Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Yigal:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ... the methodology is accepted .... Except by people whose faith
> refuses
> >> to let them do so ... I know of no one who opposes it who is NOT a
> >> "person
> >> of faith".
> >>
> >> Yigal Levin
> >
> >
> > Shouldn't this be a clue that the methodology itself is a religious
> faith?
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
>
> Not at all. You must have a different definition of "religion" than I do.
>
> Yigal Levin
>

I learned two definitions for "religion", one the declarative definition
("it is a religion only if I say it is") and the other the duck test ("if it
flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc. then it is a
duck", likewise "if it functions like a religion, answers the basic
religio-philosophic questions, gives rules for life, etc then it is a
religion"). The first is a formal definition which can often be capricious
and arbitrary, the latter a functional definition able to test all beliefs.

Which camp do you fit into? Form or function?

My understanding, which I share with others on this list, is functional.

Karl W. Randolph.