Refutation of Pauline Controversy

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What are memes? I tried finding it in a number of dictionaries but it wasn't in them.

Try Wiki.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What are memes? I tried finding it in a number of dictionaries but it wasn't in them.

There are quite a few threads here at CR that discuss aspects of memes. One of my favorites, bumped from the vault:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...-meme-246.html

Use the local search engine for CR and plug in "meme" or "Dawkins", you should get plenty to look into.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Try Wiki.

It kind of reminds me of "ideology."

You could say that the Ideology is the system, or machine built for a particular purpose and that the memes are the components and moving parts of that machine.

Different ideologies have different components. The survival of the Ideology (system/machine) is fuelled by human devotion. The Ideology derives its power and energy from its human devotees. If the followers of that Ideology lose interest, the Ideology's life gets drained away. When people value ideological systems, perhaps in pursuit of some political or social goal, it is in the belief that their alignment to that ideology provides the power through which those goals may be realised. Sometimes . . . we could easily mistake that power for the power of God!!!!

New ideologies may form from existing ones, rather like offspring. These offspring inherit the memes of the parent ideologies. Ideologies don't like having children and kids!!!! An Ideology, driven by its followers, gets jealous when it has a child and its followers shift their focus, attention and dedication to that newborn baby ideology. Sounds like a jealous god . . .

The irony begins when the newborn baby ideology believes it is the parent rather than the child. An argument, debate and perhaps a violent clash may result as the two ideologies assert their identity over the other as the parent ideology -- labelling the other ideology as a child ideology and therefore a heretical system. There's a dilemma as to which one was the original, parent ideology in the first place -- a question of what the "true memes" had been originally. The other, opposing ideology is seen as the one that corrupted the "true memes" and adulterated the original Ideology.

Consequences include violence, judgmentalism, hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, persecution of dissidents, murder of defectors and converts and perhaps sectarian violence. Even if it doesn't go that far, it may inspire some extreme fundamentalism and bigotry with some radical ideals thrown in in the belief that it will purify the masses.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

It kind of reminds me of "ideology."

You could say that the Ideology is the system, or machine built for a particular purpose and that the memes are the components and moving parts of that machine.

Different ideologies have different components. The survival of the Ideology (system/machine) is fuelled by human devotion. The Ideology derives its power and energy from its human devotees. If the followers of that Ideology lose interest, the Ideology's life gets drained away. When people value ideological systems, perhaps in pursuit of some political or social goal, it is in the belief that their alignment to that ideology provides the power through which those goals may be realised. Sometimes . . . we could easily mistake that power for the power of God!!!!

New ideologies may form from existing ones, rather like offspring. These offspring inherit the memes of the parent ideologies. Ideologies don't like having children and kids!!!! An Ideology, driven by its followers, gets jealous when it has a child and its followers shift their focus, attention and dedication to that newborn baby ideology. Sounds like a jealous god . . .

The irony begins when the newborn baby ideology believes it is the parent rather than the child. An argument, debate and perhaps a violent clash may result as the two ideologies assert their identity over the other as the parent ideology -- labelling the other ideology as a child ideology and therefore a heretical system. There's a dilemma as to which one was the original, parent ideology in the first place -- a question of what the "true memes" had been originally. The other, opposing ideology is seen as the one that corrupted the "true memes" and adulterated the original Ideology.

Consequences include violence, judgmentalism, hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, persecution of dissidents, murder of defectors and converts and perhaps sectarian violence. Even if it doesn't go that far, it may inspire some extreme fundamentalism and bigotry with some radical ideals thrown in in the belief that it will purify the masses.

Bingo!

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Bingo!

Yes, I agree. That is the problem with gambling for understanding in that the basis for the answer may truly be as it is in Bingo... hot air.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Consequences include violence, judgmentalism, hellfire-and-brimstone preaching, persecution of dissidents, murder of defectors and converts and perhaps sectarian violence. Even if it doesn't go that far, it may inspire some extreme fundamentalism and bigotry with some radical ideals thrown in in the belief that it will purify the masses.

I find that you are presenting an ideology tailored to man's own desire for power without intrusion. I consider it the greatest misunderstanding of Jesus in the gospels perpetuated by alleged Christians today. Maybe it is more productive to discuss that meme in the Christian forum, and the other in the Islam forum. Law seems like one of those subjects that the one denies and the other embraces but I personally find that neither one is correct. Perhaps any discussion of Law is futile and best left to politicians and oppressive governments; except, it is at the heart of these religions.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yes, I agree. That is the problem with gambling for understanding in that the basis for the answer may truly be as it is in Bingo... hot air.

