NORM

Bullied? Please provide some examples of this claim. Perhaps their understanding of G-d is different from yours. For example, I don't believe in a three-tiered universe where there is a spirit being called "God" dictating the course of events on this planet. I also don't believe that there is a Prime Mover orchestrating events within this world. I think, rather, that G-d is a concept within each one of us that is enabling us to evolve as a species to a place where loving-kindness is the NORM. A Ground of Being (to borrow from minds greater than mine) seems to me a rather nice way of putting it. I do not have hostile feelings toward those of faith, and I have even complimented you on your expression of Christianity. I am sorry if you perceive some in this forum as "bullies," and hope that you don't count me among their numbers. Sincerely, NORM

OK. Under that definition, I would agree. You have to understand, that although I am now Jewish, I was raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist Church. In that paradigm message means something entirely different. That is to what I thought you were referring. My apologies. We do agree. NORM

My understanding is that there is no "message" in Judaism. The faith IS about living. There is nothing else. The Rebbe's argue about HOW we should live. That's what the commentary illuminates. The mystics worry about hidden meanings and numerology. Perhaps to them, the message is more important. Or, do you have another meaning to message? Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. NORM

I absolutely LOVE the commentary! Nothing is more stimulating than watching a group of worldly-wise, elder Rebbes have at it over a parcel of Tanakh! The Jewish faith is definitely NOT a spectator sport. NORM

As pointed out by our moderator, these threads aren't exclusive to theists. If you wish an agnostic or atheist free forum, I would suggest a place like T-Web or some such. They have all but a couple forums limited to people who think just like them. Ouch! I reserve the right to have conflicting views about mythological subjects! LOL! Seriously, I still maintain that my thoughts and opinions of Jesus are not a "personal theory." I did not come up with the idea of a materialistic understanding of Jesus. I first encountered it through reading and lectures I've heard. I can't claim it as a theory of my own. I lean in that direction, but, as I've said; I don't really care whether Jesus is a real person or an amalgam of Biblical heroes as Bishop Spong suggests. I do not believe in miracles or divine intervention in human affairs. Sorry, I just haven't seen anything that would confirm otherwise. You know, some days I glean different understanding from the books I read. Other days, I discover something entirely different. I don't think that literature can - or should - be interpreted in only one way. The religious hierarchy could complain all day about Jesus' blasphemy, but the Romans were the only ones who could enforce a "final solution." Jesus certainly wasn't the only Jew in history to die at the hands of political opportunists. The actor's name is Wayne Turney. Here is a link to his website. It has listings for current productions of The Gospel of Mark. http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/ Believe it or not, people of no faith can add to the discussion. We aren't totally without good ideas! NORM

(continued from previous post) Which is precisely how I countered those Rabbis who whined about Jesus copying Hillel. Yes, I would agree with you here. Again, I was referring to what some Jews believe - these tend to be Conservative. I'm Reformed.The Conservative have the biggest ax to grind with Jesus. I don't think that I, or anyone else, for that matter, can "prove" exactly what Jesus taught his followers. Heh - the Rabbi who saw me through conversion actually gave me a copy of that book! She thought that I would relate to him. I did. There is a play written locally that is the entire book of Mark "acted" out in its entirety. It is quite phenomenal, and hits on some of the points you mention above. I'll have to dig out some of the articles I've read concerning exactly how Hillel was perceived in the Jewish community of his age. There are strong commentaries against his teaching - calling him a false prophet BECAUSE of his disrespect for the letter of the Law. Are you perhaps thinking of Rabbi Shammai? The two are often compared and contrasted with Shammai being the staunch traditionalist and Hillel the reformer. There is a Talmudic story that describes a young acolyte who approaches both Shammai and Hillel with the challenge to teach him the Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai chases the young man away with a rod, but Hillel responds: I don't have enough information to say one way or the other on this point. Is there some documentation you have to support your knowledge of exactly what Jesus was taught, and by whom? I can only think of one instance in the Bible where it is even mentioned - and the teachers of the Torah are unidentified. My ancestors would point to a hundred thousand crosses littered all over the Hinnom Valley to argue that it didn't take much to piss off the Romans! Perhaps not, but he certainly contributed much to its understanding among my people. NORM

For some reason, I am being told that I am "over the quoted passages limit" in my response to your post. Therefore, I am dividing into two sections. I wouldn't call it a personal theory - just a picking and choosing of random theories of the thousands floating around out there. I really could care less about the "historical" Jesus - I'm not even 100% sure he even existed and is not in reality a composite of many such wandering magicians / healers around the turn of the Common Era. Not as I put it - as Thomas Jefferson put it: NORM (continued next post).

