Denied use of their temple! [Archive]

David77

01-20-2007, 04:34 AM

Here is a copy of the post I made on 2-20-03 regarding the Digambora Jains and their religion.

"Here is the report which you asked for regarding the lecture I attended at the Ethical Society .... to enlighten the audiance as to what is the Jain religion and it's ethics.

I will first discuss the subject of nudity in that religion. The Janian monks of the Digambora sect own no clothing or anything else except a broom and a water bowl. They walk the country completely naked, sometimes up to 30 miles in a day. They will not ride a vehicle, thus we will never see a Digambora monk in the USA, as he would not ride an airplane. He eats only one meal a day and drinks water one time a day. Dr. Nayak states that the population there takes no special notice of his nudity as they have a different attitude toward the naked person from what they do here in the USA. They will invite him into their house for a meal. He always eats standing up. He speaks only when he is asked to speak. He does not do this walking in the Monsoon season, however. When he becomes a monk, he leaves his family household and becomes a bachelor. The soul is always in journey, so he is doing this for his own souls journey and not for anyone else. He will sleep on a mat filled with hay, and he meditates, reads Janian Scripture and practices detachment and discipline.

There are nuns too, but they are not allowed to appear naked, and this would do nothing for their salvation, as some Digambora believe women are not capable of salvation. I suppose they must wait to be reincarnated as males, possible.

There is one Jain holiday where it is obligatory to remain nude for four days. Dr. Nayak states he realizes that people in the USA think a person is crazy if they are naked in company of others. He states that he has no problem whatever with his being naked in front of others. He states that when he holds a conversation, naked, with someone else naked, he just looks them in the eyes. (Sound like some people's posts here on the bulletin board).

This post is getting long, so if you want to read the rest of my report of this lecture, you may continue reading by going to the web page I just finished at;

http://community.webtv.net/NatureRegard/DRNAYAKSLECTUREON

SunGod

01-22-2007, 11:58 AM

this has since changed, and happilly services in the Temple of Zeus have happened again. A happy day indeed for Hellenist Pagans everywhere.

Rabid_Clam

03-15-2007, 12:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So much for being 'christian', in yet another example of not learning what the one called christ was teaching. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christ taught there is God Almighty, one God and the Only God, and Zeus is not Him. Christ never taught tolerance of worship of other gods, he taught there is but one God and only one God.

nacktman

03-15-2007, 01:29 PM

Clam you better study a bit more, what you cited was not anything close to what was taught -- what you cited was the imposed dogma of much later oppressors (by two or three centuries later), and predominately those within the Roman governing elite which were and are still used to dominate society.

Rabid_Clam

03-16-2007, 05:58 AM

I stand correct as I posted. That is why the Jews were the chosen people (Judeasm was not the chosen religion) and that is because they were monotheostic. That is they believed in the one God and only one God.

Bob S.

03-17-2007, 06:54 PM

Well of course they were the chosen people of their G*d, Clam. And of course those who did not believe in their G*d were not the chosen people.

But therein lies the eternal philosophical question. What happens to the deities who are no longer worshipped? What if Zeus and his followers had won out and Judaism fell by the wayside? What would have happened to the G*d of Judaism (and thereafter the G*d of Christianity and Islam)?

Bob S.

David77

03-18-2007, 06:15 AM

There was worship of many gods, including a top god, (Zeus, Jupiter, Baal, for example) so the first of the ten commandments states, "thou shall not have any gods BEFORE me" and "before me" means higher than me. It does not mean 'EXCEPT ME", as is so often assumed.

Rabid_Clam

03-18-2007, 09:24 AM

I have always professed anyone to beleive as they so choose. For one I do beleive in only one God. In my opinion there never was any other God. That is what I hold to be true.

Beleive as you choose. What you believe does not concern me.

walter05

03-18-2007, 12:24 PM

David77;

Your explanation of the first commandment is based on an English translation that may be based on a Latin translation of the original Hebrew.

In the original Hebrew it states that one should not recognize the gods of others in the presense of the one true master of the universe. Since it is clear that the master of the universe is every place, then it is clear then one can't recognize any others at any time.

Dick Springer

03-18-2007, 12:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So much for being 'christian', in yet another example of not learning what the one called christ was teaching. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christ taught there is God Almighty, one God and the Only God, and Zeus is not Him. Christ never taught tolerance of worship of other gods, he taught there is but one God and only one God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe that this is what Christ taught and you follow his teaching as you see it, you are a menace to all Americans who believe in the values enshrined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. If people such as Americans, who have a diversity of beliefs, are to live together, tolerance is an absolute necessity and the alternatives are such things as the barbarity of the Spanish Inquisition and what we see in Iraq today.

Naturist Mark

03-18-2007, 01:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the original Hebrew it states that one should not recognize the gods of others in the presense of the one true master of the universe. Since it is clear that the master of the universe is every place, then it is clear then one can't recognize any others at any time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I was taking religion classes I was taught that the 10 Commandments came from a time before Judaism was strictly monotheistic. Yahweh was the Hebrew God then, not the only god.

Until the Exile there was a pantheon of gods with Yahweh first among them. They included the god El and his wife Asherah, the military gods Resheph and Deber, the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak, Anat, and the nemesis storm god Baal. The god El was at times identified as Yahweh, at others as the father of Yahweh, and at other as subordinate god to Yahweh.

True monotheism doesn't appear to take hold until late in the 7th or 6th century BC and remnants of polytheism survived long after.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Ugaritic texts discovered in the 20th century offer many new insights into the early Hebrew pantheon:

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm)

Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel (http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm)

David77

03-18-2007, 06:05 PM

The Jews in Judah called god Elohim and the Jews in the neighboring area of Isreal called god Yahweh.
<hr>
The following website addresses the question as to whether the Catholic church changed the ten commandments.
There are some differences from the Protestant bible.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1799282/posts

Naturist Mark

03-19-2007, 04:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Jews in Judah called god Elohim and the Jews in the neighboring area of Isreal called god Yahweh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got that switched, but it is true, to a point, and is why the Bible refers to God as both - the "E" sourced sections refer to Elohim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim) and are believed to derive from Isreal and Jeruslam, while the "J" sourced sections are from Judah. But it isn't perfectly neat, and the name is not the same - the "El" in Elohim refers to the God "El" and in some uses refers to the entire pantheon of gods. To confuse things more, the term "YHWH Elohim" is used extensively in the Bible, commonly translated as "Lord God".

There are many remnants of early polytheism in our Bible, but that doesn't in any way negate its firm embrace of the monotheism that Judaism established for all the people of the Book.

And don't even get me started on trinitarianism.

-Mark

Rabid_Clam

03-19-2007, 05:48 AM

The bible is full of errors as it exists today. Even as it existed in ancient times it was full of errors. The errors of ancient times were transposed to the many translations thru the many languages that in itself produced many errors from mistranslations and misintrepertations of the text.

Man attemped to explain things by using the technology of the time which in the case of God Almighty just doesn't work. God Almighty created that technology, man only discovered it and used it as he could. The stories in the bible have been hyperbolozed beyond any recognition of what actually happened and then that was embellished and culled by other religions that changed the text and thus meaninns.

The bible is just a shell of what it once was or originally started out to be. Is still a good book but a little realism and good common sense needs to be used when evaluating it.

walter05

03-19-2007, 11:39 AM

Naturist Mark;

The origins of Judaism as a monotheistic religion go back to Abraham 3,819 years ago. Judaism has always been monotheistic and this was made clear at the giving of the Ten Commandments 3,309 years ago. Any other statement about Judaism is WRONG!!!

There are multiple Hebrew names for the master of the universe. The names refer to attributes. Elokim refers to judgment and discernment. The other name refers to the attribute of mercy.

There were Jews who did not fully follow the faith correctly as there are today. It is also true that there are those of other faiths that are not always faithful. However, Judaism was always monotheistic.

I am a sales person. I am also a father. I am also a husband. These are all attributes of mine. I am sometimes referred to by my first name, social security number, etc. If I am referred to by any of these attributes, it does not change that there is only one of me.

Later religions have tried to claim that Judaism was not totally monotheistic from the beginning. This was often for anti-Semetic reasons. Many in academia have adopted it. However, this is a false claim and always has been. Judaism has always been monotheistic.

The Dead Sea scrolls were from a sect that broke off. In many ways, they are no more effective a reflection of what Judaism believed in their day than Baptists are for Judaism today.

Dick Springer,

Being Jewish, I could care less what any one believes that Christ taught. It is not necessary in America to believe that we are all correct. I have to respect your right to choose and accept that as long as you are not interfering with others' rights, your religious views are your business. I also demand the same right for myself. However, you don't have to agree with me.

Clam;

Your claims on the authenticity of the Bible are one opinion. In another thread, I explained why what I consider the Bible could be shown to be authentic.

usmc1

03-19-2007, 01:24 PM

If one exerts just a little effort and an open inquiring mind, one will find antecedents to the "Ten Commandments" in precursor religions to Judaism. The Mosaic myth was not the starting point for such philosophical attempts to structure a list of instructions of what the higher power expects from humanity. Those antecedent lists are very little changed by the Decalogue.

The Mosaic tradition attributes those instructions to the very voice and action of that which we call God. This tradition ignores the fact that those antecedents preceded God, Allah, Yahweh, Elihu and all the other names given to that which we call God and were written onto clay tablets and papyrus long before Moses. One suspects that a certain oral tradition preceded those efforts.

What I take from this is that they must be very good rules to live by if they've impressed their way into the philosphies of so many different systems of thought and belief.

Anyone really interested in how to pratically employ them in their daily dealings would find extremely interesting a book by theologian Emmett B. Fox entitled quite simply, The Ten Commandments. It is a bit more than an essay, but really quite readible and inspirational.

As to Jewish polytheism, I find it a bit of a gnarly subject. Because on one hand, Moses was plagued by his Jewish followers who were worshipping idols and such, which presupposes that those "Jewish" followers did indeed practice a polytheism of sorts.

But, on the other hand, one could argue that, while they might be "ethnic" Jews, they were not religious Jews, and that to be a "religious" Jew one has to adhere to the Mosaic rules (Judaism), which precludes polytheism, and that Judaism began with Moses, which would mean the Jews were never polytheistic. One excludes the other.

Naturist Mark

03-19-2007, 03:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The origins of Judaism as a monotheistic religion go back to Abraham 3,819 years ago. Judaism has always been monotheistic and this was made clear at the giving of the Ten Commandments 3,309 years ago. Any other statement about Judaism is WRONG!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 10 Commandments are manifestly unclear about monotheism. Rather than stating the Yahweh is the one and only God, we are commanded to worship no other god before him. That is not a statement made vague in translation. Further Yahweh claims to be a jealous god - jealous of whom one must ask.

Other gods are mentioned many times in the Old Testament, but never is it said they don't exist.

Judaism IS a monotheistic religion, but it wasn't so from the very beginning. That is clear from the historical record and scripture.

I previously provided reading links on the subject. Here they are again, the first one is mainly concerned with what we have learned about early Canaanite religions from the discovery of the Ugaritic texts early in the last century. The second is a book on the development of a polytheistic tribal religion into the great monotheistic religion Judaism became.

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm)

Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel (http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm)

-Mark

walter05

03-19-2007, 05:32 PM

Naturist Mark;

If I wanted to know what Catholics believe, I would not ask a Buddhist for his characterizations but ask a practicing Catholic.

Name one source that is a reliable Jewish source that supports your position. If you name one, I am sure I can prove it is not reliable.

I am not a Christian. However, I have learned a lot about Christianity. I learned it from a Catholic Priest and Baptist Minister. I don't interpret the development of their religions outside of their understandings. To do so reflects my non-Christian viewpoint and not the truth.

None of your sources are or were qualified, practicing religious Jews. Like USMC1 you base your claims on non-religious Jewish sources. Thousands of such sources provide no substantiation of your view.

nacktman

03-19-2007, 06:06 PM

Walter, hate to burst your bubble, but you can find a very reliable source and quite jewish on your TV set for what Mark is saying. The show is called The Naked Archeaologist and it is worth watching.

And it is a fact that the earliest form of what is now judism was quite polytheistic -- all belief systems and philosophies prior to 1500bce were.
Point of fact -- all belief systems and philosophies up to that point had a pantheon of 12 deities or multiple levels of deities and demi-deities comprising of 12 each.
And many had stories of groups of gods splitting over some insult or economic reason and one "side" becoming the 'evil' side in these celestial struggles ...

The classic tale of Lucifer and his family, friends and followers in its oldest form has them standing up to a hatfeul, vengeful, destructive Leader (read: whatever you call god) to prevent him from harming mankind ... lucifer means 'giver of light' and for giving man 'light'and being mankind's benefactor he was branded outlaw and had to flee the kingdom so as to not be killed and he took his family, friends and followers with him ... (the Greeks retooled this story into where one of the Titans , who were another group of gods, other than the Olympian gods, gave man the gift of fire (read: light), and was punished by being chained to a rock and having an eagle come each day for eternity to eat his liver out of his body as he watched, when the Olympian gods prevailed in their struggle with the Titans.) ... whereby Lucifer and his family, friends and followers became the 'evil' "side" in the traditions of several belief systems and philosophies and the 'good' "side" in others.

What is so amazing about this story is that it takes place every day, even to this day, a group will split a part for whatever reason and the results will be a 'good' side and a 'evil' side ... which is which depends on which side you were on during the split.

Also, there is not any one true monotheistic belief system or philosophy even today, despite what they claim.

walter05

03-19-2007, 06:39 PM

I have checked out the website for the show and it is at http://www.visiontv.ca/NakedArchaeologist/producers.htm.

No one on the show claims to be an observant religious Jew.

Your source is not what you claim as a representative religious Jew and does not claim to be one.

Also, Lucifer has nothing to do with Judaism.

nacktman

03-19-2007, 06:59 PM

"Lucifer has nothing to do with Judaism" ... never said the story did Walter. But the Torah does as it relates the much older story in its earliest texts (the story is far older than the oldest texts of any Semetic belief system in the first place).

Also, it seems you and rabid-clam have a singulary narrow focus in common and therefore neither of you sees what is right in front of you.

David77

03-19-2007, 09:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Name one source that is a reliable Jewish source that supports your position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please refer to the book by Richard Elliott Friedman entitled "Who Wrote The Bible".

However, you do not have to be an adherent of a particular religion to have a lot of knowledge of that religion, such as many theologians do.

Case in point is the noted theologian, Karen Armstrong. Order the DVD by her from the History Channel which is entitled "A History of God" and you will learn of the many gods who were worshipped, not only by the Jews but by others.

Have you forgotten the passages of the story of the worship surrounding the golden calf and associated gods?

When the Jews were dissatisfied and bitter while wandering in the wilderness, some had a tendency to revert away from God, to again seek help from the other gods.

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6850172

David77

03-19-2007, 09:32 PM

<center><span class="ev_code_RED">Bible Passages Regarding Jews and the gods</span></center>

Numbers 25:3 - So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD's anger burned against them.

Numbers 25:5 - So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor."

Judges 8:33 - No sooner had Gideon died than the Israelites again prostituted themselves to the Baals. They set up Baal-Berith as their god

Judges 10:6 - Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD. They served the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites and the gods of the Philistines. And because the Israelites forsook the LORD and no longer served him,

walter05

03-20-2007, 04:39 AM

Nacktman;

Nowhere in the original Hebrew texts is Lucifer mentioned. Not in the Torah, not in the works of the prophets, not in the other holy writings.

Your statement is false. Only in your translation of a translation is he mentioned.

David77;

I will not correct the errors in the translations quoted by you because they will not change my argument.

I said, "The origins of Judaism as a monotheistic religion go back to Abraham 3,819 years ago. Judaism has always been monotheistic and this was made clear at the giving of the Ten Commandments 3,309 years ago. Any other statement about Judaism is WRONG!!! "

There is no question that for much of the time in Jewish history there has been a struggle. Judaism said and says follow the one master of the universe and do what he says. Some wanted to emulate the neighbors and follow their religious beliefs. Others just wanted to fit in with the larger society and be like everyone else.

There is a distinction between what the religion teaches and how well the followers observe it. I said that Judaism has always been monotheistic and that is true.

There are a lot of people who have never tried recreational nudity. Many claim to be experts on it and disparage it. If we want there to be a change we have to push for tolerance and accepting that others believe and practice differently.

