NORM

I don't feel safe because I and others who are trying to find a way to express a simple, loving, honest faith in God are constantly being bullied by those who don't believe in God and don't want to believe in God.

 

 

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

I think we are almost on the same page.

when Hillel says:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

The golden rule or at least a form of it I take as the message.

 

You point to the same thing as you said it is about our lives lived - so to speak.

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

That someone can love the commentary is not surprising (whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic). But you did not answer my question - which is more important? Surely "living" the message is more important or do you disagree?

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

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery puts a positive spin on this.

 

Also what is more important the message or "the commentary"?

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

Norm,

 

I started this thread for people who believe in a theistic God (you say you don't), for people who believe in the historical Jesus (you say you're not really sure and don't care), and for people who believe the soul is perhaps part of the Divine mystery (I'm not clear what your thoughts are about the mystery of the soul).

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.

Norm, it's reasonable for a reader to believe you share Jefferson's Materialist beliefs, since you make no effort to refute them, and your own statements of belief seem to align with Materialist beliefs. If I'm mistaken in this regard, please clarify.

 

Your quote above -- "Personally, I think that the Jesus of history was a student of Hillel" -- indicates clearly that you call this a personal theory. Please don't say you didn't say something when you clearly said it in print. Geez!

 

Your points, when taken on an individual basis, make sense, but they don't add up to a unified understanding. (No worries if you haven't figured it out yet. We're all trying to figure it out. But be HONEST about your own thoughts and feelings. Don't hide behind thinly veiled excuses such as "Not as I put it -- as Thomas Jefferson put it." If you think you made a mistake, say so. If you think you could have made your point less ambiguously, clarify it!)

 

Jesus can't be both "a composite of many such wandering magicians/healers around the turn of the Common Era" AND "a student of Hillel," who was presumably a real person and not a composite. You have to make a choice, Norm. You can't have it both ways. You either have to walk away from Jesus (if you think he's a composite or an unoriginal ho-hum teacher) OR you have to decide to try to work your way through his difficult teachings (or at least not dismiss that journey when chosen by others).

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.

My comment about crucifixion was not meant to undermine the brutal reality of crucifixion in the Roman Empire. I was thinking of one of the major criteria used by researchers of the historical Jesus (eg. the Jesus Seminar) to better understand why Jesus was attacked by everyone, not just the Romans who eventually crucified him (i.e. the "Rejection and Execution" criterion). I apologize for my lack of clarity.

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.

I'd like to see the play you describe about the book of Mark. For a long time now, I've been sure the author of Mark wrote his book as part parable and part play. It must be a play with a lot of action.

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/

Norm, if you want to start a thread about your own theories about the historical Jesus and other historical teachers of the time, that's great. But I'm going back to the purpose of this particular thread, which is to talk about the soul and what this means for people of faith today.

 

Jen

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)

In the context of the Golden Rule, it's important to bear in mind that Jewish teachers such as Hillel were no more "original" in this regard than teachers from other traditions...

Which is precisely how I countered those Rabbis who whined about Jesus copying Hillel.

I don't disagree that there seem to be some similarities between the reputed teachings of Hillel and the teachings that were recorded in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (I say reputed because we have to rely on much later written traditions to get a glimpse of Hillel's actual teachings, and I've learned to be wary of the accuracy of written accounts based on oral traditions). But the problem here lies in the assumption that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is an accurate representation of the teachings of Jesus son of Joseph.

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.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew was keen on the "jots and tittles" (Matt 5:17-20). If you want to try to prove that Jesus taught his followers about the "spirit" of the law instead of the "letter" of the law, Matthew won't help you much.

I don't think that I, or anyone else, for that matter, can "prove" exactly what Jesus taught his followers.

Luke/Acts won't help you much, either. If you want to read a careful analysis of what "Luke" was actually trying to accomplish when he wrote his 2-part myth about Jesus and Paul, you can check out Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2008). Dr. Wilson is a professor of Religious Studies at Canada's York University. Interestingly, during the course of his research and reflection, he chose to convert from Anglicanism to Judaism.

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.

The Gospel of Mark, however, says a lot about who Jesus was and what he taught without providing apologetics for either Pharisaic authority of a particular school that no longer exists (Matthew) or Pauline authority (Luke/Acts).

