Jesus' Wife?

[Ed Anger]

Now call him a kind and sensitive person.

Edit: WTF. YOU MODS! You took away my best jokes. 

Boner has gone soft.

Try to type in c u c k. I blame Jacob.

Damn Canadian.

[Berkut]

Well, if the net of all this is that Berkut is mean because he said Valmy's religious views were "qasi-religious" I suppose I can live with that.

I suspect Valmy is not nearly as sensitive as you guys are though.

[The Brain]

The will of Valmy can only be divined by His ordained priests. He once spoke to men, but that was long ago.

[Martinus]

We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.

Make Languish Great Again!

[grumbler]

First, who is this "we all know" you are talking about?  In the study of ritual there are those who assert that secular ritual, devoid of symbols, exist alongside sacred ritual.  However, others have argued that habitual behavior is not ritual behavior, and that many of our acts do indeed have the symbolic element needed to be "religious" in nature.  All I know is that that not everyone who studies ritual believes in secular ritual as you assert.

"We all" is the native English speakers here at Languish.  That someone wrote a book or paper arguing that people standing at attention for a national anthem is either religious or it's not ritual is only evidence that people will write any damn fool thing.

Are you, in fact, arguing that all ritual is religious, or are you, in fact, agreeing with me but weaseling out of admitting it by throwing out some red herring about someone, somewhere, arguing that all ritual is, in fact, religious?

The problem lies not so much in defining ritual, acts done in a proscribed order with symbolic and emotional attachment that are performed by individuals or groups, it is the fact that to make ritual have meaning for all human societies (and they all have to have it), then it must be broad and all encompassing.  That is the problem with ritual.

I have no idea what you are arguing here.  There are plenty of "secret rituals," so rituals themselves don't have to be all-encompassing.  The argument that "ritual... must be broad and all-encompassing... that is the problem with ritual" doesn't make any sense to me.  I don't think that it does need to be all-encompassing and I don't think that that is a problem with ritual.

And yes, some have argued that to make it this broad removed much of the edge.  But it is a foundation idea that has to be set (at least for those studying culture) in order to build up from.  I find the study of ritual, both in general and specific to be fascinating, especially in its basic function of being an organic element within culture.

Again, this seems pretty trite to me where it isn't gibberish.  Maybe the idea that ritual is widespread in human cultures comes as a surprise to someone.  What "it" is that is a "foundation idea," though, is entirely unclear.

[grumbler]

Why is that funny? I've a little secret for you. It is actually possible to disagree with someone without being a dick about it.

Have you ever even tried that?

[grumbler]

valmy, if you blow yourself up in the name of god, then berkut will call you christian

That's probably pretty spot on.

  I love it when people agree with stupid comments just because they think it will apply the burn to a fellow poster.

[grumbler]

Here is where it was said Valmy was not following a religion.  That is what I took up.  What kind of religion is even more nebulous, and I don't have a horse in THAT race

The problem, though, is that you disagreed with Berkut's definition of religion purely on the basis of your own self-proclaimed authority as an anthropologist.  You never offered a widely-accepted alternative definition, nor even explained what was erroneous about Berkut's (and the OED's) definition.  You just claimed the power to refute by diktat.

Now, I happen to think that Valmy's beliefs do qualify as religious because I think that they do involve the supernatural.  I just don't think that one can claim to believe in the Christ, the "anointed one of God" while also saying that one doesn't believe the Christ was anointed and doesn't believe that there was even a god to anoint him.  Valmy is free to reject my conclusion and continue to call himself whatever he wants, but he should be aware that anyone just hearing his assertion of being a Christian is being misinformed.

[PDH]

Grumbler -

I did in fact argue that Valmy did follow a (not quasi) religion because he practiced rituals.  For the record, I think Valmy's rituals would be defined as sacred by either camp.

I have never been sure as to whether there is such a thing as a secular ritual, personally I would come down on the camp that there are secular habitual practices that differ from ritual.  The rub is of course in the details.  Is the emotional attachment to a lucky game day sweater that must be worn ritual behavior?  What about practices to avoid bad luck that might seem rote?  It is clear that part of a successful ritual (stated because there are plenty of described cases of invented rituals not taking hold, and that all rituals had to start sometime) is the eventual internalization of the practice to make it an organic and essentially understood normal action.  This makes describing them from within a culture difficult.

For the record, the encompassing part talked about how any definition of ritual must make sense across all cultures who have rituals.  I did get a bit dropsy in my verbiage.  To limit a definition to just one culture, subsociety, or ethnic group rather misses out the point.

That said, the appeal to the masses seems trite on your part, as several seem to take issue with the same things I did.  You also seem keen on finding weaseling when I am actually trying to tread carefully in order to keep my definitions as broad as I can.  I am not describing one family in the Nuer tribe (sorry, Double-E), I am trying to describe cross-cultural human culture.

[LaCroix]

  I love it when people agree with stupid comments just because they think it will apply the burn to a fellow poster.

don't worry, grumbler, I have full faith you'd whip out your seven-point analysis and explain to all that valmy was no christian

[grumbler]

don't worry, grumbler, I have full faith you'd whip out your seven-point analysis and explain to all that valmy was no christian

Did you have rituals to go along with your faith?   If so, it may be a religion. 

I don't have seven points, just the one.  It really doesn't matter to me; I think every religion is pretty much exactly equivalent to any other religion, so what you call yourself ina religious sense is just semantics as far as i am concerned. Anyone at all can call themselves a christian if they want, no matter what they believe.  My point simply is that Valmy is using the word in a way that will mislead those who know the accepted definition of the word.

[dps]

We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.

Make Languish Great Again!

I don't think that's quite the case. We left Paradox OT largely because there are (or were?) certain topics that we weren't allowed to discuss at all there.

[Barrister]

We need to go back to Languish orthodoxy, when people could call each other names and this was not a place about being "nice". That's why we left the fucking Paradox and OHGamer behind.

Make Languish Great Again!

Don't listen to this false prophet.  OHGamer was not active when Languish was first born, during the era of the Trinity of Forums.