NORM

Joseph...decided I wasn't fit for Progressive Christians to hear and banned me...stop the free expression of another Christian point of view so that your PC forums won't be upset with the likes of a Gnostic Christian visionary like me.

I remember your previous attempts to spread your "vision" on PC Forum, and your only point seems to be that you have G-d's ear and the rest of us are just dupes.

Joseph isn't protecting us from "another Christian viewpoint" - he's protecting our valuable time. Please take Paul's advice and contain your thoughts in a web log.

Oh, yeah; you already have one. I guess the crickets aren't much company.

NORM

Hello Dave, and welcome to the Forum. Your thoughts are well stated. Let me respond to your last two comments:

1. As long as the pro-life side dismisses its opponents as do-what-I-want feminazis, and as long as the pro-choice side dismisses its opponents as Bible-thumping woman-haters, there is no way our country is going to make any progress on this issue.

I think that, for the most part, these two extremes represent only a tiny, tiny segment of the debate these days. I was on the Pro-Life side during the Moral Majority days when Jerry Falwell mailed millions of photos of freshly aborted fetuses to random households.

Over the years, I've moderated my views significantly to where I am now fully supportive of a woman's right to choose. Reading the book The Cider House Rules weighed heavily in my decision process, as did a couple of personal experiences of which I will share in a moment.

Also, greater access to birth control (thanks to organizations like Planned Parenthood), sex education in schools and among the general public (you can't see a modern film these days where the use of a condom is not prevalent in sex scenes) have led to SIGNIFICANT reductions in the amount of unwanted pregnancies overall.

Unfortunately, the rate is climbing for poor women - possibly the result of political attacks on Planned Parenthood by conservative groups. Unwanted pregnancies are down, however, by 30% among wealthier women.

2. Nearly six years ago, my wife suffered a miscarriage (I call it a stillbirth) at 18 weeks. Our son Ben died of a blood clot in the uterus that was not seen on ultrasound. It was a freak occurrence, with nobody deserving of blame. I do know that I what I saw pass into this world, lifeless, was a baby, though the laws of the state of New Jersey regarded him as tissue. I was too far in shock to hold him - a decision that I will regret for the rest of my life - and instead of being buried, Ben ended up in the hospital lab to be dissected.

 

I'm no constitutional scholar, and I don't have any clue where life begins, but I believe that the idea that an 18-week-old unborn baby can be legally terminated is disturbing.

I am sympathetic of your experience. I lost two children - one to a miscarriage and one to an abortion. I was opposed to the abortion and was willing to support the mother and child financially, but the mother wished to continue her education and didn't want the responsibility of a child. We were very young and were not using birth control at the time.

I share your concern for protecting the life of the unborn, but I don't think this is a simple issue, as you have already pointed out. We must not decide this issue based on when we personally feel the life of a fetus is "viable." I don't think that anyone on either side of this issue would disagree that any fetus is potential human life worthy of the highest level of consideration.

I think that consideration for what kind of life / world the child is being born into is a valid concern - equally as valid as the question of biology. A child born to an unwed mother is more than likely going to live in poverty and constant struggle. Most of the fathers of these children are long gone.

A local woman murdered her 3 year old child recently because of the immense pressure she faced as a single parent. She just snapped under the pressure.

These are the types of realities we face when we place ALL of the burden of parenting on women. This is why they value the freedom of choice.

As someone once said; if MEN bore children, abortion would be legal, free and available on every street corner.

NORM

George, when I converted to Judaism, it was explained to me this way:

The Christian Bible was originally an attempt at a "Jesus Talmud." At first, this was tolerated and even encouraged because it gave the younger Jews some passion for the faith. They saw Jesus as another reformer such as Rabbi Hillel a century earlier.

As the Jesus story gradually became infused with Hellenistic philosophy, it deviated more and more from the fundamentals of the faith (such as monotheism and the role of the priesthood and personal responsibility - keeping "kosher").

Finally, when Jesus was transformed into a deity on a par with G-d, it was the last straw - the reformers went too far. That G-d was one, and not made of flesh and blood was just too central to the faith.

