Jump to content

NORM

Senior Members
  • Posts

    613
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by NORM

  1. MsPrag, I would encourage you to visit your local synagogue. They are more than eager to embrace those who have fallen away from Christianity. In a way, since Christianity was a rejection of Judaism, you could say that we are the Prodigal sons and daughters that Jesus taught about in one of his parables. NORM
  2. First, allow me to use this opportunity to welcome you to the PC forum. I read your post in the Introduction section, and much of what you said parallels my own experience. In fact, I think you will find many among us who can relate to your journey. My devolution from theism was gradual, but punctuated by three major "events." The first major event was discovering that I am of Jewish ancestry on my mother's side. When my grandfather passed away, we discovered that he had hidden the fact that his parents were Jewish (he was orphaned when both parents were killed in a horse carriage accident in New York city). Curiosity drove me to begin reading the Talmud and learning Hebrew from a local Rabbi. I am impressed with modern Judaism's emphasis on the world as it is and can be, rather than an apocalyptic vision of "heaven and hell" to replace this world. I am equally impressed that it is quite possible to embrace Jewish thinking and philosophy while remaining a non-theist. In fact, I've met plenty of Jewish Atheists. The second event was the reading of a book called Constantine's Sword by James Carroll. At the time, I was a practicing Christian attending a moderately progressive, mainline denomination (Swedish Lutheran) church. Someone who I respect very much suggested I read it and keep an open mind. After the first few chapters, I threw the book in the garbage because it was just too much for me to accept. Eventually, I dug it out of the trash and finished it. Determined to debunk the book, I set about to research the footnotes and bibliography from which Mr. Carroll derived his theories. The research panned out, so it left me with serious doubts about the "bloody-cross path to salvation" taught in most of the Christian churches I've attended. The third, and probably most influential experience, was the death of my mother. She was a very devout Christian all of her life and had such blind faith, it was inspiring. At the age of 69, she was diagnosed with stage 4 Lymphoma cancer. She had three years to live. An accident by the Hospice that was taking care of her in her last days left her suffering horribly the final days of her life. We had to watch her die a slow, painful death - wishing, no; PRAYING for death to release her. I recall very vividly crying out to G-d: "Why would you let one of your most devoted followers suffer such a stupidly, unnecessarily, painful death!" I can understand cancer, but needless suffering? Why would a "just, loving and INVOLVED deity allow this? Of course, there are plenty of acceptable justifications, but none that would indemnify the type of deity I'd been sold over these many years. Currently, I still embrace the philosophy of Judaism, but am thoroughly non-theistic. Most of my Christian friends cannot discuss any of this with me without trying to reconvert me, or worse; condemning me. There are none who can understand the concept of a non-theistic worldview that is moral in nature. It is an anomaly that doesn't fit within the realm of possibility to their way of thinking. I am resolved to simply let it be. Live and let live! I no longer attend any type of religious assembly, save for the occasional festival at the local Synagogue. I hope you can find peace of mind in your theological adventure. You won't find much in the way of condemnation within the confines of this happy, little Forum. NORM
  3. NORM

