NORM

Everywhere men are trying to discredit the Bible and take it from the miraculous.

Or, perhaps the miraculous was never there in the first place.

What are your own thoughts on the subject, BR? Or, are you really Mr. Wigglesworth?

Welcome to the Forum. As Dutch suggested, you won't find much in the way of dogma around here.

NORM

I must admit Norm, that it does make me angry when people suggest God is causing or allowing suffering for a greater purpose. I just cannot imagine squatting down on the dirt in some squalid refugee camp somewhere in Somalia, telling a skeletal 6 year old that his parents have been raped and murdered and he is starving to death because it's all part of God's plan!

I about clocked some ###### at my father's funeral for saying it. I miss my Dad horribly. There was no deeper purpose to his death. It's just that ###### happens.

NORM

7,600,000 children die every year caused by poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Or as you seem to indicate - God.

 

I couldn't imagine such a cruel God.

 

I know people who do believe that the God of the OT did actually order the Israelites on about a dozen occassions to commit genocide (sort of like a Tutsi/Hutu conflict but with God's nod), but again, I couldn't ever imagine a God like that.

Yes, this is why faith healing makes no sense. It all seems so random, and makes G-d capricious.

The most offensive thing said to me at both my mother's and father's funeral was that their passing would "serve a greater purpose." My mother suffered horribly the last week of her life. What was the "purpose" in that? My father died from complications from a routine surgery - he probably would have lived another 20 years. What "benefit" could G-d derive from that?

No, I'm not buying it.

NORM

Color me skeptical!

I was part of a church ministry charged with investigating claims of faith healing in the 80s. We looked at over 200 claims, ALL of which turned out to be either so vague as to be unprovable (like I was healed from excessive gum-chewing), or downright fraud. Ironically, our goal was to FIND proof of faith healing. We figured the law of large numbers was on our side. The group continued long after I left it - and still came up empty.

One of the early nails in the coffin of my faith.

If G-d heals, it heals through the hands of skilled surgeons and physicians. Believing in faith healing to me is like believing someone with a mental illness is demon possessed.

NORM

...Thus, reality is neither natural nor supernatural. But you did write,

 

 

OK, let's just use the word reality.

I simply have no need to turn to the so-called supernatural to explain reality. It's that simple.

NORM

The dichotomy is presupposed.

Only if you pre-suppose it.

If I substituted world, you would counter with other-world. I never offered a counter to natural or world. I don't "suppose" there is an alternate. You did.

Furthermore, what is termed ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ is contextually loaded, dependent upon one’s expectations of the way things are. In other words, it is biased. What might be 'natural' according to one person may strike another as 'supernatural'. For those cosmologists who in the first part of the 20th century believed in the steady-state theory, 'big-bang' cosmology smacked of supernatural creation. For many philosophers of mind, subjectivity is taken as a naturally given starting point, while for others "mind" is magic, supernatural, and needs to be eliminated from our picture of the world. I think various scientific explanations of phenomena are not 'naturalistic' as opposed to 'supernaturalistic', but just one explanation in contrast to other explanations of how phenomena relate one to another.

True, but they've mostly outgrown these notions.

I find it interesting that you say, ‘If I see something, and it has a name.’ Not to digress -- but I wonder why you add, ‘and it has a name’? If something exists and is unnamed, does it not really exist, or is it supernatural?

I use names because we use language to communicate. Just because something is unnamed doesn't mean that it is "super-natural" It just means that, perhaps, it hasn't been discovered yet.

Or is a form of idealism suggested, wherein we suppose that things only exist that are defined by an immaterial essence (Platonism). What if things exist but have no essence, that is, they are unintelligible and ineffable mysteries? I'm not trying to twist your words. These are indeed deeper questions than most people notice.

 

 

 

If all that we mean by ‘nature’ is that which we generalize about through induction, then ‘nature’ simply amounts to that method of generalization, and nature doesn’t exist outside of the scientific method itself. What I’m trying to say is that ‘nature’ adds nothing to the content of the scientific method. We simply have the method and its results. What does referring to this as ‘nature’ add? The results will be what they will regardless.

 

As for truth, is it really the case that any truth can be found to be 'faulty'? What about the truth of that assertion? What of Descartes’ method: ‘I think, therefore I exist.’ To doubt my own existence is to prove it. Is all 'truth' on the same level -- all knowledge of the same degree, everything without exception merely an indirect, distant, objectified construction of guess-work?

 

Perhaps the more we objectify reality, the less certain we become. Perhaps knowledge and being are intimately linked, so that the farther removed from being, the less stable our knowledge becomes. What is pre-objective cannot be doubted because it cannot be made an object of speculation. The more abstract (I.e. detached, disembodied, ‘lifted-out-of-context’) our questioning becomes, the more room for doubt.