Judaism is like an orchestra. There are a lot of intricate parts. Many find certain commandments to be tough. However, if one were to listen to one instrument in an orchestra, it would not sound good. It is only by hearing the entire orchestra that one can know how the parts fit together to form a harmonious stirring whole.

Hearing an orchestra can make one appreciate good music. However, it teaches one nothing about how an orchestra creates great music.

Jews who want to escape what they believe to be tough commandments and non-Jews who don't want to be confronted by them have attempted to show Judaism to be false from the beginning of Judaism. Jews practicing Judaism only ask to be left alone and not have others misunderstand our history and beliefs.

The interesting thing to me is that much of this thread has been based on several people asserting that it is a fact that the Bible is false. I have not asserted that anyone has to accept it as true. I merely state that it is not fact that it is false. I suggest being at least open to the possibility that it may be true.

Richard Elliott Friedman is not someone that starts with a firm belief in the Torah and following it. He looks for evidence to support his belief and then is convinced and makes his argument.

Karen Armstrong has no experience with Judaism. She has no knowledge of the Talmud or any other traditional source for interpretation.

Both of your sources are questionable at best and can't be relied on as sources of fact.

I only ask you to take the attitude that nudists ask of others. Respect others' rights to believe as they wish and practice as they wish. Don't disparage other people's beliefs and respect them.

Nudists are asking for nude beaches, etc. One of the rationales is that textiles don't understand nudism because textiles are convinced that nudity and sex are related. It is clear that most human beings are sexually aroused by nudity and most human beings having sex are nude. Those are facts and based on those facts I could claim that when human beings are nude together they are involved in some sort of sexual experience.

However, I know that some human beings experience nudity without it being a sexual experience. On the contrary, for them there is a greater sense of how great the human body is. Many have even made sure to control sexual urges so that those enjoying social nudity are far from having sexual experiences.

How did I learn that nudists are not involved in sexual nudity as their goal? I read what nudists said and asked them on this forum. I then experienced it myself at a beach so I could understand it better. I am glad I did because I understand now.

I would not go to Jerry Falwell for his understanding of nudism. I would not go to the sources you have listed for Judaism. You may not believe in Judaism and that is fine. You should not have the need to disparage it however. Otherwise, you will not be able to consistently ask textiles to understand your wanting to be nude.

Naturist Mark

03-20-2007, 04:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Naturist Mark;

If I wanted to know what Catholics believe, I would not ask a Buddhist for his characterizations but ask a practicing Catholic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find that the scholar who wrote Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel (http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm), David Steinberg, is Jewish.

However

I was not characterizing what observant modern Jews believe. I was reporting what scholars - some of whom are Jewish - have to say about very early religious beliefs that eventually evolved into monotheistic Judaism.

I appreciate that those who have a dogmatic belief that their religion sprung sui generis are not amenable to the documentary hypothesis nor historical construction. Just take a look at Christian studies.

I remember a warning my class was given on our very first day in a course on the Bible, by our instructor, a Doctor of Theology at a Methodist University, "In this course we will be studying how the Bible was written in a historical and literary context. We will be covering changes made in the text, contradictions, motives of the writers, truths and lies. Anyone who is unable to deal with such subject matter due to a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, or that it is the infallible word of God, is advised to drop the course."

-Mark

nacktman

03-20-2007, 04:54 AM

Walter no one is disparaging anything here save you.

You are incorrect, it is that simple.

As to my basing my statement on a translation of a translation, oops, wrong again I base my statements on the original texts (and yes, I do mean the original texts, as in I've had them physically in my hands while reading them ... and yes I am fluent in the original language.)

walter05

03-20-2007, 05:22 AM

Nacktman;

Please provide a book and verse that it is from so I can compare to authentic texts and refute yours.

nacktman

03-20-2007, 06:06 AM

Walter, you will need a passport and visa as well as top level security clearance and permission to read the texts I am basing my statement on ... do you have any or all of those?

As mostly likely not ... you will never be allowed to read the texts even if you have the ability to do so. Which is even more remote as only a few dozen people in the world can read the text even with clearance and permission.

Also with your obvious narrow focus and inability to conceive outside of that focus you will be unable to refute anything based on it's merits, but refute it out of hand as you have done with all infromation given herein.

And as this old thread is about the denial of a religious sect to use a temple dedicated for use by that sect by the Greek government with the extreme phobic urging of the Greek Orthodox (christian) church... which was later reversed as to allow the sect to practice as they should ... and not about judaism, just what about it that attracts you?

hm0504

03-20-2007, 08:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
Naturist Mark;

If I wanted to know what Catholics believe, I would not ask a Buddhist for his characterizations but ask a practicing Catholic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me, I would ask a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Protestant, and whoever. Often informed, outside views are the most objective and illuminating.

hm0504

03-20-2007, 08:14 AM

From Genesis:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hebrew version here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

David77

03-20-2007, 09:06 AM

Here is another form, based of intellect instead of merely faith.
<center><span class="ev_code_RED">Humanistic Judism</span></center>
"Humanistic Judaism has existed since the early 19th century as an intellectual tradition. It was first formally organized in 1969 as the Society for Humanistic Judaism -- founded by Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine in Detroit, MI. The Society currently has about 50 affiliated communities in the U.S. and about 35,000 members worldwide. According to their official web site: "Humanistic Judaism embraces a human-centered philosophy that combines rational thinking with a celebration of Jewish culture and identity. Humanistic Jews value their Jewish identity and the aspects of Jewish culture that offer a genuine expression of their contemporary way of life. Humanistic Jewish communities celebrate Jewish holidays and life cycle events (such as weddings and bar and bat mitzvah) with inspirational ceremonies that draw upon but go beyond traditional literature." 4

The International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism was founded in 1985. According to their official web site, the Institute "is the intellectual and educational arm of the Secular Humanistic Jewish movement. It was established...to train Humanistic rabbinic and non-rabbinic clerical leaders and teachers and to provide philosophic and cultural guidance to all its members. The Institute's commitment to Jewish identity and continuity forms the foundation of its programs. Humanistic Judaism sees pluralism as the best guarantee of Jewish survival. By training rabbis, leaders, and educators for communities and schools, by publishing philosophical and celebrational texts, by offering adult outreach and children's programs to the world Jewish community, the Institute serves as a positive force for the continuation of the Jewish people, enriching life for all Jews." 5 The Institute has published a book "Judaism in a Secular Age;" it assembled "the secular Jewish voices that the Enlightenment allowed to be heard." They have also sponsor Colloquiums on various topics, such as: "Reclaiming Jewish History," and "The Struggle for a New Jewish Identity." Plans are underway for Colloquium 2001, which will discuss secular spirituality".
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_huma.htm

David77

03-20-2007, 09:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
From Genesis:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hebrew version here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In line with this, the following web page points out that Elohim is a <u>plural</u> noun.
http://einhornpress.com/gods.aspx

walter05

03-20-2007, 09:22 AM

Moses appointed 70 elders. The traditions of understanding the Torah were passed down by them through the years. The Sanhedrin in ancient times was the institution that maintained that tradition.

Those traditional explanations were written down in the Misnah.

The Mishnah is explained in the Gemora. The Mishnah and Gemora make up the Talmud.

Classical commentaries have provided explanations of the Talmud through the current times.

The question was what did Judaism originally believe. Scholars of this tradition can provide sources that have been validated for thousands of years.

Any new movement since the 19th century can't do that. Your source may be interesting but represents a new form of Judaism not the original tradition.

walter05

03-20-2007, 09:28 AM

Naturist Mark;

Your have made a statement of fact when you said, "I was reporting what scholars - some of whom are Jewish - have to say about very early religious beliefs that eventually evolved into monotheistic Judaism."

If you want to say that those who believe that the Bible is not infallible base it on, that is a valid statement. I respect it. I would be interested in learning why they say that.

It is a fallicy however to say that those statements can be proven as fact.

Dogma can be held to by religious and secular people.

If you are saying that those who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of the creator and those who believe it is not should openly share their views, I agree.

If someone says that one side or the other can conclusively prove the other wrong, I strongly disagree.

Either way, we should respect others' views and honor their choices. We should do this when others disagree with us.

David77

03-20-2007, 11:43 AM

Christians claim that they are monotheistic. However, I do not buy the "three-in-one" myth, as I consider three to be polytheistic. Thus I am a Unitarian Universalist, (unitarian and not trinitarian) seeing Jesus as a religious teacher but not as a Divinity.

The Catholic Church had a great and prolonged debate centuries ago as to whether Jesus was God, and came up with the compromise, the "three-in-one" theory (dogma). This is well explained in the DVD by Karen Armstrong, A History of God, as recommended in a post above.

walter05

03-20-2007, 12:17 PM

David77;

Being Jewish, I have no view on Jesus and what Catholics or any one else believes about him. I feel no need to comment on what they truly believe or not. I am not qualified to do that.

I know some nuns that do great work in his name as they follow their religious beliefs. I respect that and would do nothing to undermine it.

Unitarian Universalists have your views. If your religion inspires you to do good works, that is wonderful. I have no need to comment on your faith and what you believe other than that either.

I just hope we can be good, kind, responsible people who bring credit to our beliefs in how we conduct ourselves and respect others.

P.S. I will be responding to the text and translation question you raise when I am home. I will quote an authoritative translation verified by my own understanding of the Hebrew.

David77

03-20-2007, 01:27 PM

Walter,
Most important is deed <u>not</u> creed.

usmc1

03-20-2007, 01:49 PM

Walter, I do not understand. Are you saying that Judaism has always been a monotheistic system of belief?

If that is what you are saying, do you discount the Old Testament Moses Myth in which he came down from the mountain and his fellow jews were cavorting and worshipping Baal (I think) among others?

Or are you saying that Judaism began that day with Moses? In effect, they weren't Jews until Moses got that mess cleared up?

But, I am curious as to what you're asserting regarding the Mosaic tradition and Judaism. I guess, the question properly put would be, "In your thinking, which came first, Judaism or Moses"? And, can one be Jewish, but non-religious, or a Jewish Wiccan? Or a Wiccan who also is a Jew. Again, I guess, properly put, if one's mother was a religous practicing Jew would one be a non-Jew if they decided to follow the teachings of Christ, or is one a Jew only if one practices one of the various branches of Judaism?

usmc1

03-20-2007, 01:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
Christians claim that they are monotheistic. However, I do not buy the "three-in-one" myth, as I consider three to be polytheistic. Thus I am a Unitarian Universalist, (unitarian and not trinitarian) seeing Jesus as a religious teacher but not as a Divinity.

The Catholic Church had a great and prolonged debate centuries ago as to whether Jesus was God, and came up with the compromise, the "three-in-one" theory (dogma). This is well explained in the DVD by Karen Armstrong, A History of God, as recommended in a post above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, as a lapsed "fallen away" Catholic, let me share with you a priest's description of the mystery of the trinity to our 12th grade boys' class. The trinity is like a pencil, made of eraser, lead and wood, each is separate but part of the whole.

Now that worked for me from October until about February of that senior year. I wasn't all that bright back then. That's when the lead broke and the eraser fell out of its metal clamp on my Eberhard #2, then I became a doubter, oh me of little faith.

I started thinking about that metal clamp you see; where did it fit in the trinity? good old Father Quincy failed to mention it, so it must of been the devil.

Anyway, that pretty much shook my faith, that and Mary Anne O'Fallon, if what we were doing in the back of my old man's Buick Roadmaster was a sin, man, oh man, I was a lost soul!

Sorry, way off topic.

walter05

03-21-2007, 06:09 AM

One of the translations I have seen posted by HM0504 is:

"26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' "

In the Hebrew, the plural is provided by the suffix "New" added to the end of the words. Three words have this suffix and I will try to transliterate them. They are "Betsalmaynew, keydmootaynew, and veyirdoo." These suffixes were there from the beginning.

There is an oral tradition that is written down in the Midrash. The Midrash Targum Yonassan that was written down about 2,000 years ago discusses the use of these words.

Mesora Publications has what Religious Jewish scholars consider the most authorative translation in English. I will quote the translation provided by them here:

"And G-d said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of Creation of the world, 'Let us make Man'.

When Moses wrote the Torah and came to this verse (let us make), which is in the plural and implies, heaven forbid, that there is more than one Creator, he said: "Sovereign of the Universe" Why do You thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities?"

"Write!" G-d replied. "Whoever wishes to err will err. Instead let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man He took counsel with the ministering angels".

Thus G-d taught that one should always consult others before embarking upon major new initiatives, and He was not 'deterred' by the possibility that some choose to find a sacrilegious implication in the verse."

Therefore, there has been an oral tradition that is at least 2,000 years old that answers this question. According to Jewish tradition, it would date back to the time of Moses so it would have been around for 3,309 years.

walter05

03-21-2007, 06:36 AM

USMC1;

The lineage that lead to the Jewish people began with Abraham. At that point, when there was the covenant between the parts, he and his descendants as marked by G-d were chosen.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were unusually ritous men. They were able to perceive the will of G-d and do it. They are the forebears of the Jews.

Judaism started when Moses started relating commandments of G-d to the Jews. The formal religion was laid out when at Mount Sinai, Moses and the Jews were presented with the Ten Commandments, and the Torah was given to the Jewish people.

The incident that you are referring to was the golden calf. If you will recall, Moses lead a group that put to death those that were involved with the golden calf. This is because their actions were heretical. Once G-d had given the Ten Commandments, violation of them was unacceptable and there was a death penalty for idol worship.

The incident with the Baal that you have this confused with was 39 years later. Once again, one of the leaders was killed by Pinchas and the Torah applauds his actions. It was clear this was against Judaism.

The people known originally as Israel and now known as Jews began with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The religion of Judaism began when Moses started relating commands from G-d just before the exodus. The religion was formally codified at Mount Sinai, 3,309 years ago.

The term "Jew" first appears in holy scriptures in the Book of Esther". Mordechai was from the tribe of Benjamin. However, he is referred to in Hebrew as "Iysh Yehudi" or a Jewish man.

When the kingdom split after King Solomon, the ten northern tribes were in a separate kingdom. The southern kingdom was known in Hebrew as "Yehudah" since this was the dominant tribe. The ten northern tribes were sent into exile by Sanchereiv. 123 years later the southern tribes were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians.

By the time of the Persian Empire, the term "Yehudi" or Jew was common since the descendants of Jacob were all from the southern kingdom of Yehudah.

According to traditional Judaism as taught by Moses and the sages for thousands of years, one can be Jewish by two methods. If one's mother is Jewish is the common method. If one's mother is not Jewish, and one learns the commandments, and one chooses to be Jewish, there is a process of conversion open.

However, Judaism does not teach that everyone has to be Jewish to go to a reward in the world to come. All descendants of Noah are eligible. We believe that G-d did not make us all Jewish because that is what G-d wanted. Each national group is designed to excel in certain traits and qualities.

Once someone becomes Jewish, that individual is Jewish forever. If that individual chooses to violate commandments, that will be something that person will have to answer for to G-d. If a person born as a Jew becomes a Wiccan, Christian, or even atheist, the person is still a Jew. However, that person's beliefs would not be Judaism.

There is a difference between being a Jew and an observant religious Jew.

walter05

03-21-2007, 06:39 AM

David77;

It has always been the contention of Judaism that deeds matter. It is not enough to believe but not translate it into deeds.

I am only saying that when I see someone performing wonderful deeds, I honor what that person accomplishes. If that person's creed provides the instruction and motivation for those good deeds, that is a merit for that person's creed.

Rabid_Clam

03-21-2007, 08:42 AM

At one time the Jews were the chosen people. Yet never was Judiasm the chosen religion.

The Jews were chosen for their monothiestic beliefs in only one God. This was contrary to those whose land hosted the Jewish tribes in Egypt.

David77

03-21-2007, 09:38 AM

The bible mentions a woman, Sophia's presence at the time everything was created. Maybe that is why the bible story says "in OUR image, after OUR likeness".

"In the Hebrew tradition, Sophia was considered to have been with God from the beginning of Creation. In Proverbs 8:27-31, Sophia says:

When God set the heavens in place, I was present,
When God drew a ring on the surface of the deep,
When God fixed the clouds above,
When God fixed fast the wells of the deep,
when God assigned the sea its limits-
and the waters will not invade the land,
when God established the foundations of the earth,
I was by God's side, a master craftswoman,
delighting God day after day,
ever at play by God's side,
at play everywhere in God's domain,
delighting to be with the children of humanity.