Judaism has always been a Lunar-based faith. The timing of the months is oriented toward the new moon cycle - this is why the Jewish calendar is different from the Christian calendar. The early Christians consciously chose to emulate the customs and take possession of the holidays originally claimed by sun worshipers in order to, it was explained, distance themselves from the increasingly hostile Jewish leadership in Rome.

Perhaps the move from the traditional timing of Shabbat was another thumbing of the nose at the Jewish faith.

NORM

Hello rstrats,

Shabbat, according to the Tanakh, has always been from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday ("And there was evening, and there was morning; one day."), so I'm not sure what this passage in Mark has to do with Shabbat.

NORM

Yes, the benefits being future taxpayers. Seriously. The state's interest in marriage is having future productive members of society who also care for the aging population.

And, is it your contention that homosexual couples cannot care for their elderly parents?

NORM

Our church for instance has decided that marriage is a covenant between two people who choose to merge their lives in front of God. Their genders are irrelevant. We marry people regardless of the legality of the union.

As it should be. Marriage is only meaningful between two people (and / or not; with their G-d).

NORM

To DCJ:

It has been pointed out to me that a post I made the other day may have been "over the top."

This one:

Just because homosexuality is something that you don't understand or find squeamish doesn't mean they are freaks to be excluded from "normal" society.

I was not aiming that statement at you, but trying to make a general statement about some.

The fact that it could be aimed (as a weapon) ought to inform me that it was inappropriate.

I apologize if my meaning became obscured by my rhetoric.

NORM

How can we believe that life is totally accidental (thus I am assuming he thinks matter at all is accidental as well) and still be able to talk about life after death, God, etc?

To my way of thinking, it is easier for me to believe that life is accidental than as a design from some deity in the sky. With all of the tragedy and pain humans suffer in living out their lives, just what kind of monster would this "creator" have to be?

It takes too many mental and philosophical gymnastics to reconcile a "loving G-d" to the suffering by significant numbers of this planet's inhabitants.

To me, it makes far more sense that our concept of G-d is a product of our evolved sense of self-awareness attempting to do the reconciling.

Toward that end, what gives me meaning is to work toward fixing the accidents of an accidental existence.

I do not believe in a life after death. I think that when we die, all sensation is gone. We won't feel a thing. I actually find the concept of eternity a bit daunting - frightening even. There are horror stories (the Myth of Sisyphus, for example) on this subject.

"Be" the miracle - justify your accidental existence!

NORM

Whether homosexuality is natural or not has no bearing on whether same-sex unions can be marriages.

It does matter - the fact that homosexuality is not learned or feigned behavior, but a natural state of being makes all the difference in the world. It means that the homosexual is seeking marriage for EXACTLY the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

Just because homosexuality is something that you don't understand or find squeamish doesn't mean they are freaks to be excluded from "normal" society.

You've offered a dictionary definition of marriage, and pointed out some changing reasons people have had for getting married, but you haven't described what sets marriage apart from other relationships. Any discussion must address these issues:

 

1) In arguing for same-sex marriage, it seems obvious that marriage must include sexual attraction. But why? Why can't two close friends or siblings be married? If their emotional bond is just as deep as the sexually active couple, why should they be disenfranchised because their union isn't sexual?

I'm so glad that you brought this straw dog up, because history is rife with examples of cousins and even brothers and sisters being married in feudal Europe as a means of uniting warring tribes and dynasties. The State's interest in marriage is mainly based on the benefits such unions bring to the society as a whole.

Of course, I am sure that you are aware that medical science has discovered since then that intermarriage of close relatives has negative genetic and health consequences.

What benefits do gay couples bring to society, you ask? Well, the same thing as happily married heterosexual couples: human beings who are being given the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happy people are productive people!

Why do you wish to deny these folks the right to pursue happiness?

So far none of you have been able to identify one single, solitary impediment to the enjoyment of your life should homosexual couples be allowed to marry.

Unless you simply get off on having the power to deny them this happiness.

2) If marriage is primarily about the legal benefits...