 

Conversely, if there is literally nothing which cannot be falsified, then there is literally nothing which can truly be affirmed. All truth must rest in reality. Truth and knowledge are not a matter of proposition only; it is the very face of being itself. What is it to know in the most general sense of the word? What is 'knowledge' that a subject may attain it? How does knowledge cross from the subjective world to the objective world, if these two 'worlds' are really divided as is commonly believed? Best of luck if you wish to resolve these questions -- or even frame them -- through hard science.

 

 

 

By induction we can infer what will happen. But it does not explain why it will happen or what, in a deep sense, it is that happens. We do not gain a substantive vision of reality by means of it.

 

I think there are aspects of reality intrinsically beyond our means to objectively give an account of. Consider that to date there is not one shred of scientific evidence, strictly speaking, that any of us has any subjective experience at all.

All of this is very interesting. When I have more time, I can give you my response.

NORM

I think the natural/supernatural dichotomy is artificial. Neither concept adds anything to empirical reality; and through neither concept can we deduce the existence of anything at all.

Who posited a dichotomy? I think that there is no supernatural. Only natural. Therefore; no dichotomy. If I see something, and it has a name; it exits in my mind. Whether or not it does or doesn't in some alternate universe or whatever imagined reality or non-reality is beside the point to me.

More often than not I think what people mean by 'natural' is that which we have come to generalize about through induction (repeated observation).

Well, sure. That's called the scientific method. The beauty of it is that it is not bound by a single "reality" at any one time. Any "truth" can be found to be faulty through repeated experimentation and observation. Of course, some things have been tested so thoroughly (such as gravity and carbon dating, for example) that they become "laws" of the universe. But, even those can be overturned if evidence supports it.

This however has obvious limitations and does not furnish us with an ontology.

I'm not sure what that means.

NORM

Norm, I'm currently in the atheist category, but have left a little space for the currently unknown, rather than choose an anti-theist position. To me the word 'anti' seems to mean against and/or in opposition to. How can one be anti-God when one doesn't have all the answers? I'll agree with you that more than likely there is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and life within, but until we know the answer conclusively, why would anyone take the position that it couldn't possibly be or have anything to do with something we don't know well enough but choose to call God?

Yes, I agree. The prefix anti does not really describe where I'm at. It was an appellation given in the OP to this thread. I should have pointed that out sooner.

There was a time when I would allow for supernatural explanations for things I don't currently understand, but I no longer do. I assume that we just don't know the answer yet, and that eventually, science or experience / observation will reveal the truth of the matter.

Quite a few years back, I actually sought out supernatural occurrences. I would read about claims of the supernatural and investigate them. I investigated well over 100 claims. Every single one of them turned out to be explainable by natural causes, or were outright frauds. I'm sure I would have discovered plenty more were I investigating after the advent of personal computing.

NORM

An anti-theist sounds like someone who stands against a principle. Even if there did exist a theos and could be proven to exist, an anti-theist - by definition - would oppose him/her...For this reason, I have come to distrust the anti- prefix wherever I see it. I am an atheist in that my view of God, of the Divine, is not theistically based. I am not anti-theism, even though I disagree with the theistic view.. Atheism allows me to find myself mistaken, whereas, if I were to take an anti-theistic stance there would be little room for correction if needed.

Anti-theist is not a label of my invention. I think you used it in the OP to describe someone like me who does not think there are supernatural happenings like miracles or revivification.

Personally, I don't bother with labels. I think that most people carry a range of thoughts and feelings that cross over many "isms." For example, as you point out; there are Christians who don't believe in the bodily resurrection.

Also, The G-d of the Tanakh, unlike the Christian God, is spirit and has no physical presence. So, there are many in the Jewish community who are non-theists.

I'm not anti anything. I just don't see the point of believing in things I can't see, and for which there is scant evidence, particularly since belief in supernatural events, magic and such does not add anything to the message.

NORM

I agree with many of the previous comments.

 

It is interestingthat you mention "antitheists" as well as "new atheists". Any person who describes themselves as anti-anything is likely to prove hard to reason with. I would tend to let it all drop there. It might be worth noting that many religious people, including some who regard themselves as Christian, are atheists, so one point of discussion is whether the person is anti-theist or anti-religious.

 

—Jim

There is a definite distinction between an anti-religious person and and anti-theist. The anti-theist does not accept supernatural explanations for every day phenomenon, and trusts that things not known or understood now will eventually yield a naturalistic reasoning.

The anti-religious usually objects on some moralistic ground.

And I disagree with you that an anti-theist is difficult to reason with. All you have to do is show us a revivified dead person, and we'll believe in the resurrection. Simple!

NORM

My question is, how can we describe our brand of Christianity to people who may call themselves Antitheists?