Sophia, in the biblical creation was not a god, but was a divine being. It is not clear that she was uncreated like Jesus: the word used to refer to her creation also means "acquired" by God. Proverbs 8:22 -"God created me [acquired me] (Sophia) when God's purpose first unfolded." Ecclesiasticus 1:14 -"before all things, Sophia was created." She serves at the heart of the creative process, as Wisdom and as Teacher who was sent by God to save humanity. The book of Wisdom speaks to her divinity (7:25-26):

She is the breath of God's power and a stream of pure glory of the Almighty.
This is why nothing polluted enters her.
For she mirrors God's energy completely, and she images God's goodness".

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/sophia.html (http://www.pinn.net/%7Esunshine/book-sum/sophia.html)

walter05

03-21-2007, 09:52 AM

Rabid_Clam;

King David, in his Psalm asks "Where is the divorce paper?"

Jews believe we still are the chosen people.

David77;

I am unaware of this Sophia. Please site book and verse to me so I can refute your claim.

In the future, when you claim to quote the Hebrew tradition, please site a source from the Bible so that I will not have to ask you to do so and can respond faster.

David77

03-21-2007, 10:00 AM

Walter,
Please read my post more carefully and you will see that I quoted from Proverbs 8: 27-31.
Proverbs 8: 22

Also Ecclesiasticus 1:14
The book of Wisdom speaks to her divinity (7:25-26)

walter05

03-21-2007, 10:07 AM

David77;

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are poetry. They are written in the form of allegory. They are not intended to be taken literally.

They were also written at about 2,832 years ago. This is approximately 447 years after the giving of the Ten Commandments.

I don't have a copy of Proverbs at my desk. I will look tonight and find out what the original word was that Sophia is supposed to be a translation of. I am sure however that Sophia is allegorically meant to represent Israel who King Solomon often represents in his poetry as the bride with G-d as the groom.

Walter

David77

03-21-2007, 11:23 AM

Kloppenborg writes that

"Without wishing to detract from the substantial debt which the Wisdom of Solomon owes to biblical wisdom and Greek philosophy, I contend that the peculiar configuration of Sophia's characteristics is a result of and a response to the immediate and powerful challenge to Judaism presented by another feminine figure, savior and revealer, a goddess linked to the pursuit of wisdom and one associated with the throne: Isis. [22]

Kloppenborg points, for example, to the unique relation of Sophia to Solomon. "Sophia is presented as the divine agent by which the king first attains kingship (6.20 - 21), by which he rules (8.10-16); 9.10-12), attains wisdom (8.2 - 21); influence and power (8.12 - 15), eternal kingship (6.21) and immortality (8.13.17). It can scarcely be a coincidence that Isis performs precisely the same functions." [23]
End of quote.

The devine Sophia and the goddess Isis had approximately the same functions, so here we apparently have reference to the pagan gods again.

hm0504

03-21-2007, 11:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:

... I don't have a copy of Proverbs at my desk...

Walter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you do:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2808.htm

walter05

03-21-2007, 12:14 PM

David77;

What is the book of Wisdom? I will admit to being more familiar with the Hebrew book names.

Who is Kloppenborg? Is he a religious Jewish scholar claiming to be knowledgable in the traditions passed from Moses to the elders to the Sanhedrin.

What other Jewish scholars that follow the traditions of Moses recognize him as authoritative?

The problem is that for the last 2,000 years the west has been the scene of many new religions. There are numerous Christian denominations and Muslim sects. Secular Humanists are also a form of a belief system that has formed in this time. Even so called newer forms of Judaism that are not based on following this tradition completely are different. All base their religious beliefs on some interpretation of the Bible.

If someone studies scholars that were from these groups, it is fair to say the Christian scholar whoever says. This helps the rest of us understand where they are coming from.

It is amazing to me that there are well over six billion people on this planet. The most generous estimate is that there are about fifteen million Jews. I am amazed there is so much interest in what this 0.0025% believe and have believed.

It is also amazing to me that the 0.0025% don't spend time trying to explain away what the other 99.9975% believe. Instead the 0.0025% simply attempt to confidently follow their faith to the best of their ability.

usmc1

03-21-2007, 01:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
It is amazing to me that there are well over six billion people on this planet. The most generous estimate is that there are about fifteen million Jews. I am amazed there is so much interest in what this 0.0025% believe and have believed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Walter, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but based on my understanding of the American scene, the Jewish lobby wields an inordinate amount of influence on behalf of Isreal.

There's that, and the fact that Judaism is the precursor religion of Christianity, and to some extent, Islam--at least all three are so-called Mosaic religions--and that connectedness would seem to drive a lot of curiosity.

As a Unitarian, I'm always intrigued by religous people who belief that they have the "revealed by God" truth.

I'm interested in the back and forth in this thread, but tend to be very, very sceptical of "bible-based" evidences of "revealed truth".

I do appreciate your explanations and answers to my questions, but wonder if a Rabbi in a Hassidic synagogue would agree with you, or if a Rabbi in a "reformed" synagogue would agree with you.

David77

03-21-2007, 01:45 PM

In common acceptance, the Book of Wisdom was composed in the second half of the first century BCE. The book seems to have been written by a learned Greek-speaking Jew residing in Alexandria, one of the largest centres of the Jewish Diaspora.

John S. Kloppenborg is a well respected scholar who is published in Harvard journals.
I only care of his reputation as a scholar and do not care what is his religion and do not know what is his religion.

hm0504

03-21-2007, 01:52 PM

The stories in the Torah/Old Testament are not unique to Jews but are shared, in various forms, throughout the Middle East. Of course, each group thinks they own the holy text of the one true version of the stories (though the texts themselves will contain multiple versions of the same basic story).

Of course, most of us in the West will never hear about, or give a fig about, groups like the Mandaeans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism
who revere Adam, Noah, and John the Baptist (a latter prophet for them I presume). Unfortunately, the Mandaeans have survived 3000 years despite their relatively small numbers are now facing extinction because of Iraq's civil war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6412453.stm

nacktman

03-21-2007, 04:00 PM

What I find so hilarious about this thread and how it had been hijacked is that a so called "christian" attempting to hijack it to divert it from it's topic and that the attempted hijacking was itself hijacked by a so called "jew" to divert the diverted topic away from itself. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif
At least that is a novel event, whereas the "christians" hijacking of topics is all too commonplace.

MJ_KC

03-21-2007, 04:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
What I find so hilarious about this thread and how it had been hijacked is that a so called "christian" attempting to hijack it to divert it from it's topic and that the attempted hijacking was itself hijacked by a so called "jew" to divert the diverted topic away from itself. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif
At least that is a novel event, whereas the "christians" hijacking of topics is all too commonplace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I don't like to see is members of one religious group actively working against the rights of another group. Everyone should be allowed to practice or not practice a religion of their own choosing without outside interference.

I also would not like to see a government impose a state sponsored religion. Our founding fathers were quite correct to reject this idea by banning this in our first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Naturist Mark

03-21-2007, 04:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is amazing to me that there are well over six billion people on this planet. The most generous estimate is that there are about fifteen million Jews. I am amazed there is so much interest in what this 0.0025% believe and have believed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could be because about 3.5 Billion of us belong to traditions that trace their origins to those very same Hebrew roots.

-Mark

David77

03-21-2007, 04:41 PM

My interest is different, as I am a Naturalistic Humanist (within the Unitarian Universalist Church) so my interest is not necessarily religious, but interest more from a history, literature, cultural anthropology standpoint.

I feel that the St. Louis Ethical Society functions extremely well for a religion.

nacktman

03-21-2007, 05:14 PM

My interest in the subject is strictly from a Anthropological/Historic(prehistoric) view.
While I am an ordained minister (Lutheran and Spiritual Humanism), I am foremost a scienist.

I have studied ALL the known theologies and philosophies from every culture thoughout time ... some more than others ... all have a few common base ideas and ideals, and the most obivous one is that of a pantheon. There is NOT any theology or spiritual philosophy that is monotheistic no matter what the claims to the contrary are.
Other common ideas and ideals are: good/evil, creation of the world around us, the earth is a paradise when untouched.

Rabid_Clam

03-22-2007, 03:52 AM

The idea of religion is comprised of what that person feels is the best for him/her in their beliefs. No one believes exactly the same as another person does. None are correct in their beliefs yet none are wrong. Quite simply no person knows what is exactly correct. They can only defend what they believe.

Sanslines

03-22-2007, 03:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
The idea of religion is comprised of what that person feels is the best for him/her in their beliefs. No one believes exactly the same as another person does. None are correct in their beliefs yet none are wrong. Quite simply no person knows what is exactly correct. They can only defend what they believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Religion is somewhat related to hope in that both are beliefs. Both hope and religion are what can sustain people in very difficult times. This can be debated, but it seems to be a basic human need to have a belief in something that is untangeable and is greater then the real world physical surroundings that a person lives in.

walter05

03-22-2007, 06:44 AM

David77;

I have checked with the Mesorah Publications translations of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I have also checked other classic texts. All agree that the books are allegorical and not literal. I have seen multiple opinions about what is being alluded to but it is clear that King Solomon did not intend for us to take him literally.

Naturist Mark. You have made my point. 3.5 billion people have decided that 15 million people have a religious heritage that is flawed. Those 3.5 billion people have scholars that support that view. They have the right to do so. However, those 3.5 billion people don't represent Jewish views.

USMC1;

I am amazed it took you that long to bring up the Pro-Israel lobby. I have to tell you that fundamentalist Christians vastly outnumber Jewish supporters of that lobby and those Christians provide most of the financial and political support.

I am certain that a Hassidic Rabbi would agree with me. I am also certain that a Reformed Rabbi would not. The Hassidic Rabbi shares my view of the divine origins of the Torah and the Reformed Rabbi does not. The Hassidic Rabbi represents a part of the continuum of the chain of Judaism from Moses and the reformed Rabbi represents a newer view that rejects the divine origins.

RabidClam;

You have stated what religion is and that is a view.

Many religions have sacred texts such as the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran.

There are also clergy such as Rabbis, Priests, and Imams that are recognized by the followers of those religions as the experts in those faiths.

Those religions also have expectations of what one has to do to be a member of that religion.

Judaism that traces it roots to Abraham and Moses holds the Torah to be the revealed word of G-d. Moses, followed by the prophets and the elders of the Sanhedrin were the recognized leaders to interpret and transmit the faith. The Rabbis that claim to follow this tradition are recognized by observant Jews who believe that the Torah is the revealed word of G-d. Those Jews then attempt to follow the commandments in the Torah to the best of their ability.

I remember when I was at a Democratic Party meeting in Northwest Georgia. I came with an Irish Catholic friend. When one of the Southern Baptists found out he was a Catholic, I was asked how I could come with a Catholic since he is not Christian. When I responded that I was Jewish and did not care if he was Christian or not, the Baptist was shocked and left speechless.

I have very good friends that are from other faiths. I don't try to claim to know what they believe and why. My family has our faith and they have theirs. We respect each other and I think that is the correct approach.

Nacktman;

I agree with your concern about the hijacking. However, you are one of the people who used this topic to slander Judaism. When slandered, this real Jew has a right to defend his faith.

David77 made a statement about the Ten Commandments on March 18 that was not correct. His statement formed the foundation of a false conclusion. I chose to correct him in a post that was five lines.

All of my responses since have been answers to questions that have been asked.

David77

03-22-2007, 06:58 AM

Walter,
I enjoy your very clear, frank, nice reply above. I wish you the best of everything.

walter05

03-22-2007, 07:06 AM

David77;

I also wish you the best.

usmc1

03-22-2007, 07:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
USMC1;
I am amazed it took you that long to bring up the Pro-Israel lobby. I have to tell you that fundamentalist Christians vastly outnumber Jewish supporters of that lobby and those Christians provide most of the financial and political support.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful Walter, your inference in this response is unfounded in fact.

I brought up the Pro-Israel lobby in response to your questions as to what you seemed to believe was a disproportionate interest in Judaism. I suggested that our involvement with Israel would certainly be a triger to much of that interest.

You're correct that fundamental Christians wield a lot of political power in this country, but that influence, I think, is more directed toward domestic cultural and social issues than foreign policy. Although, they are very supportive of Israel and the "Holy-Land", and perhaps the best allies the Israel Lobby has.

But, this quick thought, I think a paper could be written on the convergence of the two and how that convergence has contributed to our entanglement in Iraq.

But, I want you to clearly read me on this, merely calling into question the role and influence of the Israel Lobby does not make one anti-semitic. It seemed to me the tone of your response to me suggested you might think otherwise---as in, "I am amazed it took you that long to bring up the Pro-Israel lobby".

As an American, I get to call into question any of my country's policies, alignments and commitments without having to defend those questions against even the faintest suggestion of bias, prejudice or racism.

I do appreciate your responses and answers to my questions.

MJ_KC

03-22-2007, 08:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
When one of the Southern Baptists found out he was a Catholic, I was asked how I could come with a Catholic since he is not Christian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a Christian? That does not compute.

hm0504

03-22-2007, 09:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
When one of the Southern Baptists found out he was a Catholic, I was asked how I could come with a Catholic since he is not Christian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a Christian? That does not compute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I've met fine Southern Baptists, I've also met ones who consider anyone who is not Southern Baptist to be lost heathen. In other words, they consider the SBC to be the only true Christian church.

David77

03-22-2007, 10:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Though I've met fine Southern Baptists, I've also met ones who consider anyone who is not Southern Baptist to be lost heathen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true of Baptists.

Baptists believe that it is not the church you belong to that is crucial. What is absolutely crucial to become a Christian, they believe, is that you "accept Jesus as your personal savior" through your own "born again experience with Jesus" to "get saved" by Jesus/God. They believe that "once saved, always saved" from now thru eternity.

It is also a falacy to think that Baptists think that baptism saves you, as baptism is only an outward symbol of your death and resurrection to a new saved life, a life of salvation thru Christ.

Therefore, Baptists would not say that Catholics going to mass would save them, that is, bring them salvation, nor being a member of any church would be sufficient, but only one's belief and acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior would make you a Christian (regardless of what church you belong to).

hm0504

03-22-2007, 10:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Though I've met fine Southern Baptists, I've also met ones who consider anyone who is not Southern Baptist to be lost heathen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true of Baptists.

Baptists believe that it is not the church you belong to that is crucial. What is absolutely crucial to become a Christian, they believe, is that you "accept Jesus as your personal savior" through your own "born again experience with Jesus" to "get saved" by Jesus/God. They believe that "once saved, always saved" from now thru eternity.

It is also a falacy to think that Baptists think that baptism saves you, as baptism is only an outward symbol of your death and resurrection to a new saved life, a life of salvation thru Christ.

Therefore, Baptists would not say that Catholics going to mass would save them, that is, bring them salvation, nor being a member of any church would be sufficient, but only one's belief and acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior would make you a Christian (regardless of what church you belong to). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are describing general Baptist principles (which I am aware of because I hang around all sorts of Baptists); I was referring to specific Southern Baptist individuals. There can be a profound difference between founding principles of a group and the beliefs of individuals, or sub-groups within the group.

usmc1

03-22-2007, 10:52 AM

My own personal observation would be that we tend to see religous sects and denominations as monolithic, i.e. "all Southern Baptists believe...", when there are actually some misguided literalists and zealots in virtually all religions as well others with more open or liberal interpretations of their sect's dogmas.

One of the worst schisms in recent religious history was the blood-bath in the Southern Baptist Convention related to "inerrancy" of the bible. I don't know that any lives were lost, but I do know that shouts took place and that shoves and blows were exchanged.

So, even within religious groups there can be tremendous disagreement and conflict.

hm0504

03-22-2007, 11:30 AM

Unfortunately, the Southern Baptist Convention today has taken a sharp turn to the far right over the past couple of decades (e.g. today, it no longer allows women to be ordained).

Indeed, back in 2004, the Southern Baptist Convention pulled out of the Baptist World Alliance (a very fine organization) accusing it of "drifting toward liberalism that included growing tolerance of homosexuality, support for women in the clergy and "anti-American" pronouncements". ("Anti-American" meaning pretty much anything anti-far right):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44658-2004Jun15.html

nacktman

03-22-2007, 11:41 AM

Walter, what I find is that you are the one here that is "slandering" other religions, not I or any of the others posting here save one.