"Bingo" was my way of agreeing in a general sense with Saltmeister's assessment...that is, "meme" equates in a general sense with "ideology." The concept of memes was forwarded by atheists in an attempt to denigrate religion in general, and I suspect Christianity in particular. However, even an atheist is subject to a memetic paradigm, or ideology if preferred. It seems to me impossible not to be subject to a memetic paradigm of one form or another. One might set aside one meme and adopt another, but no individual in my estimation is completely free of the underlying mechanics of memes.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find that you are presenting an ideology tailored to man's own desire for power without intrusion. I consider it the greatest misunderstanding of Jesus in the gospels perpetuated by alleged Christians today. Maybe it is more productive to discuss that meme in the Christian forum, and the other in the Islam forum. Law seems like one of those subjects that the one denies and the other embraces but I personally find that neither one is correct. Perhaps any discussion of Law is futile and best left to politicians and oppressive governments; except, it is at the heart of these religions.

I realize this is directed to Saltmeister, but if I may be allowed to address this: what ideology is without political overtones? Many in the west operate under the premise of separation of Church and State. Indeed, it is a fundamental premise in many modern democracies. But this is a very recent concept introduced into politics and the political mechanizations. Religion and politics have a very long history of sharing power over their respective masses...even to this day in many cultures. Civil wars the world over and across time are fought between rival religious factions vying for power. Christianity is not alone in this, indeed the Abrahamic religions are not alone in this. For that matter, cutting to the essence, even non-religious memetic factions should rightly be included. Under separation of Church and State, even secular factions vying for political power are subject to the same parameters.

Law is by essence religious. The Code of Hammurabi was based on the religion of the time and place, and formed a codified basis by which to pass moral judgment and punishment, theorhetically (pun intended) on an equal basis across the populace. Prior to this I am not aware of any codified law. After this, codified law became the norm in every major culture to have survived. There may be certain exceptions perhaps among indigenous cultures, but not among those cultures that have gone on to influence the world in greater and lesser degree by expansion through conquest, colonization, or sheer force of "missionary" will. Among all of the major world faiths, politics has been and likely will continue to be a close companion. Even secular faiths. Politics seems to me the political hand that on one side provides a commonality for a people to rally around for protection and support, and on the other side provides a means of keeping those who would stray from established norms in line (or else!). At least, that is my nutshell synopsis of religion, politics and law in the context of memes / ideologies.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

"Bingo" was my way of agreeing in a general sense with Saltmeister's assessment...that is, "meme" equates in a general sense with "ideology." The concept of memes was forwarded by atheists in an attempt to denigrate religion in general, and I suspect Christianity in particular. However, even an atheist is subject to a memetic paradigm, or ideology if preferred. It seems to me impossible not to be subject to a memetic paradigm of one form or another. One might set aside one meme and adopt another, but no individual in my estimation is completely free of the underlying mechanics of memes.

My way of disagreeing with you both was to reveal more of the meme that you chose.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I realize this is directed to Saltmeister, but if I may be allowed to address this: what ideology is without political overtones? Many in the west operate under the premise of separation of Church and State. Indeed, it is a fundamental premise in many modern democracies. But this is a very recent concept introduced into politics and the political mechanizations. Religion and politics have a very long history of sharing power over their respective masses...even to this day in many cultures. Civil wars the world over and across time are fought between rival religious factions vying for power. Christianity is not alone in this, indeed the Abrahamic religions are not alone in this. For that matter, cutting to the essence, even non-religious memetic factions should rightly be included. Under separation of Church and State, even secular factions vying for political power are subject to the same parameters.

I don't try to separate religion and politics... I consider a person a hypocrite and an iniquitor if they do. I advise alleged Christians to review what Jesus said about hypocrites and iniquity.