From what I've learned, Hillel was a century too early for his teaching. He wasn't popular until he was well into his old age (The Talmud says that he lived over 100 years). I believe that the teachings of Jesus spread because of the age in which he was born. The advent of traveling merchants (like Paul of Tarsus) helped spread new ideas and religions; Christianity being one of them. Someone must have been writing down the sayings of Jesus (or someone like the Biblical description of Jesus) which became the basis of the Gospel stories. The Talmud was written in Hebrew (not a lingua-franca) and in a cloistered community under duress (the Palestinian Talmud). The Babylonian Talmud was written free of Roman persecution, so it is the one most commonly referred to. It is important to keep in mind that the Talmud was an oral tradition well into the third Christian century, many considering it erroneous to write down the "living document" of the Talmudic teachings. Many Rabbi's I've had discussions with are convinced that the Sermon on the Mount was a "leaked" version of some Talmudic instruction attributed to Jesus. Even the convention of "you have heard that it is said..." is a common device found in the Talmud where the teacher is altering some common understanding of the Law and "turning it on its head," which is a loose translation of the phrase Midrash halakha, the storytelling style of the Talmud. Hillel's teaching has had somewhat of a renaissance of late in the Jewish community because of his emphasis on the "spirit" of the Law rather than simply going through the motions of ritual. I hope this helps. BTW, if you can get your hands on a copy of Adin Steinsaltz's The Essential Talmud, he discusses this subject in some detail. Take me advice, though, and tread lightly on this subject with some of the older Rebbe's - it's a source of anger that Jesus got credit for a LOT of Jewish thinking. NORM

I attend a Reform Community. I think it is admirable that you are seeking to discover the philosophy Jesus was attempting to communicate. I think it unfortunately gets bogged down in all of what Thomas Jefferson called "nonsense" by all the added miracles and contrived "fulfillment" of prophecy. Their is scant "there" there concerning the thoughts and beliefs of Jesus. And, as you have so eloquently pointed out, the message gets even more distorted with the "teaching" of Paul. Personally, I think that the Jesus of history was a student of Hillel. It's possible, if we are to believe that Jesus was born in the early part of the first century CE, that he actually studied personally under the great Jewish thinker. Of course, this is all speculation on my part, but from what I've studied of Hillel's writings, it all makes sense - particularly in light of what you are saying concerning Jesus' thoughts on the soul. Hillel goes into great detail about the subject. Hillel was considered a reformer because of his emphasis on the "spirit" of the Law rather than the "jots and tittles." Sound familiar? I've read quite a bit of Ms. Pagel's work, but not the one you reference. I will seek it out. BTW, a former Rabbi in my Minyan would disagree with you on the subject of atheism (from a purely intellectual basis - i.e.; not able to accept the idea of deity). He is convinced that it is entirely possible to obey the Shema while an atheist. I've come to agree with him on this point. I do not call myself an atheist, but I am most definitely a non-theist. This is why I've adopted the little Jewish community. It matters not to them that I cannot intellectually conceive of a deity. It is enough that I love my neighbor as myself. Therefore, I have standing in the community. NORM

I'm not sure I would use venture capitalism as an apt comparison to anti-theist progression. Venture capitalism ala Romney is deconstruction with the intent of maximizing profits - damn the consequences. In progressive theology, the consequences are the point. Building something of holistic value is the goal. For example, Spong's series on Think Different - Accept Uncertainty makes what I think is good progress toward a workable, non-theistic Christian worldview. Part of this process necessarily involves deconstruction - but, with a positive goal as the desired outcome. NORM