This thread, which is an old, dormant one about an event that has been rectified, is about the denial of one religious sect the use of their temple by the government of a nation with the urging of another religious sect.
It was 'revived' by the "slandering" of that sect by another of a even different sect to which more reasoned and thoughtout responses were made until your first soiree herein. At which point and since you have disavowed and ridiculed any information put forth in a narrow focused dogmatic fashion.

You have NOT posted responses in answer to ALL questions asked nor have you "defended" your faith, all you have done is to perpetuate the stereotypical view jewish people have of themselves and others -- something the "christians" have a problem with as well. You have not been clear and frank in your responses as well except to further re-enforce the said stereotype. Thusly you will never be able to "defend" your faith as you have no faith to defend if you cannot understand the truth and the history behind it.

David77

03-22-2007, 12:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Unfortunately, the Southern Baptist Convention today has taken a sharp turn to the far right over the past couple of decades (e.g. today, it no longer allows women to be ordained).

Indeed, back in 2004, the Southern Baptist Convention pulled out of the Baptist World Alliance (a very fine organization) accusing it of "drifting toward liberalism that included growing tolerance of homosexuality, support for women in the clergy and "anti-American" pronouncements". ("Anti-American" meaning pretty much anything anti-far right):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44658-2004Jun15.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in my opinion, things have become much worse over the last decades. They mostly moved away from their somewhat more liberal historic roots and into fundamentalism.
I have not heard of this happening in what used to be called the Northern Baptist Convention, which I understand that they are now called the American Baptist Churches, USA. (This is different than the American Baptist Convention).

hm0504

03-22-2007, 12:17 PM

There are Baptists all over the theological and political maps. In my area, there are quite a few female Baptist ministers.

nacktman

03-22-2007, 12:29 PM

Albinus, David, your assertions about the 'Southern Baptist Convention' are most correct. They have gone off the deep-end as it were in recent decades.
However, the origins of the "Baptist" sect was from a very ultra conservative mindset which makes the Hassidic dogma mentioned above to be downright anarchical and is not of 'christian' origins but rather co-opted into what is viewed as 'christianity' over the course of time, having predated the advent of 'christianity', which makes the response cited above that a catholic is not a 'christian' even more hillarious.
And the 'reformation' of the sect over that time had morphed it into several distinct sub-sects, of which almost all were quite liberal with a few even so far as to be able to be called "Libertine". It is these such that due to their openess allowed the perversity of the narrow focused to take root, and thus we get the "Southern Baptist Convention" we see today.

David77

03-22-2007, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, the origins of the "Baptist" sect was from a very ultra conservative mindset which makes the Hassidic dogma mentioned above to be downright anarchical </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree with you Nachman. The Baptists in the past, historically, had no official dogma, as each person was to search and interpret the bible as they see it. There was no reciting of the apostles creed, for instance.
That is what I thought was good about the Baptist Church when I went to William Jewell College, a Baptist college for my undergraduate work. A year of (non-doctrinaire) bible study was required. I elected to take the course in Church History. I attended chapel as required and I went to church meetings, so I know how it was up until I graduated in 1950.
Now the southern Baptists have made a list of what they collectively believe, which would have been out of order in the past.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_baptists.htm?terms=go

nacktman

03-22-2007, 01:59 PM

David, the origins of the "Baptist" sect are far older than many believe.
Most believe the sect originated in the late Reniassance as a 'rebellion' against the excesses of the catholic church as were Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc., but that is wrong.
The sect origninating then was the "Anabaptists" and they were what the "Southern Baptist Convention" is today for their time -- a throwback to what were the percieved ideas as to what the originating sect was all about ... these were 'christians' (mainly Lutherans who thought Luther was too 'liberal'), and thus the erroneous idea that the 'Baptist' sect is 'christian' in origin.
What you describe above is but one of the various "sub-sects" the original sect had/has evloved into.
The original sect and its tennets were to the far right of Hassidic jewish dogma and over time had to become more liberal as there was no other place to go -- the turnabout we see today is but the pendulum swinging back whence it came.

Naturist Mark

03-22-2007, 02:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Naturist Mark. You have made my point. 3.5 billion people have decided that 15 million people have a religious heritage that is flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said it is flawed? I certainly didn't.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those 3.5 billion people have scholars that support that view. They have the right to do so. However, those 3.5 billion people don't represent Jewish views. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasn't trying to represent modern Jewish views. I was representing the views of various scholars (including Jewish scholars) about the origins of Judaism - which is also the common origin of the traditions of those other 3.5 billion folk.

I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, there is no disrespect intended, quite the opposite I assure you.

-Mark

MJ_KC

03-22-2007, 02:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Albinus, David, your assertions about the 'Southern Baptist Convention' are most correct. They have gone off the deep-end as it were in recent decades.
However, the origins of the "Baptist" sect was from a very ultra conservative mindset which makes the Hassidic dogma mentioned above to be downright anarchical and is not of 'christian' origins but rather co-opted into what is viewed as 'christianity' over the course of time, having predated the advent of 'christianity', which makes the response cited above that a catholic is not a 'christian' even more hillarious.
And the 'reformation' of the sect over that time had morphed it into several distinct sub-sects, of which almost all were quite liberal with a few even so far as to be able to be called "Libertine". It is these such that due to their openess allowed the perversity of the narrow focused to take root, and thus we get the "Southern Baptist Convention" we see today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some of the posts regarding how certain people respond towards people who are not members of their particular sect goes a long ways towards explaining how some wars get started.

The amount of animosity that people express over fairly minor differences in what they believe is kind of hard to justify. Sure isn't a live and let live approach to life.

walter05

03-23-2007, 06:13 AM

Naturist Mark;

I can see what you meant. If you are representing the views of those scholars that I agree that is accurate. The truth is that no one communicating on the forum was alive then.

We can agree that different individuals with their own mindsets have come to different conclusions of what took place thousands of years ago.

Nacktman;

I have answered the questions that were clear enough that I though I could.

I hate to address a Baptist issue but want to make a clear poing. I never said that one Southern Baptist's views represented anyone's but his own. Living in Savannah, I know many Southern Baptists and know that there are a variety of views of what the church holds.

However, if you are implying that the Anabaptists were doing anything in response to Hassidic Judaism, you must presume that the Anabaptists were prophetic. Anabaptists started in the 16th century. The Baal Shem Tov who founded the Jewish Hassidic movement did not do so until the second half of the 18th century.

Rabid_Clam

03-23-2007, 06:23 AM

Absolutely no one follows the flow of even the strictest religious sect in the root of their heart. They will follow in body and actions only but in their hearts they have their own beliefs and follow that, no one can change that, only change and orchestrate the conduct of outward actions. Not even the pope is prone to being orchestrated where in his deepest innermost self he is what he is, a person no different than you and I.

nacktman

03-23-2007, 08:40 AM

Walter, I am not implying anything between the anabaptists and hassidic judaism other than the fact that the anabaptists and hassidic judaism are both very, very narrow and conservative in their focus and that focus is their perception as to what the originalting dogma and tenents of their respective philosophies to be.

What I said was the 'baptist sect' origins were far older than the reniassance era and predated the advent of 'christianity' and therefore not 'christian' in origin but have been co-opted into what is viewed as 'christian' today and were so far to the right on the philosophic scale as to make hassidic judaism look anarchical. As a result the 'baptist' sect had no choice other than to 'liberalize' themselves over time as they could do naught else being the very most conservative to begin with, with some sub-sects going so far as to be what is termed 'libertine'. Which has caused a reversal among some sub-sects moving back to a more conservative and narrow mindset just like and pendulum swinging back and forth. But unlike a pendulum that will eventually loose momentum and stop to a halt at the midpoint, theologies, and philosophies will continue swinging until the pendulum comes off its pivot point and a new pivot ponit is created and the process begins anew -- this is how "new" religions are began.

As to the citation of a "baptist" saying a "catholic" is not a 'christian' that is absolutely gut busting funny on many levels. One of which is that neither sect could be termed 'christian' should the strictest interpetation of the term be used, but that is another entire seminar and one which I am proposing to teach during the next school term.

Rabid_Clam

03-23-2007, 09:23 AM

Ok, but then again who cares? What we are judged by is what is in our hearts and what is the true basic substance of our soul, not ouor religion or the history of it. In fact our religion is in fact the root substance of our soul and not what building and rhetoric we do there, song and dance so to speak.

hm0504

03-23-2007, 09:29 AM

I think history is important for understanding roots and causes and predicting future events but I will agree with Rabid_Clam to the extent that whatever affiliation one is claiming, the present state of their being is the ultimate issue.

There are many fabulous Baptist individuals, no doubt some even still within the Southern Baptist Convention. Let us pray for their success.

nacktman

03-23-2007, 09:33 AM

Clam, you should really do that studying mentioned earlier.

nacktman

03-23-2007, 09:38 AM

Albinus, the 'ultimate issue' is not the present state of being when it comes to religion, if it were 'religion' would not exist.

The hows, whys and whats of being are what are the issues of religion, just what the 'ultimate' one is, is open to conjecture
But the 'present' is not it, religions deal with the past and future.

usmc1

03-23-2007, 11:37 AM

I always enjoy these sorts of discussions because inevitably the same things emerge. Religion can't be comprehended intellectually, even though we Unitarians and Universalists do our dead level best to turn it into an intellectual experience.

That, and the fact that emotion always trumps intellectualism. Always. It is inevitable.

For me, that which we call religion is about the human experience; feeling alone in an indifferent universe and starting from the very outer edge of loneliness to find the Ancient Home, the True Home where we can find true unconditional love, peace and succor.

Some of us find through the rigors or dogma and catechism, some through ritual, some through deeds and acts, some through community worship, and some through meditation and prayer. It is all the same, just personal choice or adherence to what we've been raised to believe.

The one thing that we all share, and that are the same of each and all of, utterly unchanging from culture to culture, country to country, religion to religon are our emotions. Everyone, except those people afflicted with some sort of mental illness, experience the same emotions.

And for me that is our hope--the hope of humanity, that someday we can struggle through the babel of competing religious dogma and intellectuality to find our common emotions and needs.

For me, it is simple, that Ancient True Home of many Holy Names is like the Great Ocean. Many tributaries from many lands lead to it, but at the end of those rivers and tributaries of competing thought and religion is always the great unchanged Ancient Home for which we all yearn.

David77

03-23-2007, 12:28 PM

Marguerite Robbins states;

"What is my definition of "religion"? For me, religion is a system - of beliefs, values, and behaviors that facilitate 'meaning-making' and direction in the lives of human beings".

Hopefully, "a religion that promotes wholeness -wholeness within individual human beings and wholeness within the interdependent web of all existence".

Marguerite Robbins

Rabid_Clam

03-24-2007, 04:40 AM

Religion is an extremely deep subject to anyone. This reaches to the depth of your soul and beyond. In fact so far beyond that an individual all too often cannot begin to see the depth never mind the bottom of his/her beliefs. Some live a fantisy that covers their true beliefs and others just do not how to break the crust. Yet in the end we all will learn what really is.

03-24-2007, 04:59 AM

I have never belonged to any "religion". I was raised by parents who believed if we choose to believe in something to do it on our own. We never went to a church. Since leaving home and being on my own for two decades, I have my own faith and have never joined nor will join any organized religion.

I think that religion is a personal choice and is something we choose or don't choose.

Allie

Sanslines

03-24-2007, 05:45 AM

Religion is a personal and powerful choice. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they chose to believe. The only issue that I have with religion is when people misuse religion to pursue personal goals that harm, judge, or criticize others.

nacktman

03-24-2007, 07:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Religion can't be comprehended intellectually ... and the fact that emotion always trumps intellectualism ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not say those statements are 'inevitable', usmc1.
Religion can be comprehended intellectually and quite easily as all religion(s) are very simple and straight forward when looked at with an open inquiring mind.
Belief or lack thereof in a particular 'religion' is where the tricky part about comprehending intellectually comes in, some 'religions' out there are doozies.
Emotion never trumps intellectualism, it only appears to do so, and then only to those who allow emotion to override their brain.
The rest of us sit back and have a good laugh watching them run around "stepping and fetching like their heads were on fire and their a$$es where catching" (apologies to Charlie Daniels and his 'Uneasy Rider' -- but that line fits oh, so nicely), when that happens.

usmc1

03-24-2007, 08:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Religion can't be comprehended intellectually ... and the fact that emotion always trumps intellectualism ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not say those statements are 'inevitable', usmc1.
Religion can be comprehended intellectually and quite easily as all religion(s) are very simple and straight forward when looked at with an open inquiring mind.
Belief or lack thereof in a particular 'religion' is where the tricky part about comprehending intellectually comes in, some 'religions' out there are doozies.
Emotion never trumps intellectualism, it only appears to do so, and then only to those who allow emotion to override their brain.
The rest of us sit back and have a good laugh watching them run around "stepping and fetching like their heads were on fire and their a$$es where catching" (apologies to Charlie Daniels and his 'Uneasy Rider' -- but that line fits oh, so nicely), when that happens. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I wrote was really within the context of these sorts of discussions but, I will disagree with you, and offer this for consideration. Invariably, emotion/faith, always trumps intellectualism in forums such as these when religion is discussed.

Excluding that which is called Einsteinian or Scientific religion, I think that you will find that all religions grew from humanity's fear and awe of nature and realization of one's own mortality(fear of the dark--if you want). As humanity grew and developed (ahem), those fear-based emotions went searching for intellectual explanation, support, or proof. But, first came emotion. They are emotion based. They can be examined scientifically, but debate invaraible becomes emotion rather than thought based.

I really can not think of any religion that does not have some sort of mystery, or unseen, or unknowable elements that are based either on faith, mystery, or ritual process--none of which are truly intellectual. All seem to tout a way to connect with that which is called God or other names, but that reflects an intelligent creative force. None of that is intellectual or rational.

Belief in a personal God that answers prayers, can be prevailed upon to act in a certain way, perform miracles, cares about human activity, or individual behavior has an emotional, not an intellectual base, and these discussions invariably become disputation about the "historic" origins or proofs of the validity of one or another particular religious dogma as to how we "ought" to relate to that "God". All of that is psuedo-intellectual.

Sure one can dispute these things from an intellectual standpoint, but with as much success as one can dispute happiness, sadness, grief or any other human emotion. All are shared, but also highly personal. And, disputing them from an intellectual base does not make them an intellectual construct.

Now go grasshopper, I think I heard the sound of one hand clapping for the musical sound of a tree which fell in a far off forest and which no one heard.

Rabid_Clam

03-25-2007, 04:07 AM

Religion growing from fear, awe and respect for nature is in fact fear, awe and respect for God Almighty who is in fact Nature ! He is all around us and a part of us always. We are to Him as a pet animal is to us, we are totally dependent on Him and He has all power over us. Always.

The fact we are nude or textiled does not matter to Him. He has seen it all, He has created it all.

There is far more to this existance than we can see or detect or better yet, conceive of! There are other universes, other voids with outer universes, other dimensions and entire communities of universes within those dimensions. Some day we will learn of all that but not in life here on earth.

nacktman

03-25-2007, 05:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... I will disagree with you ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful now, usmc1, you know you are not allowed to disagree with me! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif
Just ask any of the trolls here and they will be more than glad to tell you so. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

One can study and discuss religion(s) without emotion playing into the mix.
Every religion I can think of is nothing but a collection of stories and nothing about them is 'mysterious' or 'in awe'.
The stories are all from the fertile imagination of the human mind, but all have to had some grain of actual observed events, however minute, for we humans creative as we are can not and do not create things out of the ether.
Even the most phantasmigorical stories in various religions have some part of reality in them ... granted we may never know what that part is or was, as the observed event happened so far in the past as to be 'forgotten', but it is there.

Some will come to understand this, some will not.

Religion is used to control others, nothing more, nothing less. The most easily led and controlled are the ones the most 'out there' religious sects attract.

usmc1

03-25-2007, 05:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Religion growing from fear, awe and respect for nature is in fact fear, awe and respect for God Almighty who is in fact Nature ! He is all around us and a part of us always. We are to Him as a pet animal is to us, we are totally dependent on Him and He has all power over us. Always.

The fact we are nude or textiled does not matter to Him. He has seen it all, He has created it all.