 

When you read Mark from start to finish and let it speak for itself (without all the changes and inversions made to Mark's book by both Matthew and Luke) you see the story of a man who had deep faith and who didn't fit into any of the categories of religious understanding known from his time.

 

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.

Are you prepared to say that Hillel, a scholar steeped in the covenantal scriptures of early Judaism, had rejected those covenants in the way Jesus rejected those covenants? Are you prepared to say that Hillel "did an Albert Schweitzer" and walked away from his theological training to go to the boonies and serve as a "doctor without borders" (as Jesus seems to have done)?

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:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

Hillel was a founding force in a religious tradition that has evolved over the centuries into different schools of Judaism that we recognize today. This is fine, and I have no quarrel with this. But I do have a quarrel with those who want to insist on unfounded grounds that Jesus himself was a devout follower of any well known school of Judaism that existed in the early 1st century CE.

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.

You really have to piss off a lot of people to get yourself crucified for preaching healing, forgiveness, and redemption. The Jesus portrayed by Mark would have pissed off just about everybody, regardless of religious tradition, because he held such radical notions about God and the soul.

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!

Did Hillel dare change the meaning of the Shema?

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.

Norm, you've raised a number of points here I have to disagree with.

You seem to have built up a personal theory of who Jesus was and what his teachings actually were.

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.

However, one general approach that's been in vogue since the late 19th century or so (eg. Albert Schweitzer) is to start with the assumption that we must ignore all the "nonsense" of the "added miracles," as you put it.

Not as I put it - as Thomas Jefferson put it:

I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. ...Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart...from a letter accompanying Jefferson's Bible - emphasis mine.

NORM (continued next post).

Norm,

 

A bit of a sidetrack (I hope that's okay) but is there any commentary or thoughts from the Jewish community just why somebody like Jesus 'took hold' instead of perhaps somebody like Hillel? If we eliminate miracles, prophecy and other 'nonsense', is Jesus any different to Hillel? What perhaps drove these people to form a religion around Jesus?

 

Cheers

Paul

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

What I really want to emphasize on this thread, though, is not how individuals may perceive the soul today in a progressive context (Norm, is your congregation a Reform congregation?) I want to emphasize the historical reality of Jesus' own teachings on the soul. This is a site that's dedicated to discussions about how we might better understand and follow the teachings of Jesus. In this context, I'm suggesting that although there's been tons of helpful discussion among progressive Christians about social justice and compassion and equality and inclusiveness (all of which I support), there's been much less discussion about Jesus' original teachings on the nature of the soul.

 

Social justice is wonderful and important, but, as many committed atheistic and agnostic social justice advocates have shown, you don't have to have faith in God to make a difference in the world. So while it's clear that Jesus was committed to the core themes of social justice, it's also clear that he believed deeply in God. He wasn't an atheist. So it would be difficult to truly follow the path Jesus walked -- the whole Yeshuan path, rather than parts of the path -- and be an atheist at the same time. If one prefers to follow the path of atheism (which is up to each individual) it would be more honest to walk that path in its entirety, and not pretend it's the path that Jesus himself once walked. There are many positive role models who can teach us about atheistic social justice advocacy, but Jesus isn't one of them.

 

It's clear Jesus had a novel understanding of both God and the soul in comparison with others who lived within the same socio-religio-political context of early first century CE Roman/Jewish/Hellenistic Palestine. He saw something different in the way we, as human beings, can be in relationship with God. Today, his ideas may seem less novel, less revolutionary to us. But in the context of his time, he wasn't a pious religious follower. He was a religious innovator.

 

Maybe this doesn't seem important to those who believe they don't need an understanding of the soul. But it was important to Jesus. And it remains important to many Christians today. So it's worth looking at in honest, thorough, academically supported ways.

 

In 1988, Elaine Pagels produced a wonderful work of historical scholarship on the evolution of Christian ideas about the Fall of Adam called Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. It's time for a scholar of this stature to tackle a history of doctrines of the soul in the same objective way. I think the evidence would be very helpful and healing for progressive and liberal Christians in the third millennium.