Well, since I probably fall into your category of an "Antitheist," in that I do not hold to a theistic view of the world, I would say that you should emphasize the redemptive work of Christianity.

I mean, I could care less whether or not Jesus walked on water. Now, tell me that he encourages you to love your neighbor as yourself, and you've got my attention.

But, the minute you tell me that the Bible informs you that homosexuality is a sin, evolution is wrong and that you should vote this way or that way because Jesus told you to; then, you've lost me if all you have to back up your position is a Bible verse.

NORM

FWIW, the Hebrew word for seed zera' is the same as the word for semen. My pastor (PCUSA) thinks that the biblical views about homosexual relations (male, there is no female prohibition) and masturbation are related to this concept. Semen was viewed like seeds which were limited in supply and not to be wasted.

 

This was also a time in which "be fruitful and multiply" was a valuable survival strategy for one's family and tribe.

 

George

That is consistent with what I learned in my conversion to Judaism. They felt they needed to explain why so many of the "older generation" were agitated and uncomfortable about discussing gay rights (I joined a Reformed community).

NORM

Norm, "withdrawal method" fits "interruptupting" natural consequences of the 'act'.....rythym "works" by not engaging in the "act" at certain times. Ie the farmer can choose not to plow the field, but once he's started plowing the field, he's gotta go ahead and plant the crop and tend the harvest,not waste the seed. and I see a signfificant 'if 'technical' difference there.

 

Jenell

Which is why I highlighted the part that says "and other such methods." I spoke with a priest I know who is knowledgeable about the Vatican's wishes. The rhythm method is also prohibited, but "lightly tolerated," without official sanction, of course.

I only know of one or two Catholic families who DON'T use some form of birth control. They are probably the only people who were keeping the 12 passenger Econoline van in production for so long into this millennium. I think it finally ended production about 10 years ago.

I wonder if some bright, young research student could publish a scholarly study on the decline of RCC authority and disappearance of the full size passenger van.

NORM

Then why allow the rhythm method?

 

George

Apparently they don't:

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

NORM

Then why allow the rhythm method?

 

George

I know quite a few Catholic families that "practice" the rhythm method (or so they claim). They ALL have more than four children. Now, if they owned a farm, I would say that is convenient, but most of them are struggling to survive the economy with four or more children going to college at the same time.

In the cases where I know the female portion of these households (the families in this category tend to be male-centric, conservative), many have told me confidentially that they would rather NOT have so many children. But, of course, they never speak this "opinion" aloud to the few people who could do something about it. Often, they feel trapped.

As for more pleasurable...well, I would say more, but...I think everyone here knows...something about this...

NORM

What is the theological basis for abstaining from birth control other than the 'rhythm method?'

I think it safe to file this under:

If it makes human life more convenient, enjoyable, and facilitates pleasure; it must be anathema.

Isn't that how it works?

NORM

I know well what I am fleeing from but not what I am in search of. - Michel de Montaigne

Wayseeker,

Terrific biography. I was rooting for you the whole way!

In many ways, your path has paralleled mine. I think all of us in this forum can relate to just about everything you mention in your journey.

It's sure sweet, isn't it, to leave all the guilt and self-doubt behind.

Thanks for sharing your story.

NORM

Norm wrote: "You will enjoy the parables most, I think. They are often humorous! Imagine - a theology tome with a schtick."

 

Dr. Mitchell, head of the Religious Studies dept where I attended, demonstrated often that fully understanding many of the parables Jesus is said to have spoken is enhanced by knowing Jewish parables in common use at the time, because many of Jesus's parables based upon Jewish parables the people were already familiar with, but in which he modified them slightly to give them a "different twist" to make His points.

 

Jenell

Yes, many of them are. The one about Jesus "punishing" the olive tree is one. I wish I could remember that one - it was quite funny.

My favorite Talmudic parable is the one about when Abraham was a child.

In his father's garden were many stone idols representing the various gods of Ur. One day, Abraham misbehaved, and his father sent him to the garden to reflect. When he came back to check on Abraham, one of the stone idols was smashed - a hammer lying on the ground beneath it.

"Abraham, what have you done? Why did you smash that idol?"

"I didn't do it, father."

Well, if you didn't do it, then who did?"

"I don't know. Why don't you ask one of the other gods?"

NORM

I don't deny the devotional use of the scriptures in asking God to speak to me now through these ancient writings.

Just to be clear: I don't think the Bible is G-d speaking to mankind. I don't think that G-d involves itself with us in that way. I think the Bible is an example of human beings trying to comprehend the often brutal world around them, and their struggles with mortality. I think the Bible represents the polar opposite of G-d speaking to man.

This is part of the reason I discount Bible commentary for myself. Most of it assumes that the Bible is G-d speaking to man, and so it becomes a game to unravel the mystery. I don't think there is any hidden meaning or deeper mystery. I think it accurately reflects a portion of the evolution of human thought and philosophy (except where it was intentionally used as propaganda - but there again is a human agenda).