Was it Dutch Reformed? I am familiar with Jung's description of the soul. You are correct; it very much coincides with the Jewish perspective. Of course, without all the supernatural stuff. NORM

This is what attracted me to the Jewish faith from Christianity. I saw how, in the common understanding, one begins with the premise that humanity is inherently evil (due to the "Fall"). In Judaism, it is the exact opposite. Humanity can be nothing BUT good from its core (soul), because G-d created it. The Genesis account, to the Jew, is not about original sin, but about what we can aspire to accomplish (the symbol of the Garden is very important to Jewish philosophy as a metaphor for completeness). It is difficult to explain, but is much clearer in the original Hebrew. English translation of Jewish philosophy sucks!! NORM

This is very close to a Jewish understanding of the soul. We do not separate it from the body and mind. We do not bend, fold or mutilate the soul. The Shema (our morning and evening prayers) tell us: V'ahav'ta eit Adonai Elohekha b'khol l'vav'kha uv'khol naf'sh'kha uv'khol m'odekha - And you shall love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. I view the "soul" as the complete package; i.e. - Me. Thanks for sharing this. I wish all Christians had your perspective. NORM

Yet, physical, cultural and environmental happenstance will dictate these "choices." What are the spiritual-choice realities of someone born in Yemen? In Israel? In India? In the wilderness Steppes of Upper Mongolia? A small tribe along the Amazon River? The fact that there are so many "choices" leads one to presume that none are "reality" - only a product of the environment and peer pressure. So, the spiritual-choice reality thesis argues against triumphalist claims. Or, perhaps this is your argument? NORM

Hello Jen, I find your worldview very refreshing. I am always amazed at the human capacity to rise above disaster. Our family has endured much tragedy and suffering, yet, we remain mostly hopeful and positive in our philosophy. We are Christian and Jewish (me), and have managed to pare away all the negative dross (Sinners in the hands of an angry G-d / ritual and guilt) revealing a positive worldview. NORM

I would agree with the basis of this comment, however, I still wouldn't characterize it as "great." I certainly do not anticipate death with relish. There's too much I want to see and experience. I want to live life to the fullest, and live long enough to see my grandchildren grow up. In fact, I wish that I NEVER had to go. I enjoy life! Isn't this what theists are really after? Eternal life? I don't share your optimism. In my experience, dead people remain dead. I think the evidence is more strongly in favor of nothing happening when we die. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, I would really like to see it! As I stated above, I would like to live forever. Again, what evidence do you have to support this theory of loosed chains? How do you know that if there is an afterlife, that it will be idyllic? What if there were more chains in the afterlife than now? To our eternal shame!!! Me too. I'm not so much sorry for myself, except at the time, it was very hurtful. I actually feel sorry for people who think they have to die in order to experience pleasure. This life offers so much fulfillment. NORM

What chains? I would never, ever suggest rejoicing at death - unless it was at the end of a terrible suffering. And even then, rejoice would be the wrong word. Perhaps; relief. All I'm saying is that there is no need for a deity to understand death. Nor do we need to appease this deity in order to buy favors for the afterlife. My father recently passed away, and some wingnut had the gall to tell my sister and I that "Your father's death must serve God's purpose," or some such silliness. This was during the Wake, mind you, before my father was even in the ground. I don't care if you believe that; just don't go spouting this nonsense while your standing in line to greet a mourning family. NORM

I've come to look at dying, suffering, etc. not as "evil" - as though there were something tangible we could do about it - but, rather; as just the natural state of things. Evil as a thing that is caused by either sinful behavior or a malevolent god seems rather silly to me. Remove the deity from the equation, and "bad stuff" is only interpreted as such from a human perspective. Negative consequences of, say; walking out into oncoming traffic because you imbibed too many Jagermeisters are just that - negative consequences of stupidity and entropy, not evil. However, if one accepts the paradigm of biblical evil (the Fall), then logic would dictate that this god created "evil" because, in that worldview; it exists in the first place. So, I can see your quandary. NORM