 

Jen

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

This is a followup to Joseph's essay about deconstruction and reconstruction. I thought I would add a couple of thoughts in an appropriate thread.

 

Recently, in discussions about Bain Captial (Mitt Romney's old venture capital company), the term 'creative destruction' has been used...I think one of the dangers in deconstruction is getting stuck in the deconstructed phase. One can be left with nothing in place except negative attitudes about the previous structure. I am not sure this is healthy for the person or society. Isn't this where the prominent anti-theists are?... Is it desirable to arrive at stasis? Wouldn't this lead to a mind closed to other possibilities? Isn't this the idea of Evolutionary Christianity?

 

George

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

Norm,

 

This is the same understanding I grew up with, but in a progresssive Protestant denomination. It also matches C. G. Jung's definition of "soul". There is a deep history here, I suspect.

 

Myron

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

You know what the problem is with the Shema? Nothing. Nothing at all. It's an absolutely wonderful prayer that allows individuals to trust in their own worthiness to be in full relationship with God. Implicit in the prayer -- screaming from the core of the prayer -- is the outrageous idea that each of us, as individuals, has both the power and the responsibility to reach out to God in holistic, courageous ways. (As Jesus once did.)

 

When you stick with the wisdom of the Shema and related teachings, there's no need at all for Paul's "sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation" model (the "4 S's" as I call it for simplicity's sake). Needless to say, this reality creates a whole new set of problems for those who are willing to look at the history honestly.

 

Best!

Jen

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

So what I want to say to people of faith who believe in a loving God and who want to understand Jesus' own teachings is this: you don't have to be afraid to believe you are a good soul. Yes, I know you've made mistakes. And yes, I know you've done some things that make you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. But do you think Jesus the man was any different? Do you think he spoke of forgiveness and healing and redemption because your soul is unworthy of relationship with God? No. Jesus spoke of forgiveness and healing and redemption precisely because he could feel the tears of your own soul. The tears of your own good soul, who longs to find the path to peace in a difficult world.

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

my understanding of “truly free” is that it refers to spiritual-choice realities (within which, after all is said and done on this planet, we progress eternally) rather than physical, cultural, or particular environmental happenstance.

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

I have worked in the mental health field and have seen difficult challenges in individuals, too. Yes, people commit terrible crimes when they're not balanced. But people can also look their own mistakes in the eye and find healing and redemption. To watch someone undergo the experience of redemption is truly an awesome miracle that is humbling and awe-inspiring.

 

Best,

Jen

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 think death (not the act of dying) is a great thing for those moving on. The only reason it is sad is because of those who are still here to live without them.

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 think the chances that nothing happens after we die is very slim, but if it were so, it would be neutral.

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.

If I am right and something continues, then most likely we will lose all of the chains that tie us down here on earth.

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?

Life on earth for a majority of the world is a constant struggle.

To our eternal shame!!!

I am beyond blessed and have almost none of that typical day struggle. It is others who I am working for.

Me too.

I am sorry that someone would say that to you when you are in the act of grieving. While I think they might be right, no one wants to hear that when they are in the act of suffering. Most likely the person was trying to help but sometimes all we need is someone to be there to comfort and simply empathize. Not to try to explain everything.

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

We tend to think of death as some terrible thing. In reality, maybe we should be rejoicing at death because the chains are no longer present.

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

But why did God allow natural evil? Do we have a logical explanation or has anyone gathered a list of explanations for why there would be natural evil before humans? I have started making a list but am curious what others think about this issue.

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

The real problem and a more interesting debate that I think they should have brought up is that the English translations of the bible that condemn homosexuality are mistranslated into English and have nothing to do with homosexuality between consenting and loving adults at all.

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

Interventionist prayer seems to be the most popular form of prayer in Christianity but there is a tradition of centering prayer in Christianity you might be interested in, Norm: http://www.centeringprayer.com/

From the link:

The effects of Centering Prayer are ecclesial, as the prayer tends to build communities of faith and bond the members together in mutual friendship and love.

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

NORM

Although theists claim that God is omnipotent and responds to prayer, it seems to me that (theist) prayer has certain constraints. There are things that would be within an omnipotent God’s ability, but are not requested.

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

Have others here experienced/do experience this and how have you made peace/dealt with it?

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