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

The body of knowledge of the existing universe, in my opinion, has been vastly expanded with the advent of the scientific method. Atomic theory, human anatomy and morphology, etc... I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? I don't see this as a cause for concern. So they see science as a valid explanation for perceived reality? You see, I presume, the supernatural as a valid explanation for reality. I happen to agree with Shermer and Dennett and not you. This is not to say that I don't value your belief system, just that I and others see reality through different lenses. Yes, this is an accurate description of naturalism. I hold to this way of thinking, and it seems right to me. Call it a "show-me" state of being. This statement is the equivalent of me saying that all Christians are homophobic. I'm a naturalist and I don't seek to reduce everything to an object. I don't think that either Shermer or Dennett wish to reduce everything to an object. I think the project is moving along quite nicely. As far as I'm concerned, nothing is "settled." NORM

I think that science and the scientific method is peeling back the onion skin of reality. I'm not sure that either Shermer or Dennett are making "religious" (i.e.; Truth) statements of faith. They are merely bystanders watching as the onion is peeled and offering play-by-play and color commentary. In truth, I would say that most who embrace naturalism (as do I) do not look on it as some kind of replacement for religious faith. It is a cavalcade of moments wherein we realize that another layer of faulty belief has been stripped from the core. This process can be quite traumatic at first, but as the skins pile up on the floor, a sort of anxious excitement awaits the next layer. Indeed, it is the practice of naturalists to scoff at the heady words of wisdom proffered by their predecessors, all the while realizing that it may be their skin next to hit the compost heap. BTW, I think that your assessment of the process looking from the outside is quite valid. Whether or not it is the correct observation; only time will tell. NORM

My take precisely. Mr. Bell adds the evangelical coating to run of the mill, liberal, post Vatican II Christianity. The problem for Bell, IMO, is that he still insists on embracing the Bible as something other than a collection of early human writings. Oh sure, he interprets liberally, but insists on calling the Bible the Word of G-d. As a result, he must contort scripture into a hermeneutical pretzel in order to maintain the illusion. Still, I find it encouraging that so many Christians are willing to abandon such orthodoxy as a literal heaven / hell, the virgin birth, the trinity, triumphalism, etc... The best part of his message is his embracing of Universalism (although he curiously shies away from this term). This is what is bringing him the most heat - the idea that unbelieving scum like me can have a place in the Kingdom of G-d. NORM

Thanks Juanster! I started reading it. You can find it HERE NORM

Ending poverty is hard work. Condemning behavior that you know for certain you would never be "guilty" of yourself is easy. NORM

I've always been inspired by the lyrics found in U2 songs: NORM

You don't know how happy it makes me to see someone other than me making this point on a "religious" forum! Too often on fora such as this, Christians will compare homosexuality with thievery, alcoholism, debauchery, etc., in an attempt to show that they are not opposed to homosexuality, per se, just "homosexual acts." This frosts me to no end. This issue is particularly personal for me because a young man who was drummed out of a church I attended (using those same arguments), consequently took his own life. I was one of the people to find his body. The image - and the shame of being a member of that church - is forever burned into my mind. NORM

Good Evening Mr. Muir, I too am a Deist, and you make some very good points. However, many on this forum have embraced the philosophy of Jesus as described in the Christian Bible. This man taught benevolence and charity to the poor, shunned wealth and broke societal barriers that tended to divide humankind into categories of worth. I truly believe that were he alive today, he would be in favor of our social welfare programs (as flawed as they are), championing the rights of the dispossessed, such as homosexuals (not all choose their orientation just as you, sir, did not choose your heterosexuality). BTW, prison encounters are rape and not homosexual "love." Jesus said that to whom much is given, much is required. Many in the progressive camp interpret this as a suggestion that those to whom the fates have been kind (and, let's not kid anyone - people gain great wealth by luck, circumstance or conniving. Rarely is it merely the reward for hard work. If this were true, there would be millionaire coal miners. I appreciate the fact that you came over to America with a dream and a vision and worked hard to get to where you are. Let's celebrate the progressiveness of our founders who radically rebelled against the monarchists to forge a nation based on idealism and faith in the human spirit in order to provide a place where you could achieve your dream. Shalom. NORM