Who said that marriage was only about legal benefits?

3) On what basis should a marriage be limited to two people? If three or more people find emotional fulfillment in polyamorous unions, shouldn't they have the legal recognition of a marriage?

Straw dog. I'm surprised that you didn't use the example of someone wanting to marry his dog.

4) why should the state be involved at all in trying to preserve the union?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

NORM

In the Talmud, it is told to us that G-d will rescue one of his own on the third day after some tragedy or calamity. This is gleaned from a pattern recognized all throughout the Tanakh.

The passages most Christians interpret as "predicting" Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (Isaiah 53 mostly) are actually referring to prophecies concerning the people of Israel as a whole. A verse in Hosea is said to refer to a time at the "end of days, when...

“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him”

This is an obvious reference to what we call "the World to Come," which, it should be noted, is nothing at all like the apocalyptic vision of Christian eschatology.

The World to Come is a time in the future when there will be peace on earth and all people will live in harmony with one another. At one point in the history of Judaism, it was thought that Moshiac would usher in this era. Most have abandoned the notion of a special "savior," and interpret all such references to apply to the people as a community. This is why you find most Jewish communities busy doing tzedakah (good works) to help advance this World to Come.

Anyway, the authors of the story of Jesus were undoubtedly aware of this famous passage, and applied it to the telling of the resurrection story - thus, we get the crucified, dead and buried...on the third day...etc...It's steeped with symbolism. It should not be read literally.

As far as your friend telling you that any portion of a day is considered a whole day in "Jewish idiom?" Well, I'm Jewish, and I've never heard of anything so silly. Maybe what this person is referring to is the fact that we count Shabat from 6PM (technically moonrise) Friday evening until 6AM Saturday morning - kind of slicing a day in half???

I hope this helps.

NORM

Norm,

Not really. You assumed wrong. i slipped up in the first sentence using the word preference instead of orientation and got it right in the second one ,...unless of course you think you know what i really meant more than myself.

Then your beliefs are inconsistent with your words. If you TRULY believe that homosexuality is natural for the segment of human kind so "oriented," then you would agree that there is no logical or rational argument against allowing them to share in the definition of marriage.

I am really puzzled at your arguments on this thread. It stands in stark contrast to some of the positions I've know you to defend.

NORM

As far as i am concerned homosexuals are my brothers and sisters and what their sexual preference is is no business of mine. i just have well could have been born a homosexual. The ones i associate with are more loving , thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than many of my heterosexual friends - emphasis mine

Herein lies the problem with your argument, Joseph.

1. You assume that homosexuality is a preference. Ironically, you slipped up in the next sentence and referred to the fact that homosexuality is a normally occurring incidence for a portion of the human population.

2. Your next sentence is the type of sentiment expressed by someone who holds contempt for another type of person, but wishes to mask that contempt by words of false praise. Homosexuals are not "more loving, thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than heterosexuals. They can be hateful, thoughtless, insensitive and mean - just like you or me.

No one human group owns the word marriage (Webster's definition #1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law). It was made up by humans to describe a relationship from one human to another - traditionally, among men and women that originated as a way for warring groups to unite or form some political alliance (ex; King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain). Love had very little to do with it. The fact that men and women could create little subjects was a plus (adding to the population of taxpayers). Over time, marriage evolved to become more about love than convenience [you will notice that Mr. Webster's definition doesn't mention anything about love - should we deny those who wish to marry because of love unworthy because it isn't in Mr. Webster's original definition?]. In America, marriage has added a third and fourth element: tax deduction and spousal benefits - neither of which are mentioned in Webster's definition. Should we deny those who seek such protections use of the word?

So, clearly, human beings are in control of the word marriage, as it has been adapted to suit the ever-changing dynamic of human society.

Homosexuals are just as much a human as you are. Therefore; they "own" the word too. So, Mr. Webster has added a second part to the first entry in the word marriage: (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

This is a straw man argument if I ever heard one.

The only reason heterosexuals perceive a threat to the word marriage is because they believe that they are somehow more of a human than homosexuals.

