NORM

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. True, but they've mostly outgrown these notions. 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. All of this is very interesting. When I have more time, I can give you my response. NORM

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. 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. I'm not sure what that means. NORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently they don't: Emphasis mine NORM

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

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

NORM

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

Greetings Wayseeker, I see no need to differentiate between the two. In fact, in my observation, the two are inextricably linked. Pluralism is simply the realization that the world doesn't end at my driveway, and relativism is the reason. Personally, I find comfort in variety. It makes it more difficult to choose sides. NORM

Thanks for sharing that Daniel. I often find more wisdom in the lyrics and visual work of artists than a week of Sundays. Prob'ly why I no longer go to Meetin' NORM

This is held to be true among those who call themselves evangelicals. They can differ on interpretation of the inerrant word o' G-d. NORM

Protestant is still a valid distinction, IMO, between themselves and Catholic. Although both claim to be Christian, they differ significantly on the "means" of salvation. Protestants claim that salvation is a D-I-Y kind of thing, whereas Catholics believe in the Sacraments as a means to salvation. Put simply; Catholicism is a "works-based" salvation and Protestantism is a "knowledge-based" system (one could argue, however, that since there is a "special knowledge" required, that it also is a "works-based" faith). Much-ado, however, is made of the Grace-through-Faith argument (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8) first adequately articulated by Martin Luther in his "95 Theses" document nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany in protestation of the Church's practice of selling Indulgences. Evangelical and Fundamental describe variants to the Protestant theme. I don't think I've ever heard of Catholics calling themselves "fundamentalist." I could be wrong. Personally, I don't see much difference theologically between those who call themselves Evangelical and those who call themselves Fundamentalists (I've been long-time members of both) - other than some Evangelicals don't like the word or negative association, as pointed out above, of the Fundamentalist moniker. When I was a believer and a member of either, I referred to myself as a fundamentalist - because those fundamentals are basic understandings of the faith as I understood them. NORM

I guess we are on totally opposite sides of this issue. I don't see naturalism, or scientism as you say, as distant and abstract from reality. On the contrary, I feel more in touch with reality than during my days following religious dogma and mysticism. Since my last post, I've dug deeper into Shermer and Dennett and still have not found any reference to their desire to reduce everything to an object, as you suggest. The quote from Shermer is illustrative of much of what I am seeing. Can you perhaps post a section of either man's writing where they explicitly say that everything must be reduced to an object? Or is this, perhaps, just your interpretation of their philosophy? NORM