There is far more to this existance than we can see or detect or better yet, conceive of! There are other universes, other voids with outer universes, other dimensions and entire communities of universes within those dimensions. Some day we will learn of all that but not in life here on earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your assertion is a strange mix of theism and speculative metaphysics. All of which is fine, but your assertion that nature is God is interesting. Since nature, and the universe evolved and is evolving, what are your thoughts regarding the evolution of that which we call God?

nacktman

03-25-2007, 06:15 AM

This is just to reach that "milestone" of 100 posts on a thread. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

(Not bad for a thread that was dead and buried until a few days ago, now isn't it!)

usmc1

03-25-2007, 06:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... I will disagree with you ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful now, usmc1, you know you are not allowed to disagree with me! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif
Just ask any of the trolls here and they will be more than glad to tell you so. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

One can study and discuss religion(s) without emotion playing into the mix.
Every religion I can think of is nothing but a collection of stories and nothing about them is 'mysterious' or 'in awe'.
The stories are all from the fertile imagination of the human mind, but all have to had some grain of actual observed events, however minute, for we humans creative as we are can not and do not create things out of the ether.
Even the most phantasmigorical stories in various religions have some part of reality in them ... granted we may never know what that part is or was, as the observed event happened so far in the past as to be 'forgotten', but it is there.

Some will come to understand this, some will not.

Religion is used to control others, nothing more, nothing less. The most easily led and controlled are the ones the most 'out there' religions sects attract. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeas, I know. And it was with great trepidition that I did so.

But, you're missing my point, I think. Of course one can study and examine and compare religions from an intellectual base. But, I do not think that one experiences religion intellectually (unless one is a U.U., ahem! cough-cough). Religious experience is emotional and those experiencing it invarably seek rational justification for that which is purely emotional and irrational.

Of course, at many levels, religion is used for control and the acquisition of wealth and exertion of power. But, use of, does not negate the experience of. At other levels it provides succor for those who in, one form or another, fear the drakness and dry-coughing roar of the hunting saber-tooth tiger outside the cave in the night.

A God that can't be seen, but sees all. A God that is merciful and is pure love, but allows a small girl child to be raped, torutured and buried alive. A God that used to talk directly to humans, but now remains silent. An infanticidal, fraticidal, homicidal, warlike God who evolved into a God of peace, love and humanitarian kindness and justice. All explained, as one of God's msyteries that someday will be answered. A God who is one but three, and if you're Catholic, four, because one can't foget the crypto-goddess Mary, all surrouned by a host and panopoly of lesser gods, angels, saints, seraphim, cherubs, matyrs,and other innocent bystanders. If that stuff ain't a mystery, i don't know what is.

nacktman

03-25-2007, 06:35 AM

No need for 'great trepidation' there usmc1. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif
I think we're talking about apples (study) and oranges (experience), here, maybe we should speak of bananas.
Oh, I get your point, religion can be and is 'mysterious'. It is just that which can be studied ... the stories that make up a 'religion' are not mysterious when looked at closely. And no, I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth here, think about it for a minute and you will see what I mean.

Control comes in many forms as you well know ... acquisition of wealth and power, providing succor, etc,are but a few examples of such.

And no, negation of any experience(s) life offers is what I am about (although some would like to believe otherwise, and do, I am sure), religious experience(s) included. I leave that to those that would (and do), claim to be the 'be-all' of whatever they are espousing.
(Ok, death. I would like to negate that life experience all together or for as long as possible for myself and others, well some others not so long as possible. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif)

As I said, some will "get" this and some will not.

Rabid_Clam

03-25-2007, 09:55 AM

The hell we experience here on earth, more so by some individuals than others, is for a reason. Is very difficult to understand but we need to learn the bad in existance as well as the good. Is so very unfortunate that some people have to suffer so terribly so others can learn, and then again some don't. And that in itself is a lesson we need to learn. Our purpose in ife here is to learn and those are but a few of the things we are here to learn.

usmc1

03-25-2007, 01:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
The hell we experience here on earth, more so by some individuals than others, is for a reason. Is very difficult to understand but we need to learn the bad in existance as well as the good. Is so very unfortunate that some people have to suffer so terribly so others can learn, and then again some don't. And that in itself is a lesson we need to learn. Our purpose in ife here is to learn and those are but a few of the things we are here to learn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RC, a few quetions about your belief, if I may?

What is the reason? Why do we need bad as well as good? And what, prescisely, is learned from that?

Rabid_Clam

03-26-2007, 09:58 AM

We need to learn the bad so we know what good is. You cannot know there is dark outside of light until you experience it. You cannot know sour if all you ever taste is sweet. There are so many variations of bad not everyone can experience all. This is part of the plan of the ALmighty. I do not intend to compromise this plan even if I could but for sure I will work hard to stamp out evil where I can.

usmc1

03-26-2007, 11:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
We need to learn the bad so we know what good is. You cannot know there is dark outside of light until you experience it. You cannot know sour if all you ever taste is sweet. There are so many variations of bad not everyone can experience all. This is part of the plan of the ALmighty. I do not intend to compromise this plan even if I could but for sure I will work hard to stamp out evil where I can. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know don't you that this presupposes that for good to exist there must be bad. Without Satan (bad) there can be no (God) good.

I'm certain that this is not what you believe, is it? But, this is where your line of reasoning would take you if carried to its logical conclusion.

Baron Lake

03-26-2007, 03:57 PM

Ya know Clam,
I have never thought it necessary to occasionally chew-up a piece of rancid meat in order to later enjoy a good filet.

b.l.

walter05

03-30-2007, 12:01 PM

usmc1;

You said: "I really can not think of any religion that does not have some sort of mystery, or unseen, or unknowable elements that are based either on faith, mystery, or ritual process--none of which are truly intellectual. All seem to tout a way to connect with that which is called God or other names, but that reflects an intelligent creative force. None of that is intellectual or rational.

Belief in a personal God that answers prayers, can be prevailed upon to act in a certain way, perform miracles, cares about human activity, or individual behavior has an emotional, not an intellectual base, and these discussions invariably become disputation about the "historic" origins or proofs of the validity of one or another particular religious dogma as to how we "ought" to relate to that "God". All of that is psuedo-intellectual."

I agree with you. Religion is not a purely intellectual experience. It is also emotional and spiritual. It involves all three.

This is why I believe that one can only truly appreciate a religion through experience. An intellectual persuit can be learned through study. However, some things such as appreciating fine wine, making passionate love, and religion require commitment and experience to really know and appreciate.

Human beings are not purely intellectual and we stunt our own ability to learn when we try to use our intellects to understand what our intellects alone can't comprehend.

This is also why I believe we should accept that there will be different religions. We should be able to respect those differences.

David77

03-30-2007, 04:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I really can not think of any religion that does not have some sort of mystery, or unseen, or unknowable elements that are based either on faith, mystery, or ritual process--none of which are truly intellectual. All seem to tout a way to connect with that which is called God or other names, but that reflects an intelligent creative force. None of that is intellectual or rational. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is an exception - The Ethical Culture Society, which is explained in the following websites;

http://www.aeu.org/

http://www.aeu.org/8commit.html

The Ethical Society is given full recognition in the USA as a religion.

Ethical Society of St. Louis website is;

http://www.ethicalstl.org/

nacktman

03-30-2007, 05:11 PM

Learning is stunted when one allows anything other than their intellect to impede learning especially in terms of 'religion'.

'Hands on' learners are the slowest to grasp ideas and concepts and the ones with the least retention of those ideas and concepts when those ideas and concepts are not repeated endlessly for them.

In short humans are purely intellectual beings, as it has been that intellect that has driven humans to improve and advance beyond mere survival ... and it was that intellect that insured (as much as can be insured), that very survival in the first place.

To use the statement above:

The one(s) in a group who did not 'catch on' to their environment and had to be 'retrained' each time something occured did not survive plain and simple.
Before someone gets their knickers all bunched up let me point out intellect and intelligence DO NOT equate with 'being smart' or 'not being smart' ... history has proven that ... many have used their intellect and 'survived' but were as dense as a brick, while many others have not used their intellect and did not 'survive' despite being a genius.
On another forum this has been discussed as "the Fear of Intellegence" in which it has been layed out that emotional and reactionary responses have all ways been detremental to humankind ... and the most glaring evidence of this is the political poles of 'conservative' and liberal, with the former being the emotional and the latter the intellectual. The former inevitably leads to the breakdown and destruction of the society it preports to want to 'conserve' while the latter leads to a upsurge and expansion of the society it allows to change.

As this relates to religion; By definition all recognized religions are conservative in nature. In fact most religions are conservative in nature, it is a really rare find to find a religion that is 'liberal' in nature and as that liberal religion is embraced by more people and bcomes more 'recognized' the more conservative it becomes, thereby proving and re-proving the definition.

MJ_KC

03-30-2007, 05:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
On another forum this has been discussed as "the Fear of Intellegence" in which it has been layed out that emotional and reactionary responses have all ways been detremental to humankind ... and the most glaring evidence of this is the political poles of 'conservative' and liberal, with the former being the emotional and the latter the intellectual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have seen most conservatives state that exactly the opposite is true regarding which political group is emotional and which one is intellectual. It would seem that you do not agree.

My observations have been that there are plenty of both types on both sides of the issues. On one newsgroup that I participate in, there are several conservatives who will provides volumes of information supporting their positions and I have yet to see one of the self proclaimed liberals do the same thing. On another newsgroup, it is the exact opposite.

I just do not accept the idea that the world is as black and white as this type of statement makes things out to be.

Vin

03-30-2007, 08:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
'Hands on' learners are the slowest to grasp ideas and concepts and the ones with the least retention of those ideas and concepts when those ideas and concepts are not repeated endlessly for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If true, then gods help us, we are in trouble, given that the overwhelming majority of humans are kinesthetic/tactile learners. Clearly, there was no syurvival value in being purely intellectual animals.

Otherwise, I may agree with your analysis of the evolution of religious movements. I have no evidence to back it up, but my general understanding from history classes is that you're rigth: as religions become more mainstream, they become more conservative. That may have to do with the fact that they mature as institutions, which exhibit a survival instinct of their own independent of their members.

Interesting conversation this has become. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Vin

usmc1

03-31-2007, 11:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I really can not think of any religion that does not have some sort of mystery, or unseen, or unknowable elements that are based either on faith, mystery, or ritual process--none of which are truly intellectual. All seem to tout a way to connect with that which is called God or other names, but that reflects an intelligent creative force. None of that is intellectual or rational. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is an exception - The Ethical Culture Society, which is explained in the following websites;

http://www.aeu.org/

http://www.aeu.org/8commit.html

The Ethical Society is given full recognition in the USA as a religion.

Ethical Society of St. Louis website is;

http://www.ethicalstl.org/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, but I'm not certain calling something a religion necessarily makes it a religion, Take Buddhism as an example. It is "recognized" as a religion, yet it seems to me to be more of an ethical philosophy than religion.

But, I don't think one requires a religion to behave in an ethical way. It seems to me also that ethics is branch of philosophy and not of religion.

I guess, we need to see if there's a a definition of religion to which most of us in this thread can agree.

usmc1

03-31-2007, 12:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
usmc1;

You said: "I really can not think of any religion that does not have some sort of mystery, or unseen, or unknowable elements that are based either on faith, mystery, or ritual process--none of which are truly intellectual. All seem to tout a way to connect with that which is called God or other names, but that reflects an intelligent creative force. None of that is intellectual or rational.

Belief in a personal God that answers prayers, can be prevailed upon to act in a certain way, perform miracles, cares about human activity, or individual behavior has an emotional, not an intellectual base, and these discussions invariably become disputation about the "historic" origins or proofs of the validity of one or another particular religious dogma as to how we "ought" to relate to that "God". All of that is psuedo-intellectual."

I agree with you. Religion is not a purely intellectual experience. It is also emotional and spiritual. It involves all three.

This is why I believe that one can only truly appreciate a religion through experience. An intellectual persuit can be learned through study. However, some things such as appreciating fine wine, making passionate love, and religion require commitment and experience to really know and appreciate.

Human beings are not purely intellectual and we stunt our own ability to learn when we try to use our intellects to understand what our intellects alone can't comprehend.

This is also why I believe we should accept that there will be different religions. We should be able to respect those differences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have several distinct problems with "personal experience" within the context of religion and that "experience" being proof of the validity of that particular faith.

I think science has unargueably demonstrated and proven that "personal experience" in this context is no more than various electro-chemical reactions in the brain.

Secondly, how do I know the religious "experience" you just had is precisely the same as I had?

Thirdly, how do I know that what I had was a religious experience rather than a demonic experience.

And let me be more precise in what I'm saying here, religious belief, behavior, feeling and experience is based on faith, not quantifiable science.

Yes, there are psuedo scientific arguements which seek to validate one or another religious premise, but they all fail the test of the scientifc method.

The study of religion is not the same as the practice of religion.

But, you do not agree with me, when you include "intelletual" experience as being part of three legged stool of religion; with legs of intellectual, emotional and spiritual experience.

If anything, religion is anti-rational, anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. A scientist can have a religious faith, but that faith can neither be proven nor effectively disproven by the scientific method.

Science can make some probability asertions one way or another, and that's about it.

MJ_KC

03-31-2007, 05:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
And let me be more precise in what I'm saying here, religious belief, behavior, feeling and experience is based on faith, not quantifiable science. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. By its very nature, religion is not based upon science. For anyone to suggest that they can prove that their religion is the only correct one is arrogance in its extreme, yet this seems to happen all of the time.

Wars can get started over even minor differences of opinion within one religion. It is completely nuts to behave this way.

Rabid_Clam

04-01-2007, 03:10 AM

Religion is one of those topics that need to be avoided with most people unless they are amenable to discussion. I have stated many times on here there is NO correct religion and there also is No incorrect religion! It all is based on theory, hence Theology. We will find out some day but only after we die.

David77

04-01-2007, 04:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have stated many times on here there is NO correct religion and there also is No incorrect religion! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
An "incorrect religion" would be one such as the Aztecs had of cutting out the heart of a person to hold up to the sun god.

usmc1

04-01-2007, 04:34 AM

nacktman

04-01-2007, 05:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Interesting conversation this has become. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, Vin, very interesting indeed.

Bob S.

04-01-2007, 06:59 PM

David:"An "incorrect religion" would be one such as the Aztecs had of cutting out the heart of a person to hold up to the sun god."

That is not an example of an incorrect religion, but rather an incorrect rite. I would say an incorrect religion teaches hate as its core tenet.

Bob S.

David77

04-01-2007, 10:40 PM

Bob S.

In my opinion an "incorrect religion" such as the Aztec religion, is one that does not adhere to the principle of;

<LI>respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals (and yes, to life itself).

<LI>Appreciating the uniqueness and worth of every person,

<LI>Treating all with dignity and respect,

<LI>Cultivating a community of people who support each other through the stages of life, and raising the quality of all our relationships,

<LI>And working to create a more just, loving and sustainable world <u>for all</u>.

The Aztecs have an extremely <span class="ev_code_RED">evil</span>, murderous religion.

usmc1

04-02-2007, 03:39 AM

Evil? What is evil? Well, for one thing evil is a very relative term which depends on one's perspective.

For the dope-addict thief who breaks into my home and steals my great-randfather's watch from the civil war era, a good thing happened: He's got enough for a four day fix.

For me, the theft of that watch would be evil beyond description. I'd sooner lose an eye, and I'm a very visual person.

But, the "evilness" of the deed is relative.

For the Aztecs sacrifice worked. Those things that one might deem evil today were things that seemingly "worked" well for them, or else they would have abandoned their religion.

Evil? Depends on whether you're the perpetrator or victim as to how evil something is.

Bob and David, I think you're both constructing or defining ethical systems--not religions. And perhaps, if religion were removed from the mix, we'd have a much better opportunity at building the sort of wonderful ethics-based world you describe.

Not to put too fine a point on it but; we do not need religion for what you describe and, in fact religions as such, generally impede the humanistic, ethics-based system you describe.

Sanslines

04-02-2007, 03:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
Bob S.

In my opinion an "incorrect religion" such as the Aztec religion, is one that does not adhere to the principle of;

<LI>respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals (and yes, to life itself).

<LI>Appreciating the uniqueness and worth of every person,

<LI>Treating all with dignity and respect,

<LI>Cultivating a community of people who support each other through the stages of life, and raising the quality of all our relationships,

<LI>And working to create a more just, loving and sustainable world <u>for all</u>.