I find the name "separation" to be simple thinking or bad terminology. Is the moon separated from the sun? If they were separate then you would not see the moon, and the moon would not orbit with the Earth. Or is the head separated from the heart? If they were separate then the head would have no blood flow and the heart would have no sense of direction. The 'separation' of church and state simply means that a group of people or a country can NOT dictate the religion of an individual. It means Freedom of Religion. That no single person or group of people come between a person and God (enlightenment, nature, etc...) Religion must be an individual choice, not an elected representative's. That does not mean groups of people can not join together and struggle to share their common beliefs.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Law is by essence religious. The Code of Hammurabi was based on the religion of the time and place, and formed a codified basis by which to pass moral judgment and punishment, theorhetically (pun intended) on an equal basis across the populace. Prior to this I am not aware of any codified law. After this, codified law became the norm in every major culture to have survived. There may be certain exceptions perhaps among indigenous cultures, but not among those cultures that have gone on to influence the world in greater and lesser degree by expansion through conquest, colonization, or sheer force of "missionary" will. Among all of the major world faiths, politics has been and likely will continue to be a close companion. Even secular faiths. Politics seems to me the political hand that on one side provides a commonality for a people to rally around for protection and support, and on the other side provides a means of keeping those who would stray from established norms in line (or else!). At least, that is my nutshell synopsis of religion, politics and law in the context of memes / ideologies.

Ok... as a follower of Christ I do not recognize the use of the word 'Faith' to mean a religion or a belief. I do not find a single use of the word in the Gospels that supports that definition. So for me, 'Faith' is NOT a meme or an ideology. Whereas a meme or an ideology is a physical pattern left in the world. To me, 'Faith' is really a Verb.

One of my objections with Salt is that violence pre-dates a specific ideal, meme, ideology, or religion, and it often arrives by individuals out of nowhere. It enters the world and has to be dealt with one way or another. My other objection is that Judgment or Judgmentalism is a requirement of Law and at least the three Abrahamic religions... but neither does it come from a religion. It comes from a person.. or from God. I wish to discuss that one in a different thread.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I don't try to separate religion and politics... I consider a person a hypocrite and an iniquitor if they do. I advise alleged Christians to review what Jesus said about hypocrites and iniquity.

Although it may be somewhat difficult to see in my post, I do agree with you, short of passing judgement on other seekers.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find the name "separation" to be simple thinking or bad terminology. Is the moon separated from the sun? If they were separate then you would not see the moon, and the moon would not orbit with the Earth. Or is the head separated from the heart? If they were separate then the head would have no blood flow and the heart would have no sense of direction. The 'separation' of church and state simply means that a group of people or a country can NOT dictate the religion of an individual. It means Freedom of Religion. That no single person or group of people come between a person and God (enlightenment, nature, etc...) Religion must be an individual choice, not an elected representative's. That does not mean groups of people can not join together and struggle to share their common beliefs.

I am struggling with your analogy here. Yes, the sun and moon are distinct and separate. Do they perform an intimate dance in accord with G-d's law / natural-universal law? Yes, of course. Do I believe they both serve a purpose and function in our lives? Yes, of course, some which we understand and some we do not, and some understanding I believe has been lost to modern "civilized" peoples. "Church" and "state" are separate entities in essential function, even if they happen to perform an intimate dance, ostensibly for the better of civilization. So you are correct, depending on vantage...just as I too am correct, depending on my vantage. Otherwise, I agree: "The 'separation' of church and state simply means that a group of people or a country can NOT dictate the religion of an individual. It means Freedom of Religion...Religion must be an individual choice, not an elected representative's."

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Ok... as a follower of Christ I do not recognize the use of the word 'Faith' to mean a religion or a belief. I do not find a single use of the word in the Gospels that supports that definition. So for me, 'Faith' is NOT a meme or an ideology. Whereas a meme or an ideology is a physical pattern left in the world. To me, 'Faith' is really a Verb.

That is your perogitive. My perogitive is to use the word "faith" as a verb where appropriate, and by / with poetic license use it as a noun where appropriate.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

One of my objections with Salt is that violence pre-dates a specific ideal, meme, ideology, or religion, and it often arrives by individuals out of nowhere. It enters the world and has to be dealt with one way or another. My other objection is that Judgment or Judgmentalism is a requirement of Law and at least the three Abrahamic religions... but neither does it come from a religion. It comes from a person.. or from God. I wish to discuss that one in a different thread.

I don't think Salty was saying violence must predate specific ideals: "Consequences include violence, ... persecution of dissidents, murder of defectors and converts and perhaps sectarian violence...An argument, debate and perhaps a violent clash may result as the two ideologies assert their identity over the other as the parent ideology." I find myself in agreement with Salty by virtue of historic norm. Is this the ideal? No, but since when has mankind conducted itself ideally?