That argument is out of date.

But what do I know?

NORM

Abortion on demand would be on every street corner in America were men the ones biology chose to bear children. Do you think a person like Mitt Romney would allow the birth of a child to come between him and maximizing profits?

NORM

Try this one: http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=1722155

Well, I am all for rational arguments on any given subject. But, you lose me when you misstate the facts. From the article:

Their [Revisionists who seek equal rights for homosexuals to marry] goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in

our law and replace it with the revisionist conception. - emphasis mine

There is no such effort of which I am aware.

It also overstates the importance of heterosexual coitus in the codification of marriage. The article goes to some length to illustrate the importance of sexual intercourse in the marriage contract. While this is true, there are certainly plenty of examples of thriving marriages where there is NO sexual intimacy at all.

It also speaks of heterosexual marriage that produces children as the "ideal."

I don't think that most advocates of gay marriage have truck with that notion in the abstract. However, it is a fact of life that homosexuals exist and are attracted to one another in just the same way as heterosexual couples.

And, further; there are newer studies http://www.crisismag...ame-sex-couples than the paper cites (the paper's documentation is quite old) that point to countless homosexual couples who have reared normal, healthy children.

They do not seek to deny John and Jane Doe the right to enjoy the privileges of marriage. On the contrary, they wish to join their ranks.

I'm with George on this one: I still see no rational reason to deny same sex marriage.

Sure, there are plenty of rational appeals for discrimination against homosexuals - but I have yet to see one that wins the argument.

And, in societal evolution, it's all about the winning!

NORM

Well George the real question is... Rational argument to who? For example there is this article. I am neither expressing agreement or disagreement with it but only making a point that "making a so called 'rational argument' of this issue " is highly subjective.

Joseph

Thanks, Joseph. You unwittingly provided a rational argument FOR the acceptance of same sex marriage!

The article you posted makes the point that "traditional" marriage (between a man and woman) was not something that Christians or even Jews invented. No, it was conceived in the minds of human beings and established as a custom long before The Church erected one single flying buttress.

Since marriage is a social construct invented in the minds and heart of mankind, it stands to reason that it is quite permissible to alter such constructs as seems fit for the circumstances.

And, since nowadays homosexuals are no longer content to remain in the closet, it's time the human-made institute of marriage evolve to embrace those among us who are naturally inclined to seek a partner among their own sex.

Thanks for the article!

NORM

The Gay Agenda:

http://www.markfiore...ion/agenda.html

I feel a bit uneasy with the wording of the question, as I don't consider myself as "for" abortion. What I am for is a woman's right to choose an abortion. This is a decision between her, her doctor and her conscious or G-d.

I don't think these decisions are entered into lightly in most situations.

A book I read many years ago informed my opinion on this issue: John Irving's, The Cider House Rules.

We ought to seek a society where bringing a new life into the world is welcomed with joy and anticipation rather than fear and hardship.

NORM

- the theory that some of the specifics of religious rites are the result of people with OCD, or other types of mental illnesses.

Heh! That's funny. I never thought about it like that, but in our more Orthodox communities, the morning prayers, ritual washings and food preparations do make one think of someone with OCD.

In the Reformed community, the rituals are seen for their symbolic content rather than something to be obsessively obeyed. The Talmud explains the reasons for The Law was to single out the Jewish community from amongst their neighbors. In early Judaism, the people lived alongside animists, pagans and people who worshiped tree frogs. The vast quantity of very specific rules, rituals and festivals seems to have been a bronze age game of one-upmanship, or 613 reasons to leave your idol.

Christianity, on the other hand, seems to relish the thought of disobeying the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at every turn. As in Reformed Judaism, the 613 Laws to Christians are seen as mainly symbolic, but go out of their way to gloat about being "saved by grace," as if that were enough to kibosh 5,000 years of history.

Personally, I don't think that religion is the result of mental illness. I think it is a part of our intellectual evolution as human beings, and may have served as a kind of social glue - or feudal whip - in order to keep the more quickly evolving sorts in line.

