere in the Old Testament will you ever see God coming down and saying "Kill ye a homosexual, for sodomy is nasty and so is vaginal rubbing." yet in the New Testament you DO see Jesus tell everyone "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

So why then, is Paul advocating such idiotically bigoted behavior?

Derp derp yourself, Plow. Read the bible moar.

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah were towns that were destroyed, yes, because of sexual deviance. It did not, however, specify that they were committing homosexual acts. It was their sexual deviance in general and their whore-like behavior which caused them to 'fall from favor' in the eyes of the Lord.

Interestingly enough, you don't see many mention that after they escape the city, Lot's daughers end up raping him and having his babies because he was a drunk and they were afraid his family line would end with them. Yet he alone was saved by the angels. Yea. The same angels that rained down brimstone on the aforementioned cities.

It's not inaccurate or even wrong to state that all Christian belief is based off of the Old Testament. Just because you don't hear of it anymore doesn't mean shit. Christians talk less and less of the Old Testament because honestly the New Testament holds more relevance to their cause and is more convenient to discuss. After all, who wants to talk about things that prove they're full of shit?

For that matter, Christians always run around crying "Adam and Eve" and yet they never account for how they populated the Earth through incest (after all, if God only made Adam and Eve, where did Cain and Abel's babies come from?).

First off, please note that Catholic teachings are not the same as Christian churches.


Now, really? Want to rethink that statement?

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Yep, NEVER said anything about committing homosexual acts.


Lot's was saved because he didn't have anything to do with the deviance, and his house was saved not by their merit, but by his. The fact that his daughters were stupid has nothing to do with his actions. Btw, its John 3:16 not 14.

[Pirian]

For instance, the formulas you learn when you first start physics. You don't go out and test each of those formulas on your own.

Couldn't make it past your first sentence x.x You've never had a physics class, have you? Or maybe yours was a lot more relax than mine, because we derived every formula, and had a lab to prove each major concept.

[Pooky]

You realize that is not the same defect right? I feel like you're trolling me here, come on. The law can't be interpret by just anyone, and even when it is there is a whole system built around it so that interpretation is scrutinized and looked over, and overturned if deemed inaccurate. Religion does not have this process. It can be interpret by anyone and anyone's opinion can be added to the flow. No to mention, I don't think the Church has ever admitted a mistake on their part. How can they when their word is the word of God, and God is infallible.

Anyone with a law degree can interpret the law in our legal system, its what trial law is in a nutshell. Then judges measure the lawyer's interpretation against their own, and so on. It can be interpret by anyone and anyone's opinion can be added to the flow.

Religion DOES have a similar system, which is why books like the Apocrypha are not in biblical cannon. However, since "new" books aren't discovered hundreds of times a day like in case law, you don't hear anything about such a system. (I honestly have no idea when the last council on biblical cannon was, don't ask me).

[Yugl]

Couldn't make it past your first sentence x.x You've never had a physics class, have you? Or maybe yours was a lot more relax than mine, because we derived every formula, and had a lab to prove each major concept.

If you read further, you'll see that I address your argument.

Edit: A hint at this might be the fact that you blindly believed your high school teacher when he told you that you were controlling for everything in that experiment.

[Eratosthenes]

Couldn't make it past your first sentence x.x You've never had a physics class, have you? Or maybe yours was a lot more relax than mine, because we derived every formula, and had a lab to prove each major concept.

Yeah, my physics class was like that, too, but whether or not you tested what you were told is irrelevant because it can be tested if you don't believe it. It doesn't require any faith.

I'm going to assume the greatest difference between religion and science lies in *who* changes the coarse of the entity. Religious leaders (i.e. a small elite), as I understand it, are responsible for deciding when religion changes. On the other hand, the entire scientific community (I'm guessing, I don't know who actually changes the book officially) is involved in this decision, so it appears as if there is no blind belief, but in fact, there is.