Humanity is opportunistic. Capitalistic consumerism in the rawest possible sense. Even using Maslow's hierarchy as a guideline, humans typically seek to sate appetites of the flesh first, and safety second. If these needs are not met, or otherwise present themselves, no other order of need or desire can be approached, let alone attained. Social needs, ego needs and higher order spiritual needs will be neglected if the lower order needs are not taken care of. We can delude ourselves with soapbox operas about saving the planet, as an example, but we will turn a deaf ear to such diatribe if we haven't food in our belly or a safe place to lay our head.

That to me is a key aspect of religion, and here I mean in the individual sense; it helps us raise ourselves above our human animal nature into the higher order needs as Maslow indicated. Institutional religion in concert with political institution together perform the functions of providing moral guidance and collective security, without which civilization as we know it could not exist. Even should one wish to point to a "primitive" tribal society, the mechanics of what I am pointing to still exist. The shaman needn't be the tribe's protector, nor need the chief be the spiritual guide. In rare instances the chief might also be the shaman, but this is the exception not the rule. I might add, it is generally not a successful model, I suspect because both are full time occupations that cannot rightly be distracted. (Not for long anyway, and still be successful.) A shaman on spirit quest is in no position to defend the camp, and a chief defending the camp hasn't the time or attention to devote to spirit quest. Hence, religion and politics are distinct and separate, even if they do function quite well in concert together.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find the name "separation" to be simple thinking or bad terminology. Is the moon separated from the sun? If they were separate then you would not see the moon, and the moon would not orbit with the Earth. Or is the head separated from the heart? If they were separate then the head would have no blood flow and the heart would have no sense of direction. The 'separation' of church and state simply means that a group of people or a country can NOT dictate the religion of an individual.

The word "separation" I suppose is the wrong word. But that is the word people use. Religion and State, will, ultimately and inevitably be involved in some kind of interaction. But I think that what they mean is a "separation" of purpose and agenda -- that neither tries to dominate the other. The State does not try to dominate over Religion and vice versa.

Religion is the pursuit of something otherworldly. The State is a structural framework through which society is organised, regulated and manipulated. Religion should stick to the agenda of pursuing something otherworldly. The State should stick to its agenda of keeping society in order and maintaining the quality of life of its citizens. From time to time, followers of religions do, for some reason decide that they need to have an influence over how the State runs. Christians, for example, often believe that because they follow "God's religion" that this means they can exercise authority over the State. Being God's people means that you can tell the world how to think and behave. Right?

I can understand that sentiment but (and being Christian myself) I disagree with that concept.

It is my belief that God bypasses hierarchies set up by human beings and is able to establish a direct connection with each of us, personally and intimately. God doesn't need a political system, structural framework or hierarchy. He bypasses all that. Just because we have a relationship with God doesn't mean we should try to dominate a political system. It is not a "put-down" to a religion to not try and dominate a political system. It's just that followers of a religion that have a relationship with God shouldn't need to do that. God is all they need. If God can talk to each of us individually then He doesn't need a political system or ideology. God eliminates the need for political systems and therefore there is no point trying to control one unless it is your job and you've been employed (ie. have a $500,000 salary) to look after one.

Anyway, I would say yes, "separation" is probably not the best word, but it's what people normally use. If we were to use a different word we'd confuse people because they'd think we're talking about something else.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

One of my objections with Salt is that violence pre-dates a specific ideal, meme, ideology, or religion, and it often arrives by individuals out of nowhere. It enters the world and has to be dealt with one way or another.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly what you meant by violence predating a particular concept (as listed above).

Nevertheless, I have to say I did exaggerate, to some degree, the consequences of two groups of people with opposing (and maybe quite similar but slightly different) ideologies. I suggested violence as a consequence. It wasn't my intention to say that violence was always the result. Up until that point I had had an overwhelming surge of ideas and I was coming to the end of the post and needed some way of summing things up -- writing a conclusion. I probed around for a way to maintain the natural flow of my post and . . . I guess a touch of sensationalism got thrown into the mixture and I ended up with a conclusion with an emphasis on violence of some form.