The Aztecs have an extremely <span class="ev_code_RED">evil</span>, murderous religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

I agree with your statements above about what a good religion is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, I find so many of the major religions to be misused by man and for man's own selfish and personal purposes rather then a celebration of Christ and / or God. I have found many people who misuse religion to try to convert others to their religion or to abuse animals because the bible says that animals are put on this earth for the benefit of mankind and are to be used and exploited by man. I have also found many con artist type holy men who have these so called massive prayer sessions, collect huge amounts of money, and then live like kings. I could go on and on about examples of man's misuse of religion. In the end, I wish that more people would wake up, apply the principles that you have outlined above, and stop the personal and selfish misuses of religion.

nacktman

04-02-2007, 04:25 AM

Bob, David what you are talking about IS an idealized form of human ethos and not a religion.
However there is a religion that comes closest to encompassing that ethos ... Spiritual Humanism.

usmc1 is correct there IS no and there HAS NOT BEEN any "evil" religion.
There have been 'evil' followers of any given religion, but the religion in and of itself is/was not evil.
Also, that it is the Perception as to what is 'good' and 'evil' that makes them appear to be as such.

To use the current example of the religion of the Aztecs: It was and is a profoundly mystical philosophy and far more open and inclusive than any of the "big three" and can hardly be considered 'evil' as it promoted harmony with nature as its keystone; something the "big three" do not even attempt to promote.

As to perspectives: To bring back an earlier point, the story of the rift between 'god' and Lucifer has in its oldest form Lucifer as the creator of the world and humans for which he was set upon by 'god', jealous of his accomplishments, and the feud led to all out war between them and their families and followers (kinda like that ol'pig did for the Hatfield's and McCoy's).
In this cycle Lucifer is the 'good' one and 'god' is the 'evil' one.

walter05

04-02-2007, 07:17 AM

USMC1 and Nactman;

We are now at a crucial point of contention. I reject the idea that learning is only intellectual.

I have not been interested in the "social nudist" scene. I am not interested in the canned nudist colony. However, I am very inspired by the nude experience in nature.

Being nude in nature is not only a physical experience for me. It is also a spiritual experience for me. I am able to sense and feel much more with nothing to separate me from nature. The wind blowing the breath of earth all over my naked body is extremely spiritual for me.

I reject the idea that learning is purely intellectual. True learning can be intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and involve the senses. Our creator created us with all of these capabilities so we could know our creator better.

If you believe that involving emotion lessens the quality of learning, then I understand that. I believe your learning is therefore limited.

We have the core philosophical disagreement. Love, Mercy, compassion, etc. are emotional. They are the very traits that often raise our existence from the ordinary to the divine.

Baron Lake

04-02-2007, 08:34 AM

Walter,

Do you really believe "emotions" have some inate existence apart from knowledge and thought?

How do you "feel" about nardentalism? I'm not asking you to think about it or know anything about it, just how it makes you feel.

b.l.

walter05

04-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Baron Lake;

Emotions without any knowledge or thought could be destructive.

Just as I believe it would be bad not to have the emotion, one also needs knowledge. We often have to use emotion to moderate knowledge and vice versa.

For instance, when a child is being punished, a parent may want to soothe the child. However, this will prevent the child from learning the lesson. It will be important to allow the child to cry and understand that what was done was wrong.

However, the emotions tell one to make sure to remind the child before too long that dad or mom loves the child and is proud of the child for other things. This helps the child to feel better.

By blending the emotional with the intellectual one has the ability to be a better parent. One can better balance strict justice with loving mercy.

usmc1

04-02-2007, 11:41 AM

Well Walter, you might be more correct than your realize, but not in the sense that you present your assertion.

Science can, and does, readily reduce intellectual activity, spiritual experience, emotional feelings, and sensory input to chemical activity in the brain.

Scientifically, your creator can neither be proven nor disproved. Science, however, can certainly provide the probabilities of either. And as it stands now, there is a much greater probablity that that which we call god does not exist, than the probablity of its existance.

walter05

04-02-2007, 11:51 AM

usmc1;

The truth is that all human discovery is limited by our senses and ability to process what we sense. Any student in a good college philosophy class can tell you that. It is questionable what we can know for certain.

I understand that we can't know for certain that there is or is not a creator. My religion says that there is no room for faith if we can know for certain. One can be convinced but not ever know completely.

However, I am saying that we need to know intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. It is not enough to rely on the intellect.

usmc1

04-02-2007, 01:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by walter05:
usmc1;

The truth is that all human discovery is limited by our senses and ability to process what we sense. Any student in a good college philosophy class can tell you that. It is questionable what we can know for certain.

I understand that we can't know for certain that there is or is not a creator. My religion says that there is no room for faith if we can know for certain. One can be convinced but not ever know completely.

However, I am saying that we need to know intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. It is not enough to rely on the intellect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Walter, please. Yes, we are limited by our senses. Stipulated! But, these words...

Those are vague amorphous words that mean different things to different people. There is absolutely no precision, scientifically or philosphically, for that matter, to those terms.

We keep going in circles on this issue. The difference between understanding something "intellectually" through the scientific method and/or emotionally and/or spiritually is huge.

Intellectual understanding, as we are discussing it here, and in the context of religious experience as subjected to the scientific method, requires several things; published, reviewed by peers, and exact duplication by others. That's that, in brief.

Emotional or spiritual expereince or feeling can be published, and even reviewed, but are utterly impossible to duplicate--currently they are subjective and unobservable. Quantum physics might change that, but hasn't yet.

One person's spiritual (experience) visitation from an angel, the breath of God, or voice of Jesus, or sense of connection with all that is as through a glass darkly, is another's pre-frontal lobe epilepsy.

Many Unitarians and Universalists have what could probably be called an "intellectual" approach to their religion. But, I sometimes wonder if what they have is religion, as much as it is a philosophical system based on ethics and secular humanism.

I've yet to see anyone present a definition of "religion" in this thread. Maybe I missed it, but, shouldn't we all agree as to what is this thing we're calling religion before we assume to discusss it and offer assertions as to how it can be experienced, observed, understood or studied?

Hold that thought, I'll try to offer up a few things by tomorrow.

nacktman

04-02-2007, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I've yet to see anyone present a definition of "religion" in this thread. Maybe I missed it ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you didn't miss it, it hasn't been presented until now:
___________________________________
RELIGION

Pronounciation: ri - 'li - j&n
Function: Noun
Etymology: Middle English - religioun; from Anglo-French - religiun; from Latin - religio (to constrain), or perhaps religare (to restrain, tie/hold back)

1) Personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs and practices

2) A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor

3) Archaic: scupulous conformity
____________________________________

This is the definition of "religion".

David77

04-02-2007, 04:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
Marguerite Robbins states;

"What is my definition of "religion"? For me, religion is a system - of beliefs, values, and behaviors that facilitate 'meaning-making' and direction in the lives of human beings".

Hopefully, "a religion that promotes wholeness -wholeness within individual human beings and wholeness within the interdependent web of all existence".

Marguerite Robbins </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In this last statement, maybe Robbins is partly talking about what the psychologists refer to as a factor "to help integrate one's personality".

Bob S.

04-02-2007, 07:16 PM

usmc:"I think you're both constructing or defining ethical systems--not religions."

What is a religion but an ethical system that is defended by spiritual stories, usually by way of allegories starring historical or mythical religious/historical figures. These people are the teachers of the ethics, represent a form of the ethics, or struggle to discover the ethics.

David, there are two aspects of a religion: the spiritual/ethical side and the ritual side. I will not pretend to know what the Aztecs truly believed in (their spiritual side of their religion), but I do know that whatever it was, the way they put it into practice represented the ritual side and that side can not be counted in determinuing whether it was an evil or good religion.

It would be like basing Islam on how the Taliban or Saudis put it into practice.

We have to separate the worship from the spiritual in religions. The spiritual is the core tenet of the religion, the worship is how it is put to use.

Bob S.

usmc1

04-03-2007, 02:54 AM

Well it appears there are many, many, many different "definitions" of religion. Many!

It depends on which dictionary, writer, theologian, or expert you turn to.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

Here's one from the website which seems to reflect David's, Walter's and Bob's view:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

(A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.

Here's another, from Webster's, which draws a bit of a finer line

Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):
"any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."
This definition would exclude religions that do not engage in worship. It implies that there are two important components to religion:
one's belief and worship in a deity or deities
one's ethical behavior towards other persons

Both would also support Walter's contention that there is an intellectual component to religion. However, there are others that do not support any of those viewpoints, but, it would be unfair and a form of proof-texting for me to offer them to support my opinion since it would be very easy to pluck out one to rebut me.

But, it seems there are as many definitions for religion as there are religions.

So, again, my sense is that like that which we call god, religions are reflections of the human experience, inexplicable and unknowable except to one's self and certainly not subject to science except perhaps pyschological and anthropological hypotheses about how they (religions and our understanding of that which we call god) have evolved.

Rabid_Clam

04-05-2007, 04:52 AM

There is undeniable proof there is a creator. Proof is we are! We stand on what we call the earth. Something created both the earth and of course us. Something or some body created all that and much much more.

nacktman

04-05-2007, 04:57 AM

walter05

04-05-2007, 08:12 AM

USMC1;

You said "So, again, my sense is that like that which we call god, religions are reflections of the human experience, inexplicable and unknowable except to one's self and certainly not subject to science except perhaps pyschological and anthropological hypotheses about how they (religions and our understanding of that which we call god) have evolved."

I would agree with this statement with a slight modification. One can use science and intellect to attempt to learn about religion. However, purely relying on science or intellect will not provide the full opportunity to understand about religion.

I think that it is a fallacy to separate the acts from the faiths. If one has a faith that inspires one to great acts of kindness, honesty, honor, and compassion, that tells something about what the religion teaches as manifested in the believer. If we don't translate our beliefs into actions, then they are not true beliefs.

As I mentioned earlier, it is now possible for me to offer an observation that some might find offensive.

When a right wing person mis-quotes the bible and mis-understands it and uses this to support disrespect for others or limiting their freedom, then this shows that person's core beliefs are not centered on love, honesty, and compassion.

Religion is about more than just an intellectual pursuit. It is an attempt to improve oneself and the world. This improvement can be multi-faceted.

This is why I believe that we can't say that religion is purely intellectual or can be understood purely intellectually. Not only does it not allow a full understanding of religion, but it also limits how religion can improve us.

Baron Lake

04-05-2007, 01:30 PM

Sorry Clam, I'm afraid your "undeniable" proof concept brings up the inconvient question of who(or what) created the creator and what (or who) created....

"It's Turtles all the way down." (Can't remember who said that).

And Walter, surely you don't believe kindness, honesty, honor and compassion" are concepts dependent upon religion.

You might have something there though, with your assertion that it is necessary to stop thinking in order to "understand" and be "improved" by religion.

b.l.

walter05

04-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Baron Lake;

I agree that it is possible to have honesty, honor, and compassion without religion. However, I would like to think that any religion should inspire the best in us. I believe those traits are the best. We should want to emulate the divine that epitomizes those traits.

I also believe this leads to a very good place. I am able to admire many religious people of various religions. I am also able to admire their religions. These religious people are able to be inspired by their religions to excel in honesty, honor, kindness, and compassion.

Our creator did not have to create us. I believe we were created so we could be given life. Creating us and giving us so much were the greatest acts of kindness and compassion ever.

When a religion's adherents behave in divine ways, have divine traits, and perform divine works, it brings honor to that religion. Since my religion does want me to seek converts and accepts that non-Jews can also have an eternal reward, I see those adherents as providing evidence that much that is taught them by their faiths is indeed divine and perhaps divinely inspired.

I think if more religious people of various faiths could learn to see the divine in the faiths of others, this would be a much better world. Then we would all focus on honesty, honor, kindness, and mercy instead of hurting others to try to prove we are correct and disgracing our own faiths in the process.

David77

04-05-2007, 05:51 PM

It is said that being religious does not lead to ethical living, as it is found that those in prison are religious.

It is also said that "ethical behavior requires imagination, reason and empathy".

From studing psychology, I believe that empathy is learned in the very early childhood years. The child is nurtured by the mother, becomes emotionally bonded to the mother and gains an ability to empathize with the mother and later this extends to others beyond the mother. Generally, when empathyzing, we do not want to hurt the other, but have a spirit of good-will toward the other with whom we empathize.

We must have <u>imagination</u> as to how the other may feel, react, given our certain behavior, and <u>intelligence</u> to decide what would be our best over-all (ethical) behavior needed.

With intelligent inquiry, questions of ethics can be facilitated by dialectical, philosophical, democratic method - by "the process of creative interchange" with others.

nacktman

04-05-2007, 06:20 PM

Bingo, David77!

walter05

04-05-2007, 06:24 PM

If being religious does not lead to ethical behavior, then being religious has no purpose.

It is possible to forget the goals of being religious. We can get caught up in our flawed understandings of the divine that is beyond our human understanding. This provides the chance to get caught in a rationale that leads to unethical and at times cruel behavior in the name of religion.

It is not the purpose of scripture to provide a history lesson. It is the purpose of scripture to inspire us to emulate the divine.

The problem is that using our intellects, man has come up with National Socialism or Facism, Racism, Manifest Destiny, etc. In all of these cases, educated human beings using their intellects found reasons to exclude other human beings from the empathy that leads to the traits we agree are desirable. This enabled men claiming to be religious to perpetrate the most cruel inhumane acts on fellow human beings.

The idea of man being created in the creator's image is the idea that we should ascribe to a higher standard than any of us may actually achieve. This should lead to more kindness and not less.

If we recognize that we are all striving to achieve this higher standard that we can't fully achieve, this can inspire a fuller empathy. This will lead us to being able to be more honorable, honest, kind, and merciful to others.

nacktman

04-05-2007, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by walter05:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If being religious does not lead to ethical behavior, then being religious has no purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By, jinkies, methinks he hast grasped it anon!

Oops, nope, he lost it in the fourth paragraph.
All points listed were from the cesspool minds of religious folk.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The idea of man being created in the creator's image is the idea that we should ascribe to a higher standard than any of us may actually achive. This should lead to more kindness and not less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to use the 'christian' examples for this error in thought ... "Spanish Inquistion", not one but THREE major "crusades", Witch Hunts, supression of knowledge, genocide, the list goes on, but you get the idea.
And, remember, this is ONLY the christian examples, this does not include the "other" religions.
Yep, more kindness all right.

nacktman

04-05-2007, 06:51 PM

It's Official!

walter05

04-05-2007, 07:07 PM

Nactman;

I said "It is possible to forget the goals of being religious. We can get caught up in our flawed understandings of the divine that is beyond our human understanding. This provides the chance to get caught in a rationale that leads to unethical and at times cruel behavior in the name of religion."

You have merely provided examples of when this has occurred.

Rabid_Clam

04-06-2007, 08:01 AM

Just when we have what we think is the true idea of the Devine we find we are wrong. No one has had direct conversation, documented conversation with Him for over 2500 years.

When we were fledglings in life He did come to speak to selected individuals but we have been then given to our own devices and our outcome is of our own. We can blame no one but ourselves for what mess we have ccreated or what we have become. All the criteria we need to be what we should be and how we should think has been presented to us if we care to heed it.

The existance of Dinosaurs were but a flash in the contour of time from the beginning to now and our existance will be but a fraction of a flash and by our own doing.

Humans have been here for less than 500,000 years. Our species has been here for about a tenth of that. At present we have all but destroyed our atmosphere and have started the ball that will finish it as we continue to contribute to that roll.

All we have done, accomplished, and learned is for not. At least in this life.

David77

04-06-2007, 10:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just when we have what we think is the true idea of the Devine we find we are wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find that "the Divine" is what people through out the wide world consider as their ultimate value/values, which they cherish as divine, which inspires them to awe and reverence for their respected devine.

walter05

04-06-2007, 10:42 AM

Clam;

I am glad I don't share your pessimistic view.

David77;

We can't understand the divine. However, we can get a glimpse at traits of the divine. That glimpse is limited by our capabilities.

I believe those traits are what you consider the value/values. These provide us with the lofty goals that we can live up to. To the extent we live up to them we can approach the divine.

nacktman

04-06-2007, 11:28 AM

Clam you left out a zero in that number it is at least 5,000,000 not 500,000 years.
Granted that is but a minor blip on the timelime, but let's still take credit for the entire time we've been around.

nacktman

04-06-2007, 11:29 AM

150.
A hundred and fifty posts!
Do I hear two hundred?

Bob S.

04-06-2007, 07:07 PM

Clam:"There is undeniable proof there is a creator."