It is very interesting, indeed. My fellow Jews (Reformed and Orthodox) had this discussion several decades ago. Their conclusion: while the Torah and the majority of Talmudic teaching clearly condemn the homosexual act (note: not the homosexual), modern experience and teaching suggest such a ban is not consistent with today's views on the subject. In other words, in the evolution of faith, one must distinguish between those things postulated in ignorance and those things which retain value. Condemning homosexuals based on the writings of ancient scribes, when in your heart you know it is wrong, ignores one of the greatest lessons of Rabbi Hillel; "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others." NORM

Myron, I personally would find your departure greatly disappointing. From my perspective, many of the threads are far to "churchy" for my tastes, but I genuinely like the folks in this forum. You included! NORM

Here's how the "youth" in progressive Seattle react to a gay rights speech: NORM

As former House Speaker Tip O'Neil once said; "all politics is local." For those who live in progressive, urban communities, I'm sure there is some evidence of progress. But, I have to agree with Myron if I analyze it from where I live in the Midwest. I was shocked when our state voted OVERWHELMINGLY to support the anti-gay, Defense of Marriage Act. There were bubbles of a Progressive movement in the 20s, 60s and briefly in the early 90s. But, I think that we are going generally backwards in American society. It's what I observe in my neck of the woods. Perhaps you live in a more progressive area? My favorite newspaper is the New York Times and my favorite magazine is The Atlantic. Sometimes I feel as though I am reading about happenings on another planet. My daughter would come home from school and tell me of some of the racist, homophobic comments she heard on a daily basis on her ride home on the bus. After high school, she spent two years in Chicago attending Columbia Arts school, lived across the street from Wrigley Field and worked at FitClub gym. There, she found the attitude open toward the LGBT community. Then, she transferred to a college in Louisville, KY. WOW!!! What a difference. So, while there may be "pockets" of progressive thought on the subject, we are a long way off from general acceptance - articles in progressive publications to the contrary notwithstanding. It's a nice thought, but I think it is harmful to believe the battle is over. Don't believe me? Go post pro-gay comments on T-Web, the Washington Post forum, or the Columbus Dispatch and see what happens. NORM

From the link: I can get down with that (except the part about the indwelling of the trinity). Kind of reminds me of transcendental meditation. NORM

I've never quite understood the purpose of prayer in the Christian faith. In Judaism, prayer is an open dialogue with G-d. In fact, arguing with G-d is commonplace. In Islam, it is an affirmation of what Allah is. In Shintoism, it is a communion with the Universe (which includes the Divine). Ditto Buddhism, Taoism, and most other Eastern religions. Christianity seems alone in asking G-d for intervention, or to get stuff, or to be healed - selfish stuff. Then there are the group prayer sessions that seem more about spreading gossip about other church members than anything remotely resembling communication with a deity. I once served on a church Council where the Chairperson would spend nearly 30 minutes each meeting pontificating his particular (warped) views of Christianity in the guise of "prayer." Something like that would NEVER happen in a Jewish prayer - they pontificate to your face!! No need to bring G-d into the discussion. Heh! In my current situation, I no longer pray "to" a divine something. My prayer is really meditation. I try to focus on something relaxing, like a field of tall grass on a warm, summer afternoon. I'll reflect on issues of concern in my life and the lives of other member of my family, community or co-workers. Sometimes it yields a solution, and sometimes it remains unresolved; but I will come to terms with the things I cannot change. However, I do know of some Christians who are quite charitable in their petitions to G-d. They pour out their concern for the lives of others, and I think that is appropriate. Whether or not there is someone or something on the other end is irrelevant. Good karma and positive thoughts can do no harm. NORM

I have a close member of my family who is going through a similar stage. Nothing I say or do will sway him from his positions on faith and spirituality. I normally allow him to ramble on and on. Meanwhile, I keep the wine flowing. After about the third or fourth glass, we are laughing and joking. I think that most people travel through stages in life, and one of those stages sometimes is dogmatism. Religious people become dogmatic in their faith. Others become dogmatic about their favorite sports team, or some other obsession. My suggestion is to let it be, and pray this person evolves. NORM