Physical violence is a rarity, but as a result of such a conflict, violence of another form may result as relationships and friendships are torn apart as people make their choices on which side to choose. It may, possibly involve an exchange of insults, derogatory remarks, cursing and swearing. Even if that doesn't happen, it may end with each group thinking the other is going to some kind of hell. That, I suppose wouldn't have involved violence.

What people are normally interested in, though, is the negative sentiment and alienation. If two groups of people who oppose each other think the other are heretics, have been led astray by false teachings, are not saved and are going to hell, that negative sentiment is enough to sit badly in people's minds.

I must admit, though, that this is the taint of only one kind of ideology. An ideology doesn't necessarily generate negative sentiments like that or cause alienation.

But once again, there was quite a bit of sensationalism in my post. It was to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

has Brian hosted your refutation yet?

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

How nice to hear from you! It has been some time now. How is the wife and baby?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste juan,

has Brian hosted your refutation yet?

metta,

~v

I don't suppose my refutation is formally hosted yet, in large part because I have not made any pressing issue to have it so. I would not object if someone else wished to sponsor or endorse a formal hosting. When and if the time comes, I would encourage a copy be posted on the thesis board. I would also encourage a copy remain here or somewhere on the discussion boards so the issue can be further explored.

I know I enjoyed BB's "Tilting at Windmills" thread very early on when it was merely a thread on the comparative board. Had it been solely on the thesis board, I doubt I would have even noticed. Besides, I am no formal theological scholar, my refutation holds no scholastic weight. It merely is what it is; my amateur "educated" opinion based on historical researches of my own, unbeholding to any outside influence.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

How nice to hear from you! It has been some time now. How is the wife and baby?


I don't suppose my refutation is formally hosted yet, in large part because I have not made any pressing issue to have it so. I would not object if someone else wished to sponsor or endorse a formal hosting. When and if the time comes, I would encourage a copy be posted on the thesis board. I would also encourage a copy remain here or somewhere on the discussion boards so the issue can be further explored.

I know I enjoyed BB's "Tilting at Windmills" thread very early on when it was merely a thread on the comparative board. Had it been solely on the thesis board, I doubt I would have even noticed. Besides, I am no formal theological scholar, my refutation holds no scholastic weight. It merely is what it is; my amateur "educated" opinion based on historical researches of my own, unbeholding to any outside influence.

lol, the only thing "amateur" about your "education" is that you don't have a piece of parchment that says you are par excellance in your studies...

...which in my opinion is merely an alternative to toilet paper (should one run out).


Reminds me of two Damage Controlmen who once worked for me. I asked "Can you weld?" One proceeded to tell me of all the certificates he'd received for his trade and expertise, and how he passed the Hobart Welding school's criteria for metalurgy with flying colors...

After all was said, I smiled and asked "but can you weld?"

"Not very good" was his reply.

So I turned to the other DC, and asked the same question...

He replied, "I ain't formally educated, but I can weld my ass off. And I can see when the metal is going brittle, so I know when to stop and let it cool off. and old oil tempers hot steel better than water, 'cause I tried both, and learned what not to do"...

...who do you think I put in charge of the welding shop?

[juantoo3]

Thanks, Q!

Originally Posted by Quahom1

lol, the only thing "amateur" about your "education" is that you don't have a piece of parchment that says you are par excellance in your studies...

Don't get me wrong, I have a degree. I started my Bachelor's at the age of 40 and completed a four year degree in three years, graduating Summa Cum Laude. I would've finished sooner but for some red tape snafus, and one semester I took off from being mentally burnt to a crisp. Worried a lot of profs, who counseled me for a week to make sure I was coming back. I want to return and get my Master's, ideally in anthropology. But I figured I better make my basic degree a "bread and butter" degree...business administration. I have a BSBA! (or is that BABS?) LOL!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thanks, Q!


Don't get me wrong, I have a degree. I started my Bachelor's at the age of 40 and completed a four year degree in three years, graduating Summa Cum Laude. I would've finished sooner but for some red tape snafus, and one semester I took off from being mentally burnt to a crisp. Worried a lot of profs, who counseled me for a week to make sure I was coming back. I want to return and get my Master's, ideally in anthropology. But I figured I better make my basic degree a "bread and butter" degree...business administration. I have a BSBA! (or is that BABS?) LOL!

Not going there...NOT going there... LOL

[juantoo3]

Why?, emBarAssed by all the BullSh!t?

Yeah, I get a chuckle out of it too.