NORM

If it happened, it is not hypothetical as is your assumption that it was not necessary in the process of the evolution of consciousness. I think Dutch's statement was very insightful.

 

Joseph

I don't think you are seeing my point. The Shoah forced those of us in the Jewish faith to evolve. However, it wasn't NECESSARY to that evolution. There were reformers all throughout the early part of the 20th century who were pushing for secularization. Had we listened to their counsel; my great-great grandfather would likely be here today (were he to live to the age of 97).

My point is that we don't need to wait for a calamitous situation to force societal evolution.

Every now and then we ought to listen to our dreamers:

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one - Imagine, by John Lennon

NORM

What if believing in a substitutionary sacrifice was a necessary step in the evolution of our thinking about Jesus.Maybe if the early Christians had not seen the crucifixion as that important Jesus would not continue to be present for us today. Robert Wright, an atheist/agnostic, says near the end of his book, Evolution of God, that as the evolution of our ideas about God bring us to "God is Love" or universal love then that is something he could believe in.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Without the radical redefining of Jesus as an apocalyptic, supernatural messiah, his story more than likely would have remained in the dustbin of failed first century reformers and revolutionaries.

I share Robert Wright's sentiments. I cannot accept a G-d that requires blood sacrifice for the atonement of some imaginary and arbitrary wrong. I can get with the god-is-love theme. It is not based on believing in miracles and superstitions. Anyone can (and should) try to love their neighbor as themselves. There is no need for complex theological constructs or exclusionary religious litmus tests.

In evolution the stages of change do not define the current being but were necessarily apart of the development. Not necessarily the only path but belief in sacrifice is a stage in our development. The temptation is to say that the idea was wrong from the beginning but it may not have been. It may been necessary in the development of our ideas today.

When speaking of human ideas and thinking, I don't think you can say that any process was necessary - just that it happened, and here's why. The burning of heretics at the stake for worshiping the wrong deity wasn't necessary - it just happened.

Just because one of the small bones in our ear evolved from an extra bone in a alligators jaw does not make us alligators or alligators human. Evolution re-purposes what is into what will become.

I appreciate the analogy, but societal evolution is not the equivalent of biological evolution. Biological evolution can be quantified, tested in the laboratory and analyzed. Social anthropology is mostly theoretical.

NORM

Salvation Army?

 

George

My best friend's mother was an officer (or some such) with the Salvation Army - flaming liberal. They are DEFINITELY on the progressive side of social welfare issues. Yes, they are anti-abortion though - at least they were when I hung around with them.

BTW, The SA is one of the first evangelical Christian organizations to allow women to fully participate at all levels. VERY progressive on that front:

"I insist on the equality of women with men. Every officer and soldier should insist upon the truth that woman is as important, as valuable, as capable and as necessary to the progress and happiness of the world as man. Unfortunately a large number of people of every tribe, class and nationality think otherwise. They still believe woman is inferior to man." - William Booth, 1908

NORM

Norm, I think there are a number of soup kitchens run by conservative Christian groups.

I've worked for many of them in my area, and have yet to see one. Perhaps conservative on social issues? I DO know of food pantry / soup kitchen / Habitat for Humanity volunteers who are morally conservative (i.e., anti-abortion), but are not members of the Republican Party. They tend to be Catholics, who are generally speaking; normally aligned with the Democrat (progressive) Party.

But, I wonder if the motivation is concern for the material well being of others (who are strangers) or proselytizing. The food, as I understand, is always accompanied by a sermon and/or religious tracts.

Well, now that you mention it, there are "outreach" programs offered by some Baptist churches that I am aware of. And, yes, they do require (it's mandatory - if you want a meal, you HAVE to sit through an altar call) attendance at a sermon of some sort. Having grown up in such a church, I know that the budget for these things always comes from the evangelism line item.

And, believe me, the food was of the most least expensive quality possible - hardly considerate of proper nutrition.

If one is interested primarily in winning converts, is the accompanying charity really an expression of altruism or recruiting new members to one's tribe?

 

George

I suppose it depends on the people on the receiving end of the charity. Personally, I wouldn't care what the motivation was.