When I was a student of Christianity, I took classes to learn classical Greek and Biblical Hebrew. I found this far more useful than reading commentary. There are words and thoughts in Greek and Hebrew for which there are no real English equivalents. It was similar to rereading El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (Don Quixote) by Miguel Cervantes in the original Spanish. It is full of puns and wordplay that is missing in the English translations.

Eventually, I came to a better understanding of what the probable intent of the writings might have been. For example, when you understand the true intention behind the Shema - Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. - you realize how truly absurd the concept of the trinity was to those early Jews who formed the first followers of Jesus' teaching. The Christian trinity means ONE God in three SEPARATE beings; Father, Son and Holy Spirit - a very gnostic, Greek / Roman idea. The echad in the Shema means the exact opposite: the people of Yis'ra'eil united in ONE G-d (who is spirit, BTW). It really is quite difficult to explain in English words!

That's the traditional understanding.

Skeptics like me understand the Shema as a position statement in direct contrast to the polytheists and pantheists inhabiting the surrounding hills. As in; "look at us; our G-d is different (better) than yours."

NORM

Thanks for the suggestion, NORM. I'll have to take a look at that book, because it sounds petty interesting. It's obviously helpful even if one does take Judaism as a foundation of their religion, since a better understanding of the foundation helps the whole. Either way, I'm interested in the Talmud from a secular aspect anyhow, so it'd be worth it to get a better understanding of the text.

You will enjoy the parables most, I think. They are often humorous! Imagine - a theology tome with a schtick.

NORM

Welcome Mister Misterkatamari

I highly recommend that you purchase a copy of Adin Steinsaltz' Essential Talmud http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_3 so that you can properly understand the Tanakh. When I converted to Judaism from Christianity, this book was very helpful. I only wish that I had read it BEFORE I left the faith. Had I done so, many of the stories from the Tanakh would have made more sense to me then.

Steinsalz wrote this Talmudic primer mainly for young Jews who were intimidated by our parent's 70 volume Talmud weighing down the top shelf in the library. This book will help you understand the faith from which your religious leaders claim Christianity "completes."

A traditional Talmud has two components: the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Law; and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah and a collection of parables that illuminate the Tanakh. Unless you plan on studying Hebrew, I wouldn't recommend many English versions, because half the book is in Hebrew. However, if you DO decide to learn Hebrew, the cross translations in most Talmuds is indispensable.

Hopefully, you will come to the conclusion that Judaism is already a complete religion, and that Christianity is something that can stand on its own without clinging to the past it willfully left behind.

I echo Glintofpewter's suggestion that you avoid so-called study bibles. It's a bit like reading one of those awful Norton Anthology series on great works of literature. The commentary distracts one from experiencing the book on its own.

NORM

I agree. These killings are not amoral acts. They are justified by the 'greater evil.'

 

FWIW, the translation of the Hebrew word ratsach in the 6th Commandant 'kill' is IMO a bad translation. It does not ban killing; it bans 'murder' (illegal killing). It is very clear that the Jewish law allowed all sorts of killing (enemies, adulterers, etc.). The 6th Commandment is often wrongly cited as prohibiting war, abortion, capital punishment, etc. These may be argued to be wrong on other grounds, but they are not prohibited by the 6th Commandment.

 

George

 

Ratsach or no, the recipient of the killing is still dead, and someone had to justify it.

IOW, whether or not a killing is ratsach is relative to whomever decides who is worthy of death.

NORM

But if pluralism and relativism are basically the same thing, then it seems to me that our driveways simply lead to everywhere (if we go far enough). There is no destination, no goal, we simply drive around, taking in the scenery. The point is to enjoy the drive, not to go anywhere.

This is my view of the world, except the part about not going anywhere. Each experience is moving me closer to a greater understanding of those things previously undiscovered.

This is probably an Eastern notion and has some validity. I'm just not sure how it fits with Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God and the over-riding notion that God is redeeming the world.

I think that if Jesus existed, then he would probably hold the same worldview (were he living in this age) - given that Judaism is an Eastern philosophy. However, the real Jesus has probably been plastered over so thoroughly with Western plaster as to be unrecognizable.

And, can it not be said that human evolution in terms of intellectual and experiential progress is indeed redemption?

NORM

but to my knowledge no culture permits, as example, killing under any circumstance against any person at any time.

 

George

What about war (particularly assassinations)? Capital punishment? Lynchings in the South? The Crusades? Purges and Pogroms?

I think that killing is relative to whether or not the victim is "the enemy" or not.

In the construct of the so-called "just war," it can be said that killing the enemy is morally correct because one is preventing a "greater evil."

NORM