There is no proof that there is a Creator nor proof that there isn't one. Cognito ergo sum does not mean that we are proof of a higher being. Science can only prove how things work, not why they work or the philosophical aspects of their existence.

There are also many, many different stories of Crators and all of them are different. So whose spiritual beliefs do we use for who created us? Cree? Aleut? Mayan? Australian Aboriginal? Inca? Ancient Egyptian? Ancient Greek/Roman? Celtic? So how do we prove that a specific Creator is the right one?

Clam:"Just when we have what we think is the true idea of the Devine we find we are wrong. No one has had direct conversation, documented conversation with Him for over 2500 years."

No one has had documented, direct conversations with G*d ever. No story in the Torah is completely verifiable, neither are they in the Bible or the Qoran.

nacktman, that pic looks like Tim Allen in a beard and moustache.

Bob S.

David77

04-07-2007, 03:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Clam:"There is undeniable proof there is a creator."

There is no proof that there is a Creator nor proof that there isn't one. Cognito ergo sum does not mean that we are proof of a higher being. Science can only prove how things work, not why they work or the philosophical aspects of their existence.

There are also many, many different stories of Crators and all of them are different. So whose spiritual beliefs do we use for who created us? Cree? Aleut? Mayan? Australian Aboriginal? Inca? Ancient Egyptian? Ancient Greek/Roman? Celtic? So how do we prove that a specific Creator is the right one?

Clam:"Just when we have what we think is the true idea of the Devine we find we are wrong. No one has had direct conversation, documented conversation with Him for over 2500 years."

No one has had documented, direct conversations with G*d ever. No story in the Torah is completely verifiable, neither are they in the Bible or the Qoran.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bob S.
Excellent post!

Rabid_Clam

04-07-2007, 04:01 AM

There is undeniable proof of a creator. You are standing on one article of proof, and also you simply exist! Something created this planed and those living things that are on it however they came to be what they are.

Moses had direct conversation with God. There are 613 commandments in total but the 10 most important ones were inscribed in stone by the hand of God and that is what moses brought back to his tribe. Those tablets are in the Ark of the Covenant, where ever that is. Ant that will surface again when the time is correct.

nacktman

04-07-2007, 04:42 AM

Bob, you could be right about the photo!
And, I too wish to echo David's thoughts ... the entire post was an excellent one.

Clam, your obviously closed mind is not helping you in this discussion, please do the research and studying recommended in earlier posts.

usmc1

04-07-2007, 05:29 AM

Truth? What is truth? Oscar Wilde said, "Truth is the opinion which survives."

As for me, well I guess I'm a product of my time, my early education (Jesuits & Ursulines), my experience, and my readings, and later education. I'm an existentialistic secular humanist who believe the probability of a personal God is really very, very, very, damn slim, but, retaining a bit of hope at the outside possibility.

But, I sincerely do not see religion shedding much light on that.

That's my opinion, I hope it survives.

PascoDoug

04-07-2007, 05:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
There is undeniable proof of a creator. You are standing on one article of proof, and also you simply exist! Something created this planed and those living things that are on it however they came to be what they are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, this planet and our being on it does not prove anything "undeniably" except that we exist. And even that is debatable!

And even if it did somehow prove that a creator was responsible, it does not prove that he/she/it is any of the deities that have been worshiped on this little rock.

walter05

04-08-2007, 10:10 AM

Clam;

Moses smashed the tablets written by the creator. The pieces are in the first wooden ark that is hidden.

The Talmud makes it clear that we can be convinced of the existence of the creator. However, that is not absolute proof. If there could be absolute proof, then no one would have free will to choose to be religious. Since the creator desires that we would want to be close, this frustrates creation. As a result, the question I would ask is if it is absolutely true, why would the creator want it to be absolutely true.

Bob S.

It is true that hundreds of years later, it is hard to prove. However according to the Torah, over 600,000 men plus women and children saw and heard the giving of the ten commandments a little less than 3,309 years ago. No other faith has ever made such a claim. It would require millions of men, women, and children to have agreed to a fraud for this to have not happened. This is not absolute proof but impressive evidence.

Naturist Mark

04-08-2007, 11:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With all due respect, this planet and our being on it does not prove anything "undeniably" except that we exist. And even that is debatable!

And even if it did somehow prove that a creator was responsible, it does not prove that he/she/it is any of the deities that have been worshiped on this little rock. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I for one am happy to believe without irrefutable proof. I can learn new things, have my beliefs change and grow without my world crashing down around me. That isn't a weak faith, that is a faith strong enough to be unsure about some things, strong enough to accept new knowledge, strong enough not to need to deny reality.

I think the furor over the DaVinci Code is a good illustration. Many devout believers were understandably outraged by it. Its fictional story included some legitimate speculation among a handful of scholars about the relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene#Relationship_with_Jesus) between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

I found the theory fascinating without it in any way fouling my belief in Jesus or devotion to his way.

Those who were outraged, I suppose, felt that it would somehow destroy their faith if they considered it.

I don't really get it I suppose. Having the Earth circle the Sun, having new species arise through evolution, even discovering a marriage license between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in no way makes the Sermon on the Mount less meaningful or authoritative, nor do they dislodge God from Heaven.

-Mark

Bob S.

04-08-2007, 06:46 PM

Clam:"You are standing on one article of proof, and also you simply exist! Something created this planed and those living things that are on it however they came to be what they are."

I am looking at this through a scientific perspective. You are debating through a faith-based perspective. Life alone does not imply a creator in the scientific realm. Does G*d have a hand in life, creation, etc.? I do believe so, but stating that there is any proof of His existence is impossible.

walter:"However according to the Torah, over 600,000 men plus women and children saw and heard the giving of the ten commandments a little less than 3,309 years ago."

Yes, the 10 Commandments do exist. But Moses went up to the mount alone. There was and is no verifiable way to assure that Moses actually spoke to G*d directly. Of course, who wrote the Torah? Moses.

And here, I agree with you, walter. Within the above lies a reason for faith. If there was irrefutable evidence that someone spoke to G*d or that He exists, then faith would be unnecessary. Without faith, G*d becomes merely a pedestrian fact and can rule subjects like a king or the ultiamte dictator. With the factual existence of G*d, spirituality dies. Questioning of life ends, and with that, so dies a part of humanity itself.

Not having proof of G*d's existence or conversations with others is important to our survival. He represents the unknown, the higher purpose in life and the afterlife. An unknown G*d gives us that spark within us that enriches our soul with having something abstract to believe in that is so much larger than ourselves.

Bob S.

walter05

04-10-2007, 08:20 PM

Bob S.

In Exodus, Chapters 19 and 20, it reveals what occurred when the ten commandments were given. It is very clear according to the original text that all heard and saw the ten commandments being given.

In Chapter 20, verse 19, the creator says to Moses "So shall you say to the Children of Israel. 'You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven'.

The text is clear with the claim that all of the people heard the creator speak and not only Moses.

It is true that there is no other source for this claim but the Torah. I merely comment that millions of people would have been able to refute this claim if it was false. It would have required a massive fraud for this to have happened.

This is not proof but evidence that it may have happened this way. The fact that this is the only documented time when anyone has ever claimed that millions of people were spoken to by G*d is amazing.

Rabid_Clam

04-11-2007, 03:45 AM

That is if you can beleive in either book. The bible we know is chock full of errors from the 11 and more languages the text was translated from and to, then the embellished stories as passed from tribe to tribe over several thousand years, and then there are other religiouis sects and personalities as the catholic church and popes that simply refused some text to be passed on and have changed other text to a very different meaning as well as grossly disguising the original source.

Without question there is in fact an Almighty. We have struggled to document advent of religion, that which seperates us from animals. Yet we have failed miserably from no other reason than we as a species are falible.

walter05

04-11-2007, 04:32 AM

Clam;

I agree one has to accept the text. However it is amazing that no other text has ever even made this claim.

No Pope has ever had any effect on the version that I read. My version is in the original Hebrew.

nacktman

04-11-2007, 04:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by walter05:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If being religious does not lead to ethical behavior, then being religious has no purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By, jinkies, methinks he hast grasped it anon!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Walter, just to expound a little on your statement.
It is most correct that being religious has no purpose as being religious is a secular activity designed to placate the masses and conform to a set of strictures imposed by humans on humans --- and more often than not that conforming aspect is quite loosely interpreted.
In some cases abandoned all together.
Ethics are a self imposed "code" by each individual that are learned through experiences in life and one's choice as to how to respond to those experiences.
Religions do not promote ethical behavior neither do religious people as they both have a set agenda that by definition is unethical to begin with.

Spirtiuality and spiritual people on the other hand do promote ethics and spirituality and spiritual people are vastly different than religion and religious people.
Granted there can be someone who is spiritual and seen as religious, two of which in the past century were Ghandi and Mother Teresa. Neither of whom 'conformed' to any religion or religious stricture although they are precieved as religious by those ignorant of the distinction between spirituality and religiousness.
No one can deny that either one was not ethical ... or at least with any conviction they can not.
Spirtuality is that which is the divine and the willingness to seek it.
If more people would recognize the distinction and begin to live spiritual lives I believe a whole lot of what is dogging humanity will evaporate into the ether.

Also, I would like to note that while this thread has taken a few twists and turns and is nowhere close to the newsblurb topic that originated it, I have enjoyed reading and discussing things on it as there have been no incursions as of yet by the incivility and hostility displayed by some on other threads throughout these forums.
Something of note as more times than not religious 'discussions' degenerate into a morass of whatever ill smelling and vile goo you wish to call it, and nothing is ever discussed only ranted about.
I would like to thank my fellow posters on this thread for the fact that this thread has not gone the way of rants and raving ... thank you.

walter05

04-11-2007, 05:02 AM

Nactman;

Nobelprize.org says "On October 7, 1950, Mother Teresa received permission from the Holy See to start her own order, "The Missionaries of Charity", whose primary task was to love and care for those persons nobody was prepared to look after. In 1965 the Society became an International Religious Family by a decree of Pope Paul VI."

It is clear that Mother Theresa was a very religious Catholic. It is not correct to claim otherwise.

You made a statement as follows: "It is most correct that being religious has no purpose as being religious is a secular activity designed to placate the masses and conform to a set of strictures imposed by humans on humans --- and more often than not that conforming aspect is quite loosely interpreted."

You claim your statement is an expansion on mine. That is far from the truth. Religions can intend to inspire the sorts of ethical and kind conduct that we respect in human beings. Your statement that religion is a secular activity designed to placate the masses is opinion stated as fact.

You also state "Religions do not promote ethical behavior neither do religious people as they both have a set agenda that by definition is unethical to begin with." This statement is also false. Many faiths promote charity, mercy, kindness, treating people with dignity, not stealing, and generally being honest. It is clear that religions to promote ethical behavior.

When you make statements with generalities rather than specifics it is impossible to refute. That does not make the statements valid. It makes them untestable.

When you attempt to take a statement of mine out of context and then attempt to expand on it in a way unintended, this is intellectually dishonest. My point was that promoting kindness, mercy, honesty, and being honorable is the goal of religion.

I have not taken any of your statements and restated them out of context. I would appreciate if you would simply state your opinions as your opinion and not imply they have anything to do with mine.

nacktman

04-11-2007, 05:31 AM

Walter, you are wrong on all counts.

I did not take your statement out of context, your point that "promotiing kindness, mercy, honesty, and being honorable is the goal of religion" is false.
Religion promotes none of those things, Spirituality does.
You do seem not to grasp the distinction as of yet.

And, no Mother Teresa was no kind of "religious" catholic for if she were she would have never sought to break from the traditions of such and form her new order as she did -- that my friend is one of the most clear examples of Spirituality that can be found.
I noticed you had naught to say as to the other example provided, curious.

Religion IS designed to placate the masses and is designed by humans for humans ... that is not any opinion, that is a fact and those who have transcended to Spirituality see this and those still wallowing in religion can not.
Neither does any religion promote any type of "ethical" behavior and once you have truly grasped this you will see how ignorant such an idea really is.

If one is being "intellectually dishonest" it is you, my friend, and you have taken my statements out of context as your response has shown. The only implying done has been on your part and I have stated facts not opinion, whereas you have expressed opinion and denied facts when presented.

walter05

04-11-2007, 11:55 AM

Nacktman;

If the Pope said that Mother Theresa was forming an order with his blessing as I quoted, I believe the Pope can be relied on to state what is Catholic or not. No offense, but I find Pope Paul VI to be qualified to make that determination.

Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church states "According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2004 was 1,098,366,000".

The Pope is recognized by those Catholics as the highest authority on religious matters. Mother Theresa considered herself Catholic and so did the Pope.

Gandhi was a follower of Hindu philosophy. However, I did not want to get into a meaningless argument with you on whether or not Hindu is a religion. I find his case to be less clear than Mother Theresa's. I don't attempt to press a case that does not appear to be clear to me.

There are a lot of very good people in the world. Most of them are never heard of. Some of them are grandmothers and grandfathers. Some of them are parents. Some of them are Catholic Priests, Nuns, Rabbis, and Baptist Ministers. Some of them are also agnostic and atheist. Citing a few good ones from any group(s) proves nothing.

In order to find out what the goals of a religion are, I prefer to look at its holy books, rituals, teachings, and how its devout ones practice their faiths.

When you make a statement that "religion was founded to..." it is meaningless. I am Jewish, some people participating in this forum are Catholic, some Baptist, some Wicca, etc. Each religion has it's own set of beliefs, philosophy, and rituals.

There is no way that the statement you make about Religion is fair. It requires the maker of the statement to know about all religions in the world ever and no human being could know that much.

Socrates said he was the wisest of men because other men knew things that are not so. One of the first steps to acquiring wisdom is recognizing the limits of what one can know and understand. No human being can ever understand all of human experience with "RELIGION".

nacktman

04-11-2007, 01:56 PM

Walter,

You still do not grasp the concept of Spirtiuality and as long as you adhere to 'religion' I am afraid you never will.
You may not be aware of this, but I happen to be an ordained minister of two different and distinct sects and hold a Doctorate in Theology (as well as Doctorates in Archeaology and Psychology), and have studied all the known religions of the world -- past and present. Some moreso than others, granted, but I have studied them all just the same, including judaism, and none can be found that 'promote' anything as you ascribe to them.
What you are ascribing to 'religion(s)' has nothing to do whatsoever with 'religion' and everything to do with Spirituality.

Religions ARE constructs of humankind and are in place to enforce a method of living through adherence to codified dogma, they are not refered to as "Laws of the Church" for nothing you know, and Moses is refered to as "the Lawgiver" in several texts.

There is no need to name 'good people' to offer as proof of this, it is self-evident.

Concerning Paul VI's 'giving of his blessing' to Mother Teresa, that in itself in no way equates with her being 'religious' and not Spiritual, for if she had been merely 'religious' Paul VI would not have given his blessing to her as her being 'religious' would demand she follow dogma ... something the world knows she did not do!

MJ_KC

04-11-2007, 07:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Religions ARE constructs of humankind and are in place to enforce a method of living through adherence to codified dogma, they are not refered to as "Laws of the Church" for nothing you know, and Moses is refered to as "the Lawgiver" in several texts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is very much the case. Religions persist over time by having very strong leaders who lay down a very specific set of things that you need to believe in and follow to be part of a specific religion or sect. It is how they distinguish themselves from other groups.

All you have to do is look at some of the longest standing Christian churches to see how rigid and visible the leadership structure is.

walter05

04-11-2007, 07:21 PM

I understand the concept of spirituality.

However, I believe that whether it is spirituality or religion, it needs to lead to better character and acts. Otherwise it is not beneficial.

You may have a Doctorate in Theology, a Doctorate in Archaeology, and a Doctorate in Psychology. However, have you ever read Pirkei Avos in the original language?

Have you ever spent years studying the Talmud?

If I were to place a book from any tractate of the Talmud in front of you, could you explain it? Can you site any other acknowledged scholars of the Talmud who support your explanation?

If you are an expert on Catholicism, do you really understand communion? I have seen it but don't understand it. When it has been performed by the right priest on the right person, it appears very spiritual.

I don't believe you can be an expert on religion by studying it. You can read all of the books on making love and still not know how. You can have sex with a thousand women and never really have the deep emotional connection from making love to your wife.

You have not lived those religions, except the two you are ordained in. (I will admit to being confused as to how you can be ordained and not believe. If it is two sects, which oath of belief was not authentic or long lasting?)