You think scientists have some sort of meeting where they arbitrarily decide what reality is? Science is always testing models against reality for accuracy. When errors are found, they are corrected.

[Pirian]

Anyone with a law degree can interpret the law in our legal system, its what trial law is in a nutshell. Then judges measure the lawyer's interpretation against their own, and so on. It can be interpret by anyone and anyone's opinion can be added to the flow.

Yes...and then you can appeal a decision and bring it all the way to the supreme court if you have the will. So no, it's not the same. And you contradicted yourself there, anyone with a law degree can interpret law in our legal system. You have to go to school and study and understand law in order to make your interpretations. Anyone who can speak can interpret a religion. Why do I have to explain this, it isn't the same!

Religion DOES have a similar system, which is why books like the Apocrypha are not in biblical cannon. However, since "new" books aren't discovered hundreds of times a day like in case law, you don't hear anything about such a system. (I honestly have no idea when the last council on biblical cannon was, don't ask me).

Jesus is back, did you hear? He has his own church in Texas. Here, read about it on his website http://www.cegenglish.com/ he's got a large following.

[Pirian]

Edit: A hint at this might be the fact that you blindly believed your high school teacher when he told you that you were controlling for everything in that experiment.

Except that they never said that. And this isn't HS, lol.

[Pirian]

It is the same defect. The rules of religion aren't to be interpreted by anyone as they please, but people do it anyways.

Sorry, didn't read the rest of your post so obviously missed this nugget too. Ok, so you can go ahead and throw away Protestant faith, because after all, it was only made because some angry king wanted to divorce his wife and the church wouldn't allow it, so he made up his own interpretation that is one of the biggest sects of Christianity today.


edit: ugh triple post, totally didn't mean to do that -.-

[Pooky]

Yes...and then you can appeal a decision and bring it all the way to the supreme court if you have the will. So no, it's not the same. And you contradicted yourself there, anyone with a law degree can interpret law in our legal system. You have to go to school and study and understand law in order to make your interpretations. Anyone who can speak can interpret a religion. Why do I have to explain this, it isn't the same!

Jesus is back, did you hear? He has his own church in Texas. Here, read about it on his website http://www.cegenglish.com/ he's got a large following.

You don't need a law degree to interpret law in our legal system, pro se representation exists. Anyone who can speak can interpret a law (or anything for that matter, its the beauty of free speech); It doesn't make them an authority on the subject.

Pastors and Theologians study and get degrees in seminary, just like lawyers get degrees in law. Does that make either one more right? No, it merely gives them more authority when speaking their interpretations of their respective subject matter.

Allow me to rephrase: "...new, legitimate, books aren't discovered hundreds of times a day like in case law..." And no, I don't know the criteria or rules that go into determining if a document can be considered legitimate or biblical cannon.


Edit: I can't believe you got me to waste my 1000th post in this thread. Sigh.

[Pirian]

You don't need a law degree to interpret law in our legal system, pro se representation exists. Anyone who can speak can interpret a law (or anything for that matter, its the beauty of free speech); It doesn't make them an authority on the subject.

Pastors and Theologians study and get degrees in seminary, just like lawyers get degrees in law. Does that make either one more right? No, it merely gives them more authority when speaking their interpretations of their respective subject matter.

Allow me to rephrase: "...new, legitimate, books aren't discovered hundreds of times a day like in case law..." And no, I don't know the criteria or rules that go into determining if a document can be considered legitimate or biblical cannon.

You don't seem to understand; anyone can state their interpretations as the true and real interpretation in a religion. They can then open up a church and start a congregation and spread their ideas to the masses. It doesn't really matter how crazy or new the idea (re: Scientology

Spoiler: show

Christianity's ideas are no more, we're just use to that crazy

) the less different the idea from the mainstream, the faster it catches on. Get a celebrity on-board and watch the converts pour in.

Pro se representation is a very poor counter-argument because you're only representing yourself. If it was limited this way in religion then your argument would hold more water.