NORM

George, I have noticed this trend.

I volunteer for a few charity groups around town, and notice that to a person, the volunteers and organizers are all of a liberal political leaning. I've yet to come across a conservative Republican in a soup kitchen (except conservative politicians looking for a photo op during election season).

However, when I was younger, my father took me to a store-front "shelter" for poor folks in the city sponsored by our Baptist church (very conservative). They served coffee and gave a sermon. Other than that, there was no attempt to provide material assistance. The emphasis was on the "eternal soul." In a way, one could say that this is caring for strangers.

Of course, anecdotes are hardly proof of a trend. I would be interested to see some sort of statistical analysis to back up this claim.

When I asked a conservative friend to explain this alleged phenomenon, he said that "Conservatives are too busy working hard to provide the money for our welfare state to volunteer in a soup kitchen."

Hmm.

NORM

One of the things I saw as important was honesty, so I started trying to be more honest. I wasn’t a dishonest person before but I tried to make sure what I said was truthful to the extent I could. But a weird thing happened because of that. In all honesty, I had to admit to myself that the basic premise of Christianity didn’t make sense to me.

I really appreciate this sentiment. Well said.

For me, it happened when I was eight years old. I was raised in a Baptist church, but my father encouraged my love of science, mathematics and literature. I read voraciously.

We also had the habit, as a family, to read the Bible in its entirety every year. During breakfast and after dinner. Every night. For at least 10 years.

It didn't take very long for me to come to the same conclusion as you. The Gospel story, as it is related, doesn't make sense. It does not align AT ALL with the system of sacrifice, justice and Law as represented in the portion of the Bible largely ignored by most Christians - the Tanakh, or Jewish Bible. What Christians call the Old Testament.

In fact, the G-d represented by Christians is a different G-d than the one represented by Jews all over the world.

Yet, in order for Christianity to "make sense," it must be predicated on the fact that it is a fulfillment of the Jewish story.

The two simply cannot reconcile. They are as far as the east is from the west, to borrow a Biblical metaphor.

But, I struggled forward hoping that somehow my spirituality would trump my intellect. I came close - particularly during the period in my life when I consumed massive quantities of mind altering drugs.

Then I sobered up and embraced Christianity with abandon, mainly because it was a warm fuzzy to me. I was familiar with the nomenclature.

Dammit, it happened again. The minute I put my nose in the Bible, those old realizations surfaced. Big Time.

I've since converted to Reform Judaism (I am Jewish by birth, so it made sense). You see, in Judaism, its more about how you live your life rather than embracing myths and miracles. "Be the miracle" is a common affirmation. I am fully agnostic, bordering on atheist and am embraced by my Jewish community with open arms.

If you find the moral teachings of Jesus make sense to you, then perhaps you should investigate Judaism. Jesus was, after all - Jewish.

NORM

For me, personally, I utterly thoroughly completely (!!) dislike politics.

This is an impossible position for the citizen of a State:

Politics: from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens"

I think that you mean to say; you dislike the extreme polarization we are experiencing in our political discourse.

As far as churches having or not having tax-exempt status, I would ask, does that mean there should be no exemptions for nonprofits? If so, well and good; if not, how does nonprofit get defined?

I would make a distinction between those who exist as a "club," and those who have a positive impact on the community in a material way. I've suggested tax credits for community service. I would impose similar restrictions on nonprofits. There are far too many such entities that merely exist to stroke the egos of their members.

I think a lot of liberals would shout rather loudly if their pet projects were taxed.

I agree. If an organization is NOT helping - tax 'em!!!

i have to say I too think Jesus' message and the example of the earliest Christian lives links with socialism. (I just heard my entire conservative family and community gasp.)

I don't see how one could view it any other way. If the Bible is our lamp, then it seems to me that the spotlight is on a socialistic worldview; i.e., sharing all in common, no hierarchies, no amassing great fortunes (as has the current Conservative presidential candidate). I would like to see someone explain to me - using scripture alone - how Conservative politics aligns with a Biblical worldview.

NORM