    Law Of Liberty

    To me (and I think Spong has written about this as well), it is evidence of the rift between Paul and the "traditional" Jews under James' (James the Just) leadership in Jerusalem. The so-called "Law of Liberty" is the main sticking point between Paul's Hellenistic reforms and those who wished to remain observant (Sabbath, dietary laws, festivals, etc.). NORM
  4. I recently read the book, too. Actually, BECAUSE of the Fox News "report." I thought it was well written, and fairly well researched (as much as one can considering the utter lack of information about Jesus). Reza's writing does resemble that of Spong. Welcome to the forum. NORM
  5. Hello Fred and Amber. I look forward to checking out your link, and welcome to our little corner of the universe. NORM
  6. Hello JR, I think most of us here can relate to the feeling you are alone in your doubts, and long to say "what you really think" out loud. Well, allow me the first to say; feel free to speak your mind! You are among friends. NORM
  7. At one point in my life, I was deeply entrenched in Calvinism. Particularly; Dutch Reformed Calvinism. In fact, my moniker, NORM, is loosely based on a character created as a menomic to remember Abraham Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty in which all things can be reduced down to NORMS of behavior. We created a ficticious Dutch philosopher by the name of Norm A. Tive. So, I certainly understand where you are coming from. Calvinism, I think, is a potentially destructive form of religious legalism. Of course, I would posit that about just about any human religion. Few are without fault. NORM (in the kindest sense of the word)
  8. Oh, my! I do stand corrected. I went back and looked at my notes, and it appears I misread the dates. I misread the date of the Buddha's appearance as 7th Century CE instead of BCE. I admit I have not spent much time with Buddhist teachings, but from what I have read, I don't see much similarity - unless you are referring to Jesus' pacifism. I think that Jesus' philosophy is more a reflection of Hillel's teaching - almost word for word at times. Perhaps it was Hillel that traveled to India? He certainly had the time, as the Talmud claims he lived to be over 100 years old. NORM
  9. Hi Amy. I agree. Question: does your significant other (assuming, of course, there is one) share your thoughts on this matter? If not, how do you handle this ... Complication? NORM
  10. I agree with you, Joseph. One of the things I admire most about PC is its willingness to alter previously held ideas when new information is gleaned. NORM
  11. I think you actually missed my point. There is no "faith" involved in the scientific method. ANY rule can be changed with sufficient evidence to the contrary. This is not the case in most religions. NORM
  12. Hi Anna-Lena, I became familiar with these works while doing research on a novel I was writing at the time (about a mystery religion cult started by St. Peter). The problem I discovered is that these authors have Jesus (whom they call St. Issa) learning Buddhism during a visit to India. Buddhism didn't enter India until the 7th Century CE - long after Jesus' time. It's a fascinating idea, though. However, the philosophy taught by Jesus doesn't resemble what I recall as the teachings of The Buddah. NORM
  13. I disagree Matteoam, One does not "believe" in Science. The whole point of the scientific process is that it is a process of discovery that is ongoing and never static. There are "rules" of physics that are only valid as long as experimentation cannot disprove them. It is entirely unlike religious belief. Religious beliefs do not need validation - they are assumed to be correct. NORM
  14. I suppose it could be defined as any organization that can convince a room full of people that by following a set of principles, rituals, rites, traditions, ancient texts, new revelations, and etc. - to the exclusion of all other such things - is the TRUE pathway to God, G-d, god, gods, Godz, heaven, eternal life, Nirvana, and etc. NORM
  15. I agree with your sentiments. It seems there is an overabundance of Christians obsessed with homosexuality. I think that there is always a certain percentage of the human / animal population that are born gay. They do not chose it, nor should they reject who they are. This is the simple truth that these Christians fail to grasp because they are allowing themelves to be informed by an ancient text. NORM
  16. Belief in the resurrection is a deal breaker for me. So, according to those standards, I am not a Christian. I don't believe in the supernatural. NORM
  17. I think vagueness is an essential element of any successful religion. NORM
  18. I see your point about definitions. I think it is perfectly fine to say that this or that "defines" what it means to be a Christian. I think many people like the idea of belonging to some group or club that is exclusive to their particular way of thinking and believing. It is vestigial, I think, to our history as members of human tribes when such arrangements were beneficial. However, I still long for the day when we as a species evolve beyond these things, and can live in harmony without respect to obedience to a cult of superstition or religion. In the words of John Lennon; "a brotherhood of man." NORM
  19. Definition of SYNCRETISM 1 : the combination of different forms of belief or practice 2 : the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms I think that we are all "guilty" of some manner of syncretism (using the definition from Merriam Webster above) in our religious beliefs. I have not met one single Christian, Jewish person, Muslim, Hindu or etc., who didn't blur the lines between their professed faith expression and whatever smattering of philosophy or hodgepodge of gleaned theology from an accidental exposure. I think that Paul quite consciously infused the Jewish faith as expressed by the first group of worshipers who fell under the teachings of Jesus with pagan / Hellenistic thought and philosophy. I think that those who would later compose the writings we call the Gospels either ignored or were not exposed to Paul's letters with the possible exception of the gospels attributed to "John" and "Luke." I think that the religion we call Christianity today owes its very essence to the mind of Paul. The letter to the Romans alone is dripping with much of the major tenets of the faith. It departs quite radically from the Jewish faith as practiced by Jesus and his immediate followers. I do not think this is either good or bad from my perspective, as I align myself more closely to Judaism than Christianity. I prefer a clear distinction between the two - what with all that today's Christian "majority" seems to want to align itself with. NORM
  20. There is comfort in what is familiar. I totally understand. NORM
  21. Crudely put, but, I think - correct. There is no orthodoxy in a faith that is in a constant state of flux as we experience and live life and embrace G-d to the fullest extent of our being. What is right and true today, could be wrong next month should we learn something new. A modern analogy is the current situation with the Duck Dynasty patriarch, Phil. In his small corner of the planet, the civil strife of African Americans never happened. In his experience - and, thus; in his orthodoxy - African Americans had nothing to complain about, since in his experience, they were all well treated and happily whistling gospel tunes while harvesting cotton alongside he and his brothers. In his mind, all of the horrors visited upon African Americans post Civil War didn't happen because he didn't personally witness them. Were he to see what actually happened - and, indeed; what still happens - he might have adjusted his orthodoxy accordingly, and still be enjoying those $200,000 per episode paychecks from A&E. NORM
  22. I agree with Paul that I would hate to see some version of the Trinity, or any "orthodoxy" concomitant to being one of us. In my way of thinking, that undermines the purpose of this forum. I do, however, appreciate your clarification on your understanding on the Trinity. I think if that helps you in your understanding of G-d and makes you a more loving, compassionate follower of Jesus, then I'm all for it. If, however, you are seeking a common frame of reference - an orthodoxy - by which one can be successfully indoctrinated into "the faith," then I think that is counterproductive to this particular forum. NORM
  23. I think that, as the name implies, PROGRESSIVE Christianity is not a static set of beliefs that never change. Your question is perhaps a non sequitur? NORM
  24. I think this establishes a kind of "clubbiness" to the definition of Christian. I don't think Jesus rolled that way. I think if presented with the mental gymnastics of the so-called "Trinity," Jesus would start writing amusing things in the sand. NORM
  25. I think that children need to be exposed to those who are less fortunate so that they can gauge their respective "comfort." We were by no means wealthy, but we had what we needed; basic shelter, food on the table, etc. As a family, we volunteered quite a bit (through our church, mostly) to help with soup kitchens, food pantries, and various, sundry works programs dealing with the poor, elderly and mentally challenged individuals. Our children worked right along with us - so, they probably had a greater appreciation for our personal situation than most kids their age. They've most certainly seen many, many folks who were in dire circumstances. Neither of our children seemed spoiled or unappreciative of their lot in life. I think exposure to those less fortunate is partially responsible for that. For myself; I spent my first summer break from college in Haiti. It was that experience that cured me of my 70's spoiled brat mentality. I am just thankful that the genetic lottery was favorable to me. NORM
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service