If you have a doctorate, you should be able to make a clear argument and provide clear to the point specific statements and not generalities. When I taught high school, I insisted on tenth graders being able to do that.

I understand that one of the concepts of nudism is the idea that when nude, the banker, lawyer, doctor, and ditch digger all look the same. At that point one judges someone by their inner being and ability to communicate.

The internet may do the same. So you have a doctorate. You could have a thousand doctorates. However, you may still be making statements of generality and not specifics.

As Clam said, Moses transmitted 613 commandments. I am not claiming that all heard all of those. I am claiming that the Torah says that all heard The Ten Commandments. Moses not only transmitted the laws but also provided the explanations that have been passed down and are in the Talmud. This is why Moses is referred to as the lawgiver.

nacktman

04-11-2007, 08:52 PM

Walter,

an a iaeoo aao oae-e aaaa, an a iaeoo aao oaee e aaaa ee oeo-ee aaaan, ea oeoee aaan, ea oeo-e aaan, ea oeoee aaaan an aaoi an ea ooeeo ieuoa

(sorry but my keyboard does not have the proper phonetic symbols for Hebrew in any of it's three forms and as it is Yiddish that is most easily typed on a standard keyboard I used that form to answer your question. In case you do not understand Yiddish I said ... "As a matter of fact I have read the Chapters of Our Fathers as well as the entire Mishna" ... and no I did not read them in English the first time.)

I have made clear statements of fact and not generalities. Your denial is what is clouding your ability to see that.

And no you do not have the concept of Spirituality as of yet.
Also, one can ONLY be an 'expert' on anything by studying it.

nacktman

04-11-2007, 09:28 PM

Here's a good illustration of the 'ethics' of 'religious' people.

As I and many others have said before editorial cartoons reflect reality whether we like it or not.

Rabid_Clam

04-12-2007, 03:31 AM

We are back to religion basics. Religion is what is in the bottom of your heart and mind. It is not what church you attend or who you listen to. It is you. Only you.

Regardless of what sect you claim to be affiliated with you differ in some way with that and that is your religion.

Religions tell you what to believe, and how to believe. Yet within you is the true notion you really follow and that is what you really do believe.

walter05

04-12-2007, 12:45 PM

Nacktman;

There is no such thing as a Yiddish alphabet. Yiddish is based mostly on an old version of German and uses the Hebrew Aleph Bet.

Since you say you have read "Pirkei Avos", would you please tell everyone what the translation into English of those terms is.

Editorial cartoons are EDITORIALS. That means they are opinions. The editorial cartoons in the Savannah Morning News are often different from the New York Times or the Globe and Mail of Toronto. They reflect different views.

nacktman

04-12-2007, 06:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:

(sorry but my keyboard does not have the proper phonetic symbols for Hebrew in any of it's three forms and as it is Yiddish that is most easily typed on a standard keyboard I used that form to answer your question. In case you do not understand Yiddish I said ... "As a matter of fact I have read the <span class="ev_code_RED">Chapters of Our Fathers</span> as well as the entire Mishna" ... and no I did not read them in English the first time.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't bother reading the post throughly now did we?.
As I used the English translation of Pirkei Avos in it.
For your reference I highlighted it in red lettering above.

Don't wish to nit pick but I never said there was a Yiddish Alphabet -- what I said was ...<span class="ev_code_RED">sorry but my keyboard does not have the phonetic symbols for Hebrew in any of it's three forms and as it is Yiddish that is most easily typed on a standard keyboard I used that form ...</span>. I have even left in the gramatical error I originally made so that the sentence would appear exactly as first written, albeit highlighted in red lettering.

walter05

04-12-2007, 06:51 PM

Nacktman;

Your typing before is displayed in an unreadable fashion on my computer. This is true even though my computer does correctly display Hebrew and so does my browser. I have no idea what you typed.

Any scholar that has studied Pirkei Avos would know that your translation is literal but does not correctly translate the meaning. The common translation is "Ethics of Our Fathers".

Wikipedia translates it as you do but says "Pirkei Avot / Ovos (Hebrew: Chapters of the Fathers, ???? ????) is a tractate of the Mishna composed of ethical maxims of the Rabbis of the Mishnaic period. It is the second-last tractate in the Mishnaic order Nezikin."

My point is that it is clear that this was an attempt to provide ethical guidance. The Mishna is a fundamental JEWISH RELIGIOUS TEXT. Therefore, this is an instance of a religion teaching ethics. If one does, then your statement that religion does not teach ethics is FALSE.

David77

04-12-2007, 10:19 PM

Here is more ethical guidance from religion.

Here are 11 teachings attributed to Jesus, as my friend, Dr. John Hoad, a Unitarian theologian interprets it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<center><span class="ev_code_RED">GUIDELINES FOR LIVING</span>

from the teachings of Jesus</CENTER>

<LI>The times are critical for humanity. Follow me in seeking first the Kingdom of love on the path of justice. The rest will follow.

<LI>Sow the good word of love for all, wherever you go, and have faith that it will grow. Anticipate opposition, and be prepared to stake your life on your faith.

<LI>Let your love be all inclusive, like the sun shining on the good and the bad, like rain falling on the just and the unjust. Eat with anybody.

<LI>Treat with the respect with which you would wish to be treated.

<LI>Seek the good of your adversary.

<LI>Don't set yourself up as Judge of others; be prepared to forgive time without number.

<LI>Befriend the alienated, the troubled, and the needy. Human service is what the Kingdom's service is all about.

<LI>Any person who seeks the good of the human family is an equal partner in the Kingdom of love.

<LI>Religion exists to serve humanity, not the other way around. The clean heart and eye and the plain word have priority, not correct creed or ritual.

<LI>Be a contributing citizen of both the Kingdom of law and the kingdom of love. But love is your one master.

<LI>Be aware and alert, trusting as the lily, gentle as the dove, streetwise as the snake.
<hr>
My philosophy professor, years ago, Dr. Duke, considered Christianity merely as "A WAY OF LIFE" meaning an ethical life.

David77

04-13-2007, 04:58 AM

My History Channel tape pointed out that of the half a dozen "messias" claimed by various people during the first three centuries AD, only the Christian messiah/religion required an adherance to some sort of ethical living.

For instance, the Mitra religion and the worship of emperors did not require anything in ethical living, but Christianity did.

nacktman

04-13-2007, 05:17 AM

Ah, but, what and whose 'ethics' and when.
No religion promotes Ethical behaviour.
They promote their dogma over all others.

Human ethos and ethics come from the individual through Spirituality not from adherence to a list of proscribed cannons.

walter05

04-13-2007, 06:21 AM

Nacktman;

Please pay attention to David77's approach. I have argued with him as forcefully as I have with you. However, he has stated clear positions and provided clear evidence of them. When I have asked for specifics, he has responded with them and clear citations. This has permitted me to enter into a conversation with him.

There are positions that he has that I disagree with and I am certain vice versa. However, we are able to post things clearly enough that we can have a discussion for the purpose of seeking truth. As the discussion proceeds, we both learn and grow.

Even USMC1 and I have been able to start having civil conversations. We have instituted a private discussion on some of the more emotional arguments we have had. I think that we may have areas that we need to learn to communicate better and grow. I am looking forward to this process and believe he is.

As you know, we have agreed with each other on other topics of these forums. However, the challenge is to have a conversation when we disagree.

David77 has provided another good example of a religion teaching ethics. With two examples, it is enough to establish that at least some religions do teach ethics.

The important question is as follows: "Given that many religions attempt to teach ethics, how come so few have succeeded?"

I believe some of the answers are as follows:

Many religious leaders have failed to make teaching ethics, love, kindness, and character as priorities. It is expensive to maintain religious institutions. Houses of worship, hospitals, etc. are expensive. Just like politicians, religious leaders often find that they must amass funds and resources. This often leads to a focus on money that can be as corrupting to religious institutions as it is to democratic government.

They have also focused on acceptance of dogma and belief as the main objectives. Then when others believe differently, they have focused either on attempting to convert them or force them to change. Many times in history when religion is combined with government, it has lead to abuse and even mass murders.

I think one of the gifts the U.S.A. has given the world is codified in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In America, national identity and religious belief have been separated. I may be Jewish, someone else may be Catholic, someone else may be Southern Baptist, someone else agnostic, someone else atheist, etc. However, we are all Americans. As long as we are people of good character, we learn to interact with each other out of mutual respect.

This is unique to the U.S.A. Even Canada has biased rules for the funding of private religious schools. It is my understanding that in Toronto, Ontario, only Catholic schools receive a boost from the taxpayers.

In countries where religious identity has been intertwined with national identity, this has been bad for both.

(Yes USMC1, I believe this is also true for the State of Israel. It is a secular republic that does protect minorities. In fact it is an irony, that the only country in the Middle East where Muslim Arabs can freely elect members of Parliament, serve in Parliament, and serve in he Cabinet is Israel. However, there is an intertwining of religious and national identity. This has lead to social battles and problems that has been harmful to the state and Judaism.)

Religious institutions have also amassed so much money and power that protecting that has become so important. This has often also lead to major failings.

I would agree with the statement that while religions do often teach ethics, the track record of religious leaders show this often is not a priority of theirs. This is the problem.

This is why I made the statement that if religions don't teach people to be kind, merciful, honest, and honorable in order to emulate G-d or to be Holy, they have no purpose.

nacktman

04-13-2007, 07:01 AM

Walter,

There is no way of making it any more plain or simple. But, I will try.

1. No religion promotes anything but their own dogma.
2. Religions are constructs of humans.
3. Teaching is not the same as promoting.

Therefore, one can no more claim that religion promotes or teaches ethical behaviour than one can claim the moon is made up of green cheese and expect it hold up to review.

One is required to ask:

1. Whose 'religion' is the arbitor of ethics and ethical behaviour?
2. What is ethos and the behaviour(s) it inspires?
3. How are such ideas and ideals promoted?
4. Why are a particular set of ideas and ideals taught?
5. Where do the need and/or expression of those ideas and ideals stem from?
6. When did those ideas and ideals take form and are they in any way different than proceeding ideas and ideals.

One may answer any of the above and individually have them 'hold water'.
However, collectively the pot you are holding is a sieve with gaping holes in it and the water gushes out in a torrent.

nacktman

04-13-2007, 07:19 AM

A note on your idea ... that the USA is the only state that has the idea of religious freedom to believe in and follow any religion.
It is technically on paper all right ... and to a large extent true.

Though that is not how some would see it and claim it otherwise.

"This country was founded as a 'christian' nation", is but one form of this when those who are woefully misinformed use when they spout off on the founding of this nation.

Intolerance of all not of the WASP (white Anglo/Saxon protestant), variety has been and still is the pesky aphid(s) which keeps that ideal state that our founding fathers envisioned with regards to religion from reaching its full bloom like they are wont to do to a rose.

Baron Lake

04-13-2007, 08:44 AM

One of religion's more insideous aspects is its promotion of myth/superstition and its (fearful) negation of reason. Religion requires, at some point, that its believers reject reason for the nebulous and (so far) unverifed existence of some World Beyond. Along with that is the implication that such belief is somehow key to Truth and Morality.

The foundations of Morality and Ethics need rescue from ignorance, nonsence and (sadly) intellectual cowardness.

Religion's fear of reason is not unfounded. Reason's bright light is indeed disquieting when it reveals the structurally malformed nature of religion's Foundation.

I wonder how far back we need to go along the Creator created by the Creator, created by the Creator (etc, etc) line till we find the one that made the mistake where things went so terribly wrong.

b.l.

walter05

04-13-2007, 08:48 AM

Nacktman;

I agree with your characterization of the U.S.A. but with one difference.

Intolerance of anyone of a different set of beliefs, race, or ethnic group is a problem that has plagues humanity for thousands of years and plagues the U.S.A. However, the U.S.A. at least attempts to work to overcome this failure.

I have seen the way many northern Catholics and Lutherans react when faced with a Southern Baptist. There is a knee jerk reaction is to think the Southern Baptist is a redneck bigot. (I think this affected the national media's attitude to the Duke LaCross Men and the jump to blame them.)

There are also issues between ethnic minorities. As a non-WASP living in a WASP dominated city, I can say that I can count all three times I faced a WASP discrimination issue. One was in Atlanta and one was in Jesup. Only one was in Savannah. I can't count the number of times I have experienced major problems with vicious anti-semitism eminating from the Black community.

I also travel a lot on business. I have been to much of the U.S.A., Canada, Brazil, Israel, and France. I only experienced hostility that was related to being Jewish in Paris and it was enough that I was scared happened on three of my six visits.

Therefore, I would that my experience being Jewish is that I don't experience any issues of intolerance from WASPs in America.

David77

04-13-2007, 10:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Baron Lake:
One of religion's more insideous aspects is its promotion of myth/superstition and its (fearful) negation of reason. Religion requires, at some point, that its believers reject reason for the nebulous and (so far) unverifed existence of some World Beyond. Along with that is the implication that such belief is somehow key to Truth and Morality.

The foundations of Morality and Ethics need rescue from ignorance, nonsence and (sadly) intellectual cowardness.

Religion's fear of reason is not unfounded. Reason's bright light is indeed disquieting when it reveals the structurally malformed nature of religion's Foundation.

I wonder how far back we need to go along the Creator created by the Creator, created by the Creator (etc, etc) line till we find the one that made the mistake where things went so terribly wrong.

b.l. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but my religion/church, Unitarian Universalist, is an exception!

In my church I have attended meeting leaning toward Buddhism, Pagonism, Christianity, Naturalistic Humanism, Judism, etc. I am a Naturalistic Humanist, (thus non-theistic). Persons of various thought in my church are tolerant of others.

We do have principles, however, but they are not to be taken as dogmas, and they are;

<LI>The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

<LI>Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

<LI>Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

<LI>A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

<LI>The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

<LI>The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

<LI>Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
<hr>
The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world's religions -Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

Jewish, Christian and Catholic social teaching, with its emphasis on good works, teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision.

walter05

04-13-2007, 12:28 PM

David77;

It appears that your faith is one that can bring you much personal and spiritual growth. It also appears that it will help one become kinder, more merciful, more honest, and more honorable.

I value what you can get from your faith and see that it provides a challange to live up to it.

David77

04-13-2007, 04:43 PM

Walter05,
Thank you much, for your response.

Rabid_Clam

04-14-2007, 07:03 AM

I am an ordained Minister. When I tell that to people of this much of the reaction here is "Oh !! You're a preacher !!!". Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. I am a Minister, not a preacher. A preacher tells you what to believe, how to worship, what is correct and what is not. It is my position for the person to believe what he/she finds to be correct and to worship as they see fit. Is not for me or any man to judge but for the Almighty only to do so.

Each person has within him/herself spirituality. No religion is the correct one, no religion is incorrect. Therefore it is my purpose to help any person bring out spirituality within themselves. They can follow any religion, any church, any song and dance they see fit but at least they are culturing their honor of God and His Kindom.

Amen.

walter05

04-14-2007, 06:22 PM

David77;

In fact, I like your approach enough that I wonder if you might want to come for Shabbos dinner. I think you would enjoy it.

I also think that we could have some interesting discussions on other controversial topics such as nudity, sex, abortion, etc. I enjoy the exchange with you. I think it sharpens both of us and we happen to grow.

I am not interested in converting you and don't believe you want to convert me. We should be able to learn about each others' ideas and beliefs, celebrate, and honor them. In so doing, I think we bring honor to our own beliefs.

David77

04-15-2007, 08:34 PM

Walter05,
I am honored indeed by your words and invitation, and thank you very much. Atlanta Georgia is possibly 850 miles away from my home. If you lived around St. Louis I would certaily take the joy of the invitation and join in on a Friday evening Shabbos.

I see by your post today regarding the "case" in Missoui that you have been in St. Louis. You are in sales, so if you get to St. Louis occasionally, please stop in to my home and stay for several days.
I feel free to talk about anything with you that you wish. I will send you a private message before the day is over and give you my e-mail address and other information.

No, I have no fear that you will try to convert me, as I know that Judiasm does not do that.
I do not believe in proseletizing either. My church, Unitarian Universalist does not proseletize and has no missionaries.

In fact. I lived with my wife for 38 years (until she died in April, 2001) and never tried to change her very conservative religious views. She cherished her church of which she had been a member all her life and loved it's good people and the people loved her, so she was well